Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The weird but interesting RF 600/800mm f/11 DO STM IS
#41
Well, I don't know whether we are talking about the same pictures in the dpreview forum.

The ones I saw illustrate the major flaw - if you want to keep the shutter speed at a decent level for animals in motions, you end up with insane ISO settings that will kill any quality that these lenses might have.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#42
(08-01-2020, 01:05 PM)Klaus Wrote: Well, I don't know whether we are talking about the same pictures in the dpreview forum.

The ones I saw illustrate the major flaw - if you want to keep the shutter speed at a decent level for animals in motions, you end up with insane ISO settings that will kill any quality that these lenses might have.

the Dpreveiw Canon RF forum ........ exactly the ISO's were quite high in some in BIF images.
#43
ISO 5000 is not thaaat high, but the conversion/processing were disastrous.
But, of course, a faster lens has a definitive advantage, which the DPReview flying Osprey(was it that kind?) also showed in another way: the image was total bleh due to not enough blurring of the green background. These f11 DO lenses are about a low price, a low weight and a small size.

Luckily, one can do other things with lenses than make mostly boring BIF images...
#44
"Luckily, one can do other things with lenses than make mostly boring BIF images..."

I agree! That's why I am a fan of Dave's bird in flight photos. They are pure art!

But I guess what you meant was that even if the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 art not state of the art on an EOS R5, they could well be excellent on the EOS R6 since it has a DLA of f/10.6 which suggests that f/11 can be expected not to have any real world DLA issues. But...how the EVF may perform could be an issue in either for either camera. It's the sort of thing where I am not sure anything less than trying one's self will clarify it.

For me I would be more interested in the R6 because if one were "stuck" with performance resembling the EOS 1DX Mk. iii, for 30-40% of the price one would not be too disappointed. Unfortunately, I guess there is a reason for the price difference.

What I would like to try would be the R6 and the 800/11 + 1.4x tele. The logic being, I can not come close to anything with this focal range that will work on a DSLR. Would it be usable on BIF photos? Well, maybe. Migrating birds that fly very high are of great interest, because many species can only be seen when they are migrating. But other than that there are lots of wildlife possibilities. Super tele is fun. Pushing the limits is fun!

The EVF, IS, and Focal length interaction issues have been stated pretty well by various factions. The key, as was mentioned, is at this price range, you almost have to try it out if you can! Only on the R6, I would think. I'd want to!

As for the .14X maximum magnification...it is, after all, one of the trade-offs that go with a telephoto prime that is optimized for long distances.

I don't really like that I have to go the telephoto zoom route, but size, price, better MFD and MM, and the ability to find the target at wide zoom and then zoom in, at least make it a less bitter pill to swallow. I have a fantasy lens I would like to own, but it isn't likely any time soon. And I am afraid of the flames I would get for even wanting it. It's not exactly a lens everyone is talking about.

Still, some areas would be perfect for a long prime. Wetlands, and sloughs and such where you can't get anywhere near your birds. If I had an RF mount camera already, I would not consider .14x a reason to stay away from the lens. Rather, I would take it as proof it was as close focusing as possible without throwing performance out the window!
#45
(08-03-2020, 08:06 AM)Arthur Macmillan Wrote: "Luckily, one can do other things with lenses than make mostly boring BIF images..."

I agree!  That's why I am a fan of Dave's bird in flight photos.  They are pure art!

But I guess what you meant was that even if the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 art not state of the art on an EOS R5, they could well be excellent on the EOS R6 since it has a DLA of f/10.6 which suggests that f/11 can be expected not to have any real world DLA issues.  But...how the EVF may perform could be an issue in either for either camera.  It's the sort of thing where I am not sure anything less than trying one's self will clarify it.

For me I would be more interested in the R6 because if one were "stuck" with performance resembling the EOS 1DX Mk. iii, for 30-40% of the price one would not be too disappointed.  Unfortunately, I guess there is a reason for the price difference.  

What I would like to try would be the R6 and the 800/11 + 1.4x tele.  The logic being, I can not come close to anything with this focal range that will work on a DSLR.  Would it be usable on BIF photos?  Well, maybe.  Migrating birds that fly very high are of great interest, because many species can only be seen when they are migrating.  But other than that there are lots of wildlife possibilities.  Super tele is fun.  Pushing the limits is fun!

The EVF, IS, and Focal length interaction issues have been stated pretty well by various factions.  The key, as was mentioned, is at this price range, you almost have to try it out if you can!  Only on the R6, I would think.  I'd want to!

 Thank you Arthur ! ........
  Pushing the limits can be fun, yes  ...... but it can also be very disappointing ...... doubly so if you have just spent a few grand finding out ...... 
  
  5,000 ISO is way too high for birding  ..... I don't like going above 400 ISO in general, 800 if I have to ....... 5,000 never! .... featureless skies reveal lots of noise and need plenty of NR ...... and there goes your birds detail ...... and birds look like they're made of cardboard

 So far the 800mm F11 images just look to be not sharp from what I've seen on the Canon RF forum ..... and noisy (mostly) ..... if you add into the mix a 1.4TC giving 1,120mm ..... you will get less sharpness and even more noise ...... which equals unusable images and no advantage of reach from the APSc sensor. 
   For reach you have to stick with APSc ...... I have the FF D750 and rarely use it, birds in the VF become very small and seeing what the bird is doing, difficult ...... then you go home and crop all that good stuff down to less than the APSc format anyway.

 Personally I think you are the right track with the Canon 90D, maybe a 7DII is better (if you want to stick to Canon)....... and get yourself a lens that goes to 600mm and a tele-converter to go with it .....

   Or, the D500 plus the Nikkor AF-S 500mm F5.6 VR FL lens plus the 1.4TC III converter ..... that lens is super sharp ...... super compact and light and works well with the TC 1.4III ...... that will give you 1,050mm FOV and pro quality images ....... that lens is a miracle!

See here:
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-...r/spec.htm

  Last word ....... the laws of physics have not changed .......
..... these two new Canon lightweight tele primes are testimony to that, they are there for occasional use for those who are not serious 
about wildlife photography.

...... and maybe Klaus could confirm it's sharpness from the links MTF charts?
#46
[Image: mtf.gif]
You can get an idea of what f/11, f/16 (f/11 + 1.4) and f/22 (f/22 + 2x) means on an R6 above.
The old 5D II had 21mp.

f/11 is pretty good albeit not tack sharp.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#47
(08-03-2020, 10:15 AM)Klaus Wrote: [Image: mtf.gif]
You can get an idea of what f/11, f/16 (f/11 + 1.4) and f/22 (f/22 + 2x) means on an R6 above.
The old 5D II had 21mp.

f/11 is pretty good albeit not tack sharp.

I actually ment interpreting the MTFs of the 500mm F5.6 VR FL from Nikon's official site ....

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-...r/spec.htm
#48
Greetings Klaus, and Dave!

@ Dave: You're welcome. I just think in the spirit of keeping it real it needed to be said. If one likes birds and wildlife, then one has to acknowledge what the right camera in the right hands can do!

Your example with the EOS 5D Mark ii, with the EF 100 F.2.8L is an interesting example. That combination is sitting about 10 feet away from me right now! I should also mention there is a ring flash on it. This sort of exemplifies my shooting approach: Not complicated. Some people only use natural light. I don't think that is going to work for a lot of macro photos. Most people, including myself shoot macros at F/11, lighting permitting. Because of the depth of field. Now I know the results above are not representative of macro distances because your testing method is not optimized for that, so it was shot at a "normal distance" Maybe a meter or 2?

Then if I were YOU, I would say the best performance is at 5.6 to 8. Now, my assumption was (wrongly) that f/16 should be almost as good as f/11. And f/11 was the smallest I could usually get away with. It's just one of those things, I guess. I don't like f/16 very much. I like f/11 for macros. It looks like I should be shooting 5.6 to 8 for normal distances. unless we want to blur the background, and even f/2.8 is very acceptable at times.

In a way I am beginning to see the real problem here! The 600-800 f/11's have very little versatility. And yes diffraction may be the problem. but maybe it is simply that have more depth of field means more things, even dust, even sensor dirt is in focus? LOL if you never shoot f/11 you may never notice dirt on your imager!

Dave, your kind of photos require a high level of perfection. I always thought Nikons were the kings of low noise ISO! With my canons I don't really like going above 800, but 1600 isn't that bad, and I try 3200 or even 6400. But I always regret it. So for me 800 to 1600 is acceptable. But I get a kick out of the thought of 800mm x1.4 on a high end full frame imager. At this point I would have to have it reviewed by you, or some other great bird photographer. That is the acid test. I don't care about what someone who isn't into telephoto thinks. I'll say it this way.

The person to test it is the one using your old set up: D500 & 150-600 using it skillfully.

I doubt I can be trusted. I use a 100-400L Mark ii + a 1.4x tele on a 90D. Happily at ISO 800 or more! I want to see far, but carry less weight!

Can these set-ups be seriously beaten by the R6, 800/11 setup. I'm not going to say until the right person has tried it!

Oh, Dave I did see the MTF chart for the 500mm F/5.6. I don't know anyone who uses one. It would be my choice if I had Nikon...but, still, most people use the 200-500. For whatever reason.
#49
Jaron Polin shows results from the 600/800mm F11 lenses ......

....... finally Jarod shows that sharp results are possible from these lenses from his visit to the zoo ...... all stationary targets gorillas.... lions ...... eagles etc.
the F11 limitations of course remain as do noise and shutter speed issues ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMou9ei2yY
#50
He didn't get his facts right - these lenses don't support hybrid IS ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)