I am as big a fan of Canon's lenses as anyone; I resisted the temptation to switch brands for years simply because they offer certain lenses that I can't imagine not having. When it comes to the new RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM and RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM lenses, however, you should really think twice before you buy them.
Canon's newest lenses, the RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM and RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM, continue to round out their RF line and push into new extremes. At $17,000 and $20,000, respectively, however, they are some of the most expensive consumer lenses ever created, and even professionals for whom such lenses are a daily need should think twice. There is more than the price that should give you pause, however. Before we jump in, though, let's establish all the relevant prices.
Prices of Canon Lenses, Teleconverters, and Combinations Thereof
- Extender RF 2x: $599
-
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM: $11,999
-
Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM: $12,999
-
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM: $16,999
-
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x: $12,598
-
Differential: $4,401
-
-
Canon RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM: $19,999
-
Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x: $13,598
-
Differential: $6,401
-
Similarities With Existing Lenses
Adding a 2x teleconverter to a lens doubles its focal length at the expense of reducing its maximum aperture by two stops. For example, a 100mm f/2.8 lens would become a 200mm f/5.6 lens with a 2x teleconverter attached. As such, you might notice that the new RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM are, at least by the numbers, equivalent to 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses with 2x teleconverters, respectively. The RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM already exist, as does the Extender RF 2x.
Of course, just because the numbers line up, that does not mean Canon simply plopped the 2x teleconverter inside the existing lenses and called it a day. Manufacturers optimize the designs of different focal lengths specifically to deal with their unique challenges and issues; otherwise, we would all be a lot more teleconverters and a lot fewer unique lenses. It is worth noting the following, however:
Weights of Canon Lenses, Teleconverters, and Combinations Thereof
Extender RF 2x: 12 oz / 340 g
-
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM: 6.4 lb / 2.9 kg
-
Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM: 6.8 lb / 3.1 kg
-
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM: 6.9 lb / 3.14 kg
-
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x: 7.15 lb / 3.24 kg
-
-
Canon RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM: 7.3 lb / 3.34 kg
-
Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x: 7.55 lb / 3.44 kg
-
No doubt, the combinations of the teleconverters and respective shorter focal lengths are quite close to those of the longer focal lengths, though not quite identical.
Designs
There have been rumors that these lenses are nothing more than the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 with 2x teleconverters dropped in. Let's take a look.
RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x Versus RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
As you can see, the differences are near the mount. The 800mm f/5.6 has an extra group of normal elements that likely serve as the additional magnification. However, there is an additional super ultra low dispersion element in front of said group, likely meant to correct for chromatic aberration that typically increases with teleconverters. So, in fairness to Canon, the 800mm isn't just a 400mm with a teleconverter slapped inside. Is it worth the steep price increase for the extra element(s), though?
RF 600mm f/4L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x Versus RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM
The story is similar here. The front design is identical. Nearer to the mount, we see a magnification group along with a super ultra low dispersion element likely designed to correct chromatic aberration from the additional magnification. So, again, this isn't just the 600mm f/4 with an internal teleconverter, but is it worth an additional $6,000 over just using the 600mm with a teleconverter? Let's take a look below.
MTF Charts
This is what you should care about most. All the argument about design and weight is interesting, but at the end of the day, how good are the images from each lens and combination? Let's take a look.
RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x Versus RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
We can see that the 400mm and 2x extender offers almost identical contrast performance compared to the 800mm f/5.6. There is a slight dip of about .05 in the Meridional measurement toward the corners of the frame, but the difference is so slight, I have a hard time believing it would be noticeable to all but the most discerning eye and would likely be easily corrected in post.
For the resolution measurements, the Sagittal orientation is functionally identical, save for a very slight dip near the extremes of the frame. There is a notable drop in the Meridional measurement, with a gap starting at the center of the frame and reaching a maximum differential of about .15 about 17 cm from the center. It is still quite strong performance, however, and pretty close to identical to the 800mm f/5.6 nearer to the center.
Is the difference worth $4,401? That's your call to make, but if it were me, based on just the MTF charts, the answer would be a hard no.
RF 600mm f/4L IS USM Plus Extender RF 2x Versus RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM
We can see that the 600mm and 2x extender offers almost identical contrast performance compared to the 1200mm f/8. There is a mild difference in Meridional line nearer to the corners, but the gap is never bigger than .03 and is unlikely to have any notable real-world impact.
When it comes to resolution, there is a constant gap of about .02 in the Sagittal line until about 17 cm, where it widens to about .05 at the extremes. The Meridional line shows a somewhat wider gap of about .07 at 10 cm, which widens to a maximum of about .12 at the extremes. Both show impressive performance, nonetheless.
So, I'll ask again: is the difference worth $6,401? I don't think so.
Other Thoughts
Weather-sealing
It's worth noting that all other things equal, a single lens likely offers better weather-sealing than a lens plus a teleconverter, simply as the former has one less seal and point of ingress to protect. That being said, all the optics in this comparison are some of Canon's best, and I doubt weather-sealing is going to be a major issue in all but the most extreme circumstances, regardless of which setup you choose.
Autofocus
Traditionally, teleconverters cause a hit to autofocus performance, particularly with 2x extenders. That being said, teleconverters have come a long way, and the autofocus performance of the RF Extender 2x has generally been praised.
Increased Versatility
A 1200mm lens is a 1200mm lens. A 600mm lens with two teleconverters is a 600mm, 840mm, and 1200mm lens. Yes, of course, you can add teleconverters to the 1200mm lens to extend it, and it'll probably perform better than stacking multiple equivalent teleconverters to the 600mm to push past 1200mm, but when was the last time you needed a 1680mm or 2400mm lens? Sure, they sound neat on paper, but their real-world applications are few and far between. A similar argument applies to the 800mm situation.
What You Should Spend Your Money On Instead
If it were me, I would save the thousands of dollars and get the shorter focal lengths and teleconverters without hesitation. The increased versatility and significant savings outweigh the relatively small gains in contrast and resolution. You could get an EOS R3 with change to spare if you go with the 600mm combination instead of the 1200mm!
In fact, I wouldn't even get the RF lenses. I have been adapting the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS Mark I USM to my EOS R5 for almost two years without complaint. Autofocus is flawless (even better than it was on my 1D X Mark II), and image quality is spectacular. Canon absolutely improved the image quality across versions of these lenses, but they started out so high that even my picky eye is perfectly happy with the Mark I. The real advantage you get as you move up to newer versions is weight savings. There is absolutely something to be said for that (lugging that thing around always makes me think twice), but I always think about the several thousands of dollars I saved, and then, I'm perfectly happy to deal with the bulk.
Your Thoughts
What are your thoughts? Are the image quality gains worth the extra thousands of dollars for the 800mm and 1200mm lenses, or are you better kff saving your money and using a teleconverter?
Absolutely. Well said. However, if the pricing were right, I would be interested in the 800mm, as a 1.4 lll is always attached to my 600 F4 ll... and the 800mm is much lighter than my current setup (and lighter than my 500 F4). However, the current price is a bit out of line. For now, the 600 F4 ll with extenders and R5 will have to d.
I'm very happy with the 800mm prime plus 2x teleconverter on an RP. (Don't believe everything you hear about the resulting f22.) The eagle was a flyspeck across the river; the photo is cropped, of course. The wood duck was much closer; minimal cropping. One can discuss the inadequacies of these pix, but I took them hand-holding 1600mm for much less than the costs in the article.
I'm pretty sure that the people that can afford to purchase these lenses (other than major corporations), don't care about your MFT charts and similarity with current EF lenses, etc. If they want either of these lenses, I'm sure they are going to get them, regardless.
Just because you can afford something doesn’t mean you need to be foolish with your money.
...
Your one and only comment on this website is to post utter bullshit, well done.
But who says you're being foolish if you buy these lenses? Again, if someone has they where with all to purchase lenses of this caliber, I'm sure they know what they are purchasing and I'm pretty sure they're not consulting this site for info or recommendations. IJS
"Of course, just because the numbers line up, that does not mean Canon simply plopped the 2x teleconverter inside the existing lenses and called it a day."
Apparently that's exactly what they did. Some over at DPReview mentioned that Canon responded to this stating that they actually put an extra ultra-low dispersion element into what could be viewed as the TC, and thus the lenses perform better than the base lens + 2x TC combinations would.
So imagine for a moment a third-party manufacturer making a teleconverter with said updated optics, for less than even the Canon teleconverters, and you have the new Canon 800 and 1200 for a song. As you can see by the statement Canon has already made, they're in damage control mode. I suspect next you're gonna see all the Canon-centric influencers hyping the crap out of these lenses.
I know that at some point, I'm going to want a superteles. But, with this revelation, I doubt it'll be one of these new behemoths. If these had been complete reworks, maybe.
This all goes back to 'it's their money'. Ferrari would be out of business if everyone was a Toyoata Camry Point A to Point B type. Instead, every Ferrari that is built is sold. Good for Ferrari and all the people that they employ, the suppliers, the sales force, the maintenance people that are all paid because Ferrari exists.
Since this is a photo site, how about including the Phase One in the mix? You can get a Fuji MF for way less. This attitude puts Phase One out of business.....not good.
How others spend their money is none of my concern. I hope Canon sells every one of these lenses they build. It's good for Canon and it's good for the photography community. Same for Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.
Well said. And it's good for me because I will get to buy all those old EF lenses. Nothing wrong with an old Ferrari!
Off topic warning! :-) My favorite car....Ferrari Daytona. The definition of a fine GT road car.
A provocative article with very little substance. He claims he used R5 for "years". It only came in July 2020. He adds up stuff on paper makes judgement call. I think the best evaluation is to actually use the lenses and compare them. These lenses have always been costly. They are manufactured for a special purpose.
Yes, I found the "used R5 for years" comment jarring. I got my R5 on day 1, and that day was less than two years ago. However, other than that faux pas I find the article rather informative. MTF charts don't tell all, but they tell a hell of a lot, and I would be shocked if there is any noticeable difference in IQ performance between the new lenses and the shorter RF lenses on which they are based. What I'm curious to see is whether the new lenses' AF performances are noticeably better than that of the TC-augmented older RF primes. But my interest is only academic. I have a Z 400mm TC on order (Nikon doesn't hide the fact that they included a built-in TC in their 400mm lens), and I'm curious to see how well the forthcoming Z 800mm pf f/6.3 performs. Even if the Canon 800mm has better IQ, I'm going to be far more comfortable schlepping around a (relatively) compact pf lens than a traditional-design Canon 800mm lens, and financially far happier!
Yeah, that’s fair. I’ll change the wording. I’ve had mine since about day one too, and COVID has made those two years feel a lot longer!
And I agree I came through a bit offensive. Let us wait for the lens arrival.
The other faux pas is that Canon has never made a "Mark I" lens, or for that matter, a "Mark" anything lens. The second and succeeding bodies in a series are "Mark II", "Mark III", etc. The second and succeeding lenses in a series are "II", "III", etc. No lens or body Canon has ever made has a "I" at the end of the name. No lens Canon had ever made has "Mark" anywhere in the name.
amateur hour advice.
As an EF 800mm 5.6L owner, I can't see any reason to 'upgrade' to the RF version. Yes, my lens is heavy, no I don't care about MFD and the MTF chart for the EF and RF version are virtually identical. Not only that, the price is outta reach. It's just TOO much money.
Si bien es cierto que estos lentes están espectaculares ..creo que canon está MUY desfasado con esos precios tan astronómicos ...
Esto ya es absurdo ...están poniendo la fotografía al nivel únicamente de los ricos ...cosa que no son la gran mayoría de fotógrafos del mundo .
Una vez más vemos cómo el marketing engañó al mundo diciendo que el sistema mirrorless sería más pequeño, liviano y sobre todo más económico ...y es justamente todo lo contrario
Mal por Canon , por Nikon , Sony y todas las marcas que han hecho de este sistema un entorno solo para ricos !!!
1. Many of these exotic expensive telephotos (from any manufacturer) are purchased by AP, Reuters, law enforcement, military, and other entities with lots of cash.
2. There are plenty of rich people out there who enjoy photography as a hobby and for whom $20K+ is nearly meaningless. Have you priced luxury wristwatches lately? I mean real luxury brands - the brands that make a Rolex look like a $40 Timex.
3. Any working sports photographer or photojournalist could probably find a way to finance glass like this, and deduct the cost (and maybe the loan interest) from their taxes.
Nice clickbait though. You got me.
I don't think entities "with lots of cash" necessarily spend it stupidly. And the way free media (YouTube etc.) has savaged the media industry I'm not sure AP and Reuters are actually rolling in cash anyway.
I agree with you on the wealthy amateurs. I've worked in finance quite a while and a coworkers talk about weekend plans and its: I'm bored, I might go buy another rental property, I dunno. Monday comes around and they've dropped US$30k on a Leica M and 4 lenses. now, they're not stupid: they love to get the very best prices, and do. They know a serious hobbyist who helps them figure out what to get. These are smart guys who understand stuff. I mention my 600/4 to the Leica guy and he asks if I have the Wemberly yoke. Indeed I do! He's never even had a Canon/Nikon but he understands that you can't use these big telephotos on an Arca Swiss ballhead. And he bought another rental property later that month and showed us pretty good black and whites of it from his new Leica. He went on to take beautiful photos of his family over the next several years. Just because it's an insane amount of money to most people doesn't mean it's not worth it if you have a couple mil. OH but back to the point I wanted to make: these guys typically know what they're buying, and if they want to shoot up to 1200 they'll get a 600 and a TC. They're knowledgeable enough to get the 1200 because they'd like to try shooting 2400.
It would be helpful to know the sales figures of these monsters in order to understand how this contributes to profits, but also to know how large is the market for these. I would not ever buy them at such a price, but I am not representative of a segment of the customer base to which these lenses are marketed.
I do like the idea of using the teleconverters and the cheaper lenses, though, one because of the cost savings and two because of the versatility.
Call lazy engineering and cash grab for what it is. Stop trying to defend this type of action by the company as it will just lead to more of this type of nonsense lenses in the future. How would you like to get a 600 f5.6 for $12k that is a 300 2.8 with tc??
I'm puzzled that you don't have a lot of information... and yet are willing to draw such a strong conclusion.
You seem to take it as read that TCs would be useful on 800mm (giving up to a nominal 1600mm) but seem to scoff that anyone would want or need a nominal 1680mm or 2400mm. Why not add that to your advice, as in: "don't buy this unless you need 2400mm". I bought my 600/4ISMkI not because I wanted to shoot at 600 but because I wanted to sometimes shoot at 1200. I imagine you're generally correct that people who never want to shoot past 1200 should consider 600mm optics and TCs, but your bottom line advice in effect is making the decision of what people need to shoot for them.
You've given a fair analysis of the Canon MTF charts, as far as they go. To start with, it's possible the optics are truly identical, and simply the MTF charts are wrong. Incorrect info gets into catalogs all the time and a graph like this is near impossible to proofread. It's also possible the methodology has changed, as there are several ways to generate such charts. But the third possibility is that the charts ARE accurate, and therefore, it would be incorrect to conclude, based on the MTFs, that the optics are nearly the same.
The charts show little difference at 10lp/mm but substantially more at 30lp/mm. But we were looking at 30lp/mm back in the 1980s. The R5 sensor has over 200 pixels per millimeter, given a theoretical possibility of 100lp/mm if they happen to line up with the sensor pixels. A 50lp/mm test target resolves beautifully in my 135/1.8 and even looks pretty good with the 50/1.8 and 24-105/4. The MTF chart therefore is NOT telling you what's happening closer to the pixel level on the modern Canons. I have no idea: for all I know the 400+TC outperforms the 800! We don't know! We don't have the data! But on an even money bet I'd wager the 800 is PROBABLY more improved yet at 50lp/mm. I can state with absolute certainty that 30lp/mm doesn't tell you anything about pixel-level resolution, and that therefore you don't have the data one would need to issue strongly-worded advice on image quality here.
What's not in the MTF chart is all the other distortions that may also be improved. The 600 design is something of a compromise as they have to get it to work with and without TCs. The TC design is something of a compromise as it has to work with several different telephotos. Once you know exactly what telephoto the TC is behind, I suspect the design can be tweaked to improve image quality, not just MTF but also aberrations, distortion, vignetting and so on. You don't seem to consider this. Again, I don't have any data, but in the absence of data should we not refrain from giving strongly-worded advice?
Further, the block diagram shouldn't be relied upon too heavily. These are produced by a marketing department, and they have no contractual requirement to be especially accurate. They're prepared in relatively low-resolution copy, with pixel jaggies sometimes visible in printed material. One pixel may be 1mm or more, so even if the diagram is actually pixel-accurate, it won't show placement differences accurately enough to assert they're similar. The diagram may note 2 or even 3 kinds of glass, but in fact Canon uses a huge array (50? 100?) types of optical glass, with differing coatings and polishings.
And just as MTF diagrams don't even start to mention aberrations, or pixel-level contrast, block diagrams don't mention all the factors besides optics that may differ. First, we have things like AF and IS motors and attendant sensors that may either be improved due to being newer, or simply because they "know" that there's a 2xTC attached (if indeed that's all that this lens really is). Second, we have factors that never show up in consumer material related to quality control: is the reject rate the same? How adjustable are the components, and once adjusted, how likely are they to stay adjusted? Reading the Lens Rentals lens teardowns they compliment Canon on having more micro-adjustments than anyone else. Equally critical is the time budget for adjusting them. Lens Rentals details how they see variation between samples and some commenters suggest they'd pay a premium for physical lenses that Lens Rentals has seen to be significantly better than average. You could take LITERALLY the same glass, and get enough improvement in performance through better adjustability and more time spent adjusting that the second version is worth more than the first. Now, as I say again and again: I have no idea if the 800 and 1200 are improved in any of these areas! So I will refrain from recommending them! And likewise I might suggest that unless you have this information, you might refrain from discouraging their purchase so strongly.