Is there really a market for slow tele lenses?

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

However a lens like a 100-400 F/5.6-8 would certainly be bright enough for me and it would have enough light to focus well with the Z7. It would give me 45Mpixels images with each shot and allow me to carry only 1 system with 2 (or perhaps 3 lenses). Unlike some here I don't mind changing lenses while hiking, but I have to be able to carry them!

Asking the experts here,...

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

--
https://www.fireplace-photography.com/p331786838

jetstream said:

While apertures remain the same regardless of sensor size, an APS sensor is 2.25x smaller than a full frame sensor and collects 2.25x less light: this is more than a stop, thus the EQUIVALENT aperture of f/6.3 on APS is close to f/10 on full frame.

Click to expand...

I think it doesn't matter so much how much light the sensor collects, but how much light a pixel receives. And from this point, f/6.3 on APS-C receives more light than f/10 on fullframe. Otherwise, explain to me why, when you use the same settings on Z50 and Z6 (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) you get the same brightness in the picture. According to your "equivalence" the Z50 image would be darker. Sensor size does not affect image brightness. These aperture equivalences only hold in terms of depth of field.

I guess that Nikon will also announce very slow teles for their Z's. Not only ML can AF at f/11 but with the EVF said:

jetstream said:

jetstream, post: 64214063, member: 241231"]
the Z50 50-250 (f/6.3 at 250mm) lens is almost equivalent to f/11 on full frame

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

I agree time will tell if Canon has made a good bet.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

jetstream said:

While apertures remain the same regardless of sensor size, an APS sensor is 2.25x smaller than a full frame sensor and collects 2.25x less light: this is more than a stop, thus the EQUIVALENT aperture of f/6.3 on APS is close to f/10 on full frame.

Click to expand...

For the person who has been doing bird and wildlife photography with an f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens, the bottom line outcome of replacing their current lens with one of the new Canon f/11s, is that they would be making images with just 12.5%, 25%, 33% or at best 50% of the light they currently use. There is no mathematical gymnastics that can be done to produce a result indicating anything other than, image quality will take a serious hit.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

Not everybody is a bird photographer, not everybody needs bright telephoto lenses.
For landscape photographers, telephotos can be very useful but they do not have to be so bright, High quality, yes of course, but not necessarily bright. It's also an advantage if you can carry them!

--
www.fireplace-photography.com

fireplace33 said:

Not everybody is a bird photographer, not everybody needs bright telephoto lenses.
For landscape photographers, telephotos can be very useful but they do not have to be so bright, High quality, yes of course, but not necessarily bright. It's also an advantage if you can carry them!

--

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right; not everybody is a bird photographer. However, my comment was made in a sub-thread with "bird photography" in the header; a subthread initiated by the observation, "I don't see how these lenses really work for bird photography." I'm fairly confident my observations about the usefulness of these lenses to established bird and wildlife photographers are on-topic.

You do raise a valid point. Not many but some landscape photographers use quite long focal lengths in their work. Years ago when I primarily shot landscapes, one of the things I liked about using consumer zooms was that I rarely used f-stops faster than about f/8. I didn't need an f2.8 or faster lens for the kind of landscapes I made. That saved me some money. Then, I made the mistake of becoming interested in sports, wildlife and bird photography. Goodbye money

I could see someone using the 600mm f/11 at a place like Grand Canyon to isolate a distant temple. Given how infrequently it would be used, I am skeptical that more than a small percentage of landscape shooters would buy a lens like the Canon 600mm f/11. In any event, I'm pretty certain Canon did not develop these lenses with landscape photographers in mind as the primary users. Most photographers working at these focal lengths shoot sports, birds or wildlife.

jetstream said:

While apertures remain the same regardless of sensor size, an APS sensor is 2.25x smaller than a full frame sensor and collects 2.25x less light: this is more than a stop, thus the EQUIVALENT aperture of f/6.3 on APS is close to f/10 on full frame.

Click to expand...

This seems to me strange logic.

If the light is right for 1/250 at f8 at 100 ISO on FX - it is right for exactly the same exposure on DX.

There is no extra light needed for correct exposure on 4:3, DX, 24x36 or medium format.

Are you confusing the crop factor with illumination of the subject?

There can be a difference in depth of field between formats - or when cropping an image no matter what format it was taken on.

Bill Ferris said:

jetstream said:

While apertures remain the same regardless of sensor size, an APS sensor is 2.25x smaller than a full frame sensor and collects 2.25x less light: this is more than a stop, thus the EQUIVALENT aperture of f/6.3 on APS is close to f/10 on full frame.

Click to expand...

For the person who has been doing bird and wildlife photography with an f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens, the bottom line outcome of replacing their current lens with one of the new Canon f/11s, is that they would be making images with just 12.5%, 25%, 33% or at best 50% of the light they currently use. There is no mathematical gymnastics that can be done to produce a result indicating anything other than, image quality will take a serious hit.

Click to expand...

yes, keep it simple .... it is as easy as you described it

VBLondon said:

Atahualpa said:

lokatz said:

Is there a market? Absolutely. Is it big enough? Well, as others explained, it may not have to be. Just as the P600, P900, P1000 introduce bird photographers and birders into the Nikon ecosystem, many of whom eventually want better IQ and low-light performance, the new lenses could do the same trick for Canon, who otherwise lack any of the "superzooms".

The risk in such a strategy is that you sort of have to disappoint your customers and hope they'll opt for something better while keeping them tied to your brand. From that perspective, the 600 and 800mm f/11 lenses are a BETTER mousetrap than Nikons Pxxx cameras. After all, they require getting a Canon body, too.

Click to expand...

And exactly that requirement kind of destroys the whole cheap argument. If I have to buy a $4000 camera body to use a $900 lens, something is not quite right. I don't think customers fall for that, but of course I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Why not buy a $1000 RP? Who says it has to be a $4000 body?

Click to expand...

Having not long bought my wife an RP this is exactly why I’ll be looking at the 600mm f11 - it gives close to the same apparent focal length as her 80D with Sigma 100-400mm but with way bigger pixels...

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

However a lens like a 100-400 F/5.6-8 would certainly be bright enough for me and it would have enough light to focus well with the Z7. It would give me 45Mpixels images with each shot and allow me to carry only 1 system with 2 (or perhaps 3 lenses). Unlike some here I don't mind changing lenses while hiking, but I have to be able to carry them!

Asking the experts here,...

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

There is a Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 in F-mount . I think it is around 1100g though . The Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E { FX model } gets good reviews in the forum { I have not used it } it weighs in at just 680g. In DX mode on the Z7 you would still end up with a 19.5mp image and and 105-450mm F/6.7-8.4 { m43 equiv 52.5-225mm F/3.3-4.2 } which is not too far off. In FX mode you would have the equiv of a m43 35-150mm F/2.25-2.8

--
Jim Stirling:
Wittgenstein : Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Feel free to tinker with any images I post

James Stirling said:

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

However a lens like a 100-400 F/5.6-8 would certainly be bright enough for me and it would have enough light to focus well with the Z7. It would give me 45Mpixels images with each shot and allow me to carry only 1 system with 2 (or perhaps 3 lenses). Unlike some here I don't mind changing lenses while hiking, but I have to be able to carry them!

Asking the experts here,...

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

There is a Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 in F-mount . I think it is around 1100g though . The Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E { FX model } gets good reviews in the forum { I have not used it } it weighs in at just 680g. In DX mode on the Z7 you would still end up with a 19.5mp image and and 105-450mm F/6.7-8.4 { m43 equiv 52.5-225mm F/3.3-4.2 } which is not too far off. In FX mode you would have the equiv of a m43 35-150mm F/2.25-2.8

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, there is some food for thought here.
I already have an older version of the Nikkor 70-300, the AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, that I could try for size, but I always found it to be soft at the longer end and got the 70-200 F/4 for use with my D7100, sometimes together with the X1.4 TC

Maybe the newer AF-P is better?

The Sigma 100-400 looks good, but as you said quite heavy.

fireplace33 said:

James Stirling said:

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

However a lens like a 100-400 F/5.6-8 would certainly be bright enough for me and it would have enough light to focus well with the Z7. It would give me 45Mpixels images with each shot and allow me to carry only 1 system with 2 (or perhaps 3 lenses). Unlike some here I don't mind changing lenses while hiking, but I have to be able to carry them!

Asking the experts here,...

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

There is a Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 in F-mount . I think it is around 1100g though . The Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E { FX model } gets good reviews in the forum { I have not used it } it weighs in at just 680g. In DX mode on the Z7 you would still end up with a 19.5mp image and and 105-450mm F/6.7-8.4 { m43 equiv 52.5-225mm F/3.3-4.2 } which is not too far off. In FX mode you would have the equiv of a m43 35-150mm F/2.25-2.8

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, there is some food for thought here.
I already have an older version of the Nikkor 70-300, the AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, that I could try for size, but I always found it to be soft at the longer end and got the 70-200 F/4 for use with my D7100, sometimes together with the X1.4 TC

Maybe the newer AF-P is better?

Click to expand...

Here’s a SOOC JPEG With the newer 70-300mm AF-P lens Mounted on the Z 50 using the FTZ and the Kenko 1.4 X Tele converter, giving me an effective range of 630 mm. Remove the TC and you’ve got 450 mm and probably a slight improvement in IQ. Judge for yourself.

BTW, I had the shutter speed set at 1/1600 anticipating a takeoff and BIF which never happened. That gave me an ISO of 800 with no degradation in image quality/noise that I can see.

fireplace33 said:

The Sigma 100-400 looks good, but as you said quite heavy.

Click to expand...

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

Nikon currently has no 100-400 or similar lens in Z-mount. There is a 100-400 on their Z-mount lens road map. Among F-mount glass the closest Nikkor is probably the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Closed to f/8 or slower for landscape work, it would be quite sharp. There are third party lenses by Sigma and Tamron you could consider.

I'm curious, which wide angle lens(es) did you select for your landscape work with the Z7?

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

fireplace33 said:

Not everybody is a bird photographer, not everybody needs bright telephoto lenses.
For landscape photographers, telephotos can be very useful but they do not have to be so bright, High quality, yes of course, but not necessarily bright. It's also an advantage if you can carry them!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'd bet money most (as in, a majority) people who use super-teles are into wildlife/birding, which means you want all the light you can get.

Is there a market? Yeah. Is it going to be serious birders that use these? No.

Bill Ferris said:

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

Nikon currently has no 100-400 or similar lens in Z-mount. There is a 100-400 on their Z-mount lens road map. Among F-mount glass the closest Nikkor is probably the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Closed to f/8 or slower for landscape work, it would be quite sharp. There are third party lenses by Sigma and Tamron you could consider.

Click to expand...

For the sake of comparison, here is a previous SOOC JPEG of the eagle seen above, this time with a sigma 100 to 400 mm zoom mounted via FTZ on the Z 50, with no Tele converter.




SOOC JPEG with Sigma 100-400mm

Member said:

I'm curious, which wide angle lens(es) did you select for your landscape work with the Z7?

Click to expand...

z2122 said:

z2122 said:

For the person who has been doing bird and wildlife photography with an f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens, the bottom line outcome of replacing their current lens with one of the new Canon f/11s,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My speculation is those doing what you imply will be as close to nil as it is possible to get.

z2122 said:

z2122 said:

is that they would be making images with just 12.5%, 25%, 33% or at best 50% of the light they currently use. There is no mathematical gymnastics that can be done to produce a result indicating anything other than, image quality will take a serious hit.

Click to expand...

yes, keep it simple .... it is as easy as you described it

Click to expand...

No it is not as simple as described

These Canon lenses are not intended for low light combined with fast moving subjects - this should be obvious to any experienced photographer.

They are likely to be very usable for static birds in reasonable light - and for many, many other photo scenarios where (assuming you can afford one) carrying an 800 f5.6 is not practical.

If Canon has correctly identified a market (I believe they have) - these lenses should sell well to those on a budget who appreciate their potential.

Looking forward - it is possible Nikon will have a Z 1200mm f11 within 18 months. This assumes the 200-600 will be f5.6 at 600mm and will accept the Z 2x converter.

If my speculation is not spot on the Nikon 100-400 is likely to be f5.6 at 400mm. If it accepts the 2x converter then there will be a Nikon 800mm at f11 ;-)

It is probable Canon will also introduce a lens like the road map Nikon 100-400 - giving more flexibility with it and a 2x converter for perhaps UK £3,000 - compared to under £1,000 for the fixed focal length 800mm f11.

Some will aspire to the £3,000 more flexible option - and I expect many more for budget reasons are likely to buy the under £1,000 option.

ghostfox_1 said:

Yeah, but I'd bet money most (as in, a majority) people who use super-teles are into wildlife/birding, which means you want all the light you can get.

Click to expand...

Maybe Canon aim to re-write history

If they succeed far more Canon owners in 2-3 years will be using an 800 mm f11 rather than an f5.6 800mm at 15x more expensive and massively heavier.

Smart phones are already continuing to rewrite history - with inbuilt 135mm equivalent lens due soon.

Bill Ferris said:

fireplace33 said:

I have just bought a Z7. For telephoto shots I only have at the moment the FTZ with a 70-200 F/4 +X1.4 TC

For the last couple of years i've been using a m43 system and enjoying the relatively lightweight and compact telephoto possibilities while hiking with the truely excellent quality from the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit PL 50-200 F/2.8-4. It weighs in at only 655g and has a 2 X crop factor. A very sharp lens. I use it somtetimes coupled with the x1.4 TC for extra reach.

I guess the equivalent lens to this in FF would be a 100-400 F/5.6-8 as long as it is made with excellent glass and high precision.
I'm not a birder that needs very bright lenses. I'm mainly a landscape photographer. But a fixed focus, fixed F/11 lens doesn't sound good to me.

What is the nearest existing lens to this that I can use with the Z7, probably using the FTZ, and how much does it weigh?
And what could a lens like this, made especially for the Z system, weigh ?

Click to expand...

Nikon currently has no 100-400 or similar lens in Z-mount. There is a 100-400 on their Z-mount lens road map. Among F-mount glass the closest Nikkor is probably the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Closed to f/8 or slower for landscape work, it would be quite sharp. There are third party lenses by Sigma and Tamron you could consider.

I'm curious, which wide angle lens(es) did you select for your landscape work with the Z7?

Click to expand...

Hi Bill,
Thanks, I wonder what aperture range that S-line Z 100-400 will have?

At the moment the wide angle I could use on the Z7 is the Tokina 11-20 F/2.8 but it is only a DX lens.
I have the Z 14-30 selected in my Amazon shopping basket, but haven't pressed the button yet, probably will though sometime soon. it looks good.

I haven't had a chance to get out for any landscape trips with it since I got the Z7 about 3 weeks ago, It came with the Z 24-70. I have a few other lenses that would fit (see my gear here in DPR) and I'm still in the process of working out what I'd want to take on a hike.

--
www.fireplace-photography.com

I think you misunderstood what I said, as stated before, aperture remains the same regardless of sensor size and of course, 1/250-f/8-iso100 (exposure) will be the very same on DX, FX or any other sensor size. The big difference with sensor size is how much light is collected by the sensor. The larger the sensor, the bettter image quality is something that well known by all photogs. This is why a full frame sensor smokes a 1" sensor at high iso. The surface of an FX sensor is 2.25x larger than a DX sensor. Even though exposure remains the same, eg 1/250-f/8 for a given subject illumination, at high iso settings (with cameras using the same sensor technology), an FX sensor at ISO 6400 will give you slightly better results than a DX sensor at ISO 3200. hence the concept of equivalent aperture, you might want to read this for more details (in particular page 2):


If sensor size wouldn't matter for image quality, a Nikon P1000 at 800mm gives you the very same aperture as the nikkor 800mm f/5.6

It is obvious that a picture shot with a d810 and nikkor 800mm at f/5.6 and ISO 3200 will be better than a P1000 at 800mm f/5.6 at same ISO, most of the difference being sensor size.

DPR has published an interesting chart with aperture equivalence for sensor size, looking at this chart, at 800mm, a P1000 wide open at 800mm has an equivalent aperture of f/32 !!! I'm not advocating that f/11 lenses on FX are appropriate for bird photography, but a compact $899 (list price) 800mm f/11 lens on a FX camera is definitely a much better option than a P1000 with an equivalent aperture of f/32





With this in mind, I see no reason why Nikon would not offer something similar or better, after all, the Z 50-250 has en equivalent FX aperture close to f/10 at 250mm and it seems to sell well!

Right now, Canon ML users have the choice to go for the cheap/light/compact 600 and 800mm or the expensive bigs guns with the adapter. Nikon users only have the expensive option with the FTZ. I expect Nikon to fire back and offer a similar alternative.

The best affordable option now would be FTZ+TC+200-500mm, but aperture would also take a hit with the TC and price is far from close to $899

Would Nikon decide to offer a Z 800mm/f11, I'm sure it would sell. Personally, I'd love to see a compact and affordable 500mm f/8

Leonard Shepherd said:

jetstream said:

While apertures remain the same regardless of sensor size, an APS sensor is 2.25x smaller than a full frame sensor and collects 2.25x less light: this is more than a stop, thus the EQUIVALENT aperture of f/6.3 on APS is close to f/10 on full frame.

Click to expand...

This seems to me strange logic.

If the light is right for 1/250 at f8 at 100 ISO on FX - it is right for exactly the same exposure on DX.

There is no extra light needed for correct exposure on 4:3, DX, 24x36 or medium format.

Are you confusing the crop factor with illumination of the subject?

There can be a difference in depth of field between formats - or when cropping an image no matter what format it was taken on.

Click to expand...

jetstream said:

Even though exposure remains the same, eg 1/250-f/8 for a given subject illumination, at high iso settings (with cameras using the same sensor technology), an FX sensor at ISO 6400 will give you slightly better results than a DX sensor at ISO 3200. hence the concept of equivalent aperture, you might want to read this for more details (in particular page 2):

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Click to expand...

One has to be a bit careful here and note a couple of things: "As you can see, although the lenses are quite different, the 50mm f/2 lens is giving the same framing and the same depth-of-field as a 100mm f/4 lens is on Full Frame. As such, you can say that a 50mm f/2 for Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to a 100mm f/4 Full Frame lens in terms of both field-of-view and depth-of-field."

That's a very important aspect, we have FoV-equivalence and DoF-equivalence here. BUT! These lenses are not equivalent with respect to the brightness. The 100mm f/4 will receive less light than the 50mm f/2. Why? Because, it says: "In a similar way, the actual F-number always tells you the intensity of the light on each square mm of the sensor - this doesn't change with sensor size."

In addition it says: "F-numbers and ISO are sensor-size independent."

Same F-number = same amount of light GIVEN that we talk about about same FoV also (but anything else is meaningless in my eyes. Comparing a 50mm m43 lens to a 50mm FX lens are two entirely different things that will not produce the same field of view at the same distance).

So, why are larger sensors delivering better quality? Mainly, because the pixel density on a smaller sensor is _usually_ higher than for a large sensor.

But consider this, a Z50 has about 56.600 pixels per square millimeter. A Z7 has about 52.100 pixels per square millimeter. Their noise performance isn't that much difference, especially in comparison to the Z6 which has has less than 30.000 pixels per square millimeter. Of course, noise is influenced a lot also by other factors such as circuit design and how much of the sensor surface is actually devoted to "pixels". That's where many technological improvements have been made.

Leonard Shepherd said:

z2122 said:

Bill Ferris said:

For the person who has been doing bird and wildlife photography with an f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens, the bottom line outcome of replacing their current lens with one of the new Canon f/11s,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My speculation is those doing what you imply will be as close to nil as it is possible to get.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

is that they would be making images with just 12.5%, 25%, 33% or at best 50% of the light they currently use. There is no mathematical gymnastics that can be done to produce a result indicating anything other than, image quality will take a serious hit.

Click to expand...

yes, keep it simple .... it is as easy as you described it

Click to expand...

No it is not as simple as described

These Canon lenses are not intended for low light combined with fast moving subjects - this should be obvious to any experienced photographer.

They are likely to be very usable for static birds in reasonable light - and for many, many other photo scenarios where (assuming you can afford one) carrying an 800 f5.6 is not practical.

Click to expand...

Although 800mm focal length is moderately powerful, in reality many bird photographers are routinely working at even longer (or much longer) effective focal length equivalents.

So for example I normally use a 500mm F4 + TC1.4 converter (=700mm optical focal length) on a D500 which, being DX format, gives me an approximately 1050mm FOV onto ca 20Mpix. Even then most birds that I photograph do not come close to filling that DX sized frame. Often I will use the 1.3 crop mode and even then I am very often not filling the frame.

So I also go to using the 500mm F4 with TC2x converter (in my case the Sigma 500mm F4 + TC-2001 converter) = 1000mm optical focal length, approx 1500mm FOV equivalnt in DX or approx 2000mm FOV equivalent if using 1.3 crop mode. Even then I might often crop down to less than 1500 pixels width. Such a resulting crop can often easily equate to around a 6000mm or so focal length equivalent FOV!

So if I was to use this proposed Canon system (assuming use if any of their current FX format options) then 99.9% of the time I would be throwing away most of the pixels to crop down to a reasonable portrait.

Unless I'm just photographing ducks at a Zoo of course - but I don't spend my time doing that (well, I might if I want to test something out). I generally aim to photograph wild birds - and they don't usually co-operate!

Leonard Shepherd said:

If Canon has correctly identified a market (I believe they have) - these lenses should sell well to those on a budget who appreciate their potential.

Click to expand...

... and are "those on a budget" likely to be the sort of people who can afford an R5 (or even an R6) ?? Not really.

The proposal would make more sense if Canon were to release a compatible, lightweight, budget APS-C version body. Even then I don't think it's a great idea.

Most birders already have good solutions for so-called "record shots" in the form of digi-scoping and will always want to have their telescopes with them (also means carrying a tripod). They might also opt to carry a budget super-zoom bridge cameras such as the P900/950/1000 (or any of the popular alternatives from Canon or Sony).

Most birders that I know won't want to bother adding another long telephoto option (with yet another new camera that is otherwise non-compatible) to hump around any distance, they just "phone-scope" with an adaptor plus smartphone on their existing very high-quality (and expensive) telescopes!

Leonard Shepherd said:

Looking forward - it is possible Nikon will have a Z 1200mm f11 within 18 months. This assumes the 200-600 will be f5.6 at 600mm and will accept the Z 2x converter.

Click to expand...

If the latest Nikon lens roadmap illustration is anything to go by (and I think it will be) then there is no way that the projected new (non S-line) 200-600 Z is going to be anywhere near F5.6 at 600mm. The lens is physically far too small. More like F8 at 600mm (or even slower).

Leonard Shepherd said:

If my speculation is not spot on the Nikon 100-400 is likely to be f5.6 at 400mm. If it accepts the 2x converter then there will be a Nikon 800mm at f11 ;-)

Click to expand...

That's quite likely. We already have lens choices that can do that - and of course can be used already on Z systems via the FTZ but perhaps we might hope that the optical quality may be a step up from the existing F mount equivalent.

The Z series can attempt to focus at F11 (with limited success and accuracy) ... but it's really not where I want to be at if I can at all help it.

Leonard Shepherd said:

It is probable Canon will also introduce a lens like the road map Nikon 100-400 - giving more flexibility with it and a 2x converter for perhaps UK £3,000 - compared to under £1,000 for the fixed focal length 800mm f11.

Click to expand...

They already introduced the 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 for the R series. That's looks likely to be an interesting lens!

Frank