I think I’m just about over my lens envy

For the last couple years, my focal length of choice has been 800mm, about 75% of the time, and 1120mm (my 800 a 1.4 tc) another 20%. My 150-600 has been all but retired. I have really been enjoying my RF 800mm F11, but it really bugged me that my only other choice, was the RF 800 F5.6 for $16K, which is just ridiculous. 
I have been so intrigued by the Nikon  PF 800 F6.3, that I had even said that if Canon didn’t come out with something comparable, I might eventually have to jump to Nikon just to be able to use that lens. Just my personal opinion, but I think comparing the Z9 to the R5 is just splitting hairs anyway. Both super nice cameras.

However, in just the last little while, I’m starting to wonder how just much difference a “faster” 800mm would make ? Here’s what mean…. Yesterday I was shooting with my super slow 800 F11. But I was so close (about 15 ft, using my extension tube) that I was having a hard time getting all of my “tiny” Hummingbird in focus > at F11 ! What good would it do if I had had an F5.6 or F6.3 800mm lens, if I were having to crank it down to F11 or even narrower, to give me sufficient DOF for my whole subject ? 
Don’t get me wrong, having a “variable” aperture would be good, as would full frame focusing, and a rotating lens collar…. I’d still like to see a glorified 800 F11…. 
I’m just not so sure anymore, how much a faster lens would help ? I mean sure, I could probably imagine a few low light scenarios where the PF 800 F6.3 would help…. But I’m not sure if it would help often enough, to be worth the extra weight and the 600% greater cost ? Of course the Canon RF 800 F5.6 is just completely out of the question.

These were all very low light. Shutter speeds of 1/125 to 1/320th, ISO 200 to 1000, F11.

How could I have made these better with a faster lens ?

It is often the case that the faster lenses also incorporate superior glass and design.  The 800/5.6, 600/4, 500/4, and 400/2.8 lenses are not only fast but much sharper.  They may also incorporate superior auto focus systems as well.

I suspect that the 800/6.3 PF is sharper than the 800/11 but there is little evidence on the net to go by.

I photograph perched birds with a manual focus 800/5.6 L, often with extension tubes, and results are stunning.  It still easily beats the original EF 300/2.8 and EF 2x II.

Completely agree that the big whites excel in every area not just wider apertures. My 500ii is big and heavy but has faster AF, sharper, better contrast and colours, than my 100-500L.

just depends on whether the improvement in IQ is worth it to you. Sometimes it is to me but also sometimes I just want to take the lighter lens and rely on composition !

expro wrote:

Completely agree that the big whites excel in every area not just wider apertures. My 500ii is big and heavy but has faster AF, sharper, better contrast and colours, than my 100-500L.

just depends on whether the improvement in IQ is worth it to you. Sometimes it is to me but also sometimes I just want to take the lighter lens and rely on composition !

Considering they cost 12 to 15 X's as much, I think they had better excel in every area.... Especially when compared to a lens like my $900, 800 F11.

However, I think a lens like the PF 800 F6.3 is SO close in performance, to the crazy expensive Canon Big Whites, yet half to 1/3rd the cost + smaller and lighter. Just a way better value.

I guess when you consider that Canon offers (IMPO) no good options, and if you have to have a faster, slightly sharper, slightly faster focus, etc, then yea. You don't have a choice.

Again, JMPO, but if I could have a lens built just for me, and even if money were no object, it would be a Canon that was very similar to the Nikon PF 800.... Although it might be an F7.1 and a little smaller / lighter yet.

Funny thing is, Canon could maybe get another $3 or 4K out of me.... But as it stands, they will get $0, if they decide not to make something intermediate between the RF 800 F11, and the RF 800 F5.6.

In fact, depending on how that goes, they could be handing a good chunk of my $ to Nikon.

If Nikon offers what you want then why not?

expro wrote:

If Nikon offers what you want then why not?

If all I needed was the Nikon PF 800 lens, I might do it right now ! But then I'd need to spend another $5k on the Z9, and neither this lens, or camera, are available without a potentially long wait anyway.

Not to mention, that lens is probably still a bit pricey, and a bit heavy.... Not exactly my dream lens, just the closest to it, of any lens, from any manufacturer on the market.

I keep dreaming about a glorified RF 800 F11... Just a little better in every aspect,

What about a 400 DO II with 2x?  You get 800mm f8, and 400 f4 with big white L glass and AF improvements in a small package.

cnyphotoguy wrote:

What about a 400 DO II with 2x? You get 800mm f8, and 400 f4 with big white L glass and AF improvements in a small package.

Hmmm. Well, I'd like to try it (before I start unfairly shooting it down)

But several thoughts...

A BIG concern > how well would it focus on the new RF cameras ? That is definitely one that I'd want to rent and test the heck out of, in ALL kinds of conditions !

And, $6800 is going a little bit in the wrong direction from that Nikon PF 800 F6.3 that I had been kind of dreaming about.

Finally, its a 400mm lens, so I'd almost always have a 2.0 X's TC on it AND that would be it. 800mm and that better be enough. Can't imagine stacking TC's for any serious shooting. And, besides the TC, I'd also need to use the EF to RF adaptor. So, with this lens, it would always have not one, but two pieces of hardware between it and the camera.

Edit: I'm always thinking about > when pairing with a FF camera, because that's what I own. But it might do better on a crop sensor, where it would be 640mm without a TC, and 900 with only the 1.4 ? I still need to rent that R7..... (and figure out a way to hang on to the stupid little thing lol)

From what I can see on the internet the RF 800 f11 is very close to the 100-400 II with EF 2x III.  The RF seems better in the centre and a slightly softer in the corners.

John Crowe wrote:

From what I can see on the internet the RF 800 f11 is very close to the 100-400 II with EF 2x III. The RF seems better in the centre and a slightly softer in the corners.

I think if I needed a shorter lens, with zoom, I’d consider the RF 100-400. But ever since I got my Sigma 150-600 working so much better (greatly improved the focus pulsing issue) I feel like that lens is now fine, especially for as little as I need a shorter lens, with zoom.

First, those are some great hummingbird pictures. My goal is to get near that level of quality this year.

Second, your point is solid: at a massive 800mm focal length, the DOF for close subjects is very, very thin. Going by a DOF calculator, assuming the following:

• 800mm FL
• f/11 aperture
• 5m subject distance
• No teleconverter

The DOF would be 0.02m or 0.88 inches! Stopping down to f/16 would give 0.05m or 1.24 inch DOF.

At close focus with such long lenses, you can get in trouble real quick.

Falxon wrote:

First, those are some great hummingbird pictures. My goal is to get near that level of quality this year.

Second, your point is solid: at a massive 800mm focal length, the DOF for close subjects is very, very thin. Going by a DOF calculator, assuming the following:

• 800mm FL
• f/11 aperture
• 5m subject distance
• No teleconverter

The DOF would be 0.02m or 0.88 inches! Stopping down to f/16 would give 0.05m or 1.24 inch DOF.

At close focus with such long lenses, you can get in trouble real quick.

You bring up a really good point. And I'm finding that there are two big reasons.... The first, is the more obvious thing that you mentioned, which is the very narrow DOF. Being farther away from the subject, gives you more DOF.

But another is something that I don't think has been discussed very much at all. When a lens manufacturer says a lens has a MFD of lets say for example, with my 800 F11, of 19.6 ft, well.... kind of. Yes, if you manually focus it at exactly 19.6 ft, it is possible to get perfect, razor sharp focus. But apparently, the AI algorithms that control Auto Eye Focus, need to be able to focus "just shy of AND just past" the actual subject, to be able to figure out exactly what perfect focus is ! I found this out during my back yard testing, where I would set up my tripod pointed at a perch, try to focus, and uh.. too close. So Id back up like 2 inches, uh, still too close. 2 more inches, bingo. Now Im getting the small blue box on the birds eye. So I'm good, right ? Not exactly. My number of keepers turned out to be very low when I was literally sitting at 19.6 or 19.7 ft. I found that at 21ft, my number of shots with perfect focus went WAY up !

Now, I also have extender tubes that reduce my MFD from 19.6 to about 14.5 ft. However, same thing there. If I try to shoot at exactly 14.5 ft, a lot will miss focus. But at 16 ft, its all good

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

But another is something that I don't think has been discussed very much at all. When a lens manufacturer says a lens has a MFD of lets say for example, with my 800 F11, of 19.6 ft, well.... kind of. Yes, if you manually focus it at exactly 19.6 ft, it is possible to get perfect, razor sharp focus. But apparently, the AI algorithms that control Auto Eye Focus, need to be able to focus "just shy of AND just past" the actual subject, to be able to figure out exactly what perfect focus is ! I found this out during my back yard testing, where I would set up my tripod pointed at a perch, try to focus, and uh.. too close. So Id back up like 2 inches, uh, still too close. 2 more inches, bingo. Now Im getting the small blue box on the birds eye. So I'm good, right ? Not exactly. My number of keepers turned out to be very low when I was literally sitting at 19.6 or 19.7 ft. I found that at 21ft, my number of shots with perfect focus went WAY up !

Now, I also have extender tubes that reduce my MFD from 19.6 to about 14.5 ft. However, same thing there. If I try to shoot at exactly 14.5 ft, a lot will miss focus. But at 16 ft, its all good

Yeah, this is a good point that I think a lot of people gloss over. While you may be able to MANUALLY focus at the MFD, phase detection autofocus does require some amount of margin on each side of perfect focus.

I'm not entirely sure why, though, because purely theoretically, it shouldn't matter. But my experience mirrors yours, in that one should definitely give themselves some margin outside of the MFD.

J A C S wrote:

Falxon wrote:

First, those are some great hummingbird pictures. My goal is to get near that level of quality this year.

Second, your point is solid: at a massive 800mm focal length, the DOF for close subjects is very, very thin. Going by a DOF calculator, assuming the following:

• 800mm FL
• f/11 aperture
• 5m subject distance
• No teleconverter

The DOF would be 0.02m or 0.88 inches! Stopping down to f/16 would give 0.05m or 1.24 inch DOF.

At close focus with such long lenses, you can get in trouble real quick.

The problem is not the FL, it is the size of the object. A 50mm lens from much closer, same framing, would have similar DOF.

Not quite.  A 50mm lens would have to be at 0.3m or 1 foot to have the same DOF.  The framing of a subject at that size would be quite a bit wider than an 800mm at 5m.

Falxon wrote:

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

But another is something that I don't think has been discussed very much at all. When a lens manufacturer says a lens has a MFD of lets say for example, with my 800 F11, of 19.6 ft, well.... kind of. Yes, if you manually focus it at exactly 19.6 ft, it is possible to get perfect, razor sharp focus. But apparently, the AI algorithms that control Auto Eye Focus, need to be able to focus "just shy of AND just past" the actual subject, to be able to figure out exactly what perfect focus is ! I found this out during my back yard testing, where I would set up my tripod pointed at a perch, try to focus, and uh.. too close. So Id back up like 2 inches, uh, still too close. 2 more inches, bingo. Now Im getting the small blue box on the birds eye. So I'm good, right ? Not exactly. My number of keepers turned out to be very low when I was literally sitting at 19.6 or 19.7 ft. I found that at 21ft, my number of shots with perfect focus went WAY up !

Now, I also have extender tubes that reduce my MFD from 19.6 to about 14.5 ft. However, same thing there. If I try to shoot at exactly 14.5 ft, a lot will miss focus. But at 16 ft, its all good

Yeah, this is a good point that I think a lot of people gloss over. While you may be able to MANUALLY focus at the MFD, phase detection autofocus does require some amount of margin on each side of perfect focus.

I'm not entirely sure why, though, because purely theoretically, it shouldn't matter. But my experience mirrors yours, in that one should definitely give themselves some margin outside of the MFD.

I actually had a talk with a tech guy at Canon a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that it needed a bit more than 19.6 ft for the AEF to work properly...

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

I actually had a talk with a tech guy at Canon a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that it needed a bit more than 19.6 ft for the AEF to work properly...

See, that just means you need to treat it like a Macro lens.  Set it to MFD and manual focus, then "focus with your feet" by moving properly.

YOU are the "Human Macro Focusing Rail."

Falxon wrote:

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

I actually had a talk with a tech guy at Canon a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that it needed a bit more than 19.6 ft for the AEF to work properly...

See, that just means you need to treat it like a Macro lens. Set it to MFD and manual focus, then "focus with your feet" by moving properly.

YOU are the "Human Macro Focusing Rail."

Of course I could do that with a static subject, but often, the little birds I chase are so darn jittery, that I really need my AEF, and even so, not all of them hit spot on... But if I give it that extra 1 or 2 ft, it does pretty darn good 🙂

BTW, this evening I through my extender tube on, and was shooting from about 16ft. Just chimping through the viewfinder, it looked like I got a lot of razor sharp shots. Took about 1600, so I'll know for sure tomorrow morning when I go through them on the PC 👍