my dentist said he's going to buy 2 of each.

If you could just TC your way into longer focal lengths with the same resolution, Canon would have never built these.

Here is what Canon Asia has to say about that:

Lest it appears that the RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM and RF1200mm f/8L IS USM are simply the RF600mm f/4L IS USM and RF400mm f/2.8L IS USM with built-in extenders, the optical configuration is different, with the RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM and RF1200mm f/8L IS USM incorporating one UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) element not present in the Extender RF2x. As this design is optimised for the lenses, you can expect higher image quality than with the Extender RF2x attached to the RF400mm or RF600mm. Having the magnification optics built into the lenses also means that you can reach even further by attaching an extender.

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/eng/canons-longest-professional-super-telephoto-lenses-join-the-rf-lineup

I trust Canon to have optimized the built in TC, but still....
The new 800mm lens is $17k
The 400 plus a TC is $12.5k
Is the optimized welded in TC worth $4,500? That's over a 33% increase over the 400mm option. So you're losing the flexibility of 400mm+800mm for a little optimization at the 800mm end?

I don't shoot wildlife/sports so I don't know; it's all more pricy than I'll spend anyway. But hypothetically I'd rather have the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 TC option with a built in, On/Off lens optimized TC.

On this day of the EOS anniversary I think Canon outsmarted Nikons AF deployment back in 1987. But between the Z9 and this lens debacle I think Nikon is the one pushing innovation today.

"My dentist said he's going to buy 2 of each."

Drill, Fill, and Bill.

Is this 800 worth it over the 400 plus TC?

Well, that is a question for the likely users of this lens.

There are some shooters who prize the ultimate IQ at that focal length, and so yes, it will be worth it. That last little bit of performance doesn't come cheap. And of course one can add a TC and make the focal length longer.

And again, it's unrealistic to judge this like any standard consumer lens product. This is a very specialty lens. Individual users will likely rent this lens and so that cost differential won't matter so much. Some large agencies may buy this lens and again, that cost differential may not be so big of a deal.

But you can't use the same price analysis that one would with consumer products.

@Kerensky97
I agree with your observation, however these lenses will not be sold in the same volumes as the 400 and 600 and tele extenders.

What this mostly feels like is a marketing move to oppose something to the much more appealing 800mm f6.3 PF…

Not everyone love PF/DO glass flaws
Someone willing to drop that amount of money may expect perfection

What I find really funny is that Leica comes out with a new body for $7k and it's just "jewelry" for dentists and doctors. Canon comes out with a lens that's $17k and it's just brilliant.

These lenses are just placeholders until Canon has a credible answer to the 800mm f6.3 PF.

Canon is simply pricing them not to sell, just like the R3.

Except Canon is actually selling R3’s
PL you gotta hide your Nikon bias a little bit better.

@String Your statement is fascinating. Do tell us where we can get full frame mirrorless 800mm F5.6 or 1200mm F8 lens for a lot less than what Canon wants.

Except that the 150-400 is sharper than the old Canon 800/5.6....
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/olympus-150-400mm-pro-review-vs-canon-800mm/

€7k......for that i can get a Sony 200-600mm and a decent body for it .....and a wad of money to spare.... a bargain it isn't

Rodrigo Pasiani; Except...
Angle of View: Olympus 8.2° to 3.1° Canon 3°
Weight: Olympus 4.1 lbs Canon 6.9 lbs
Size: Olympus 4.6"x12.4" Canon 6.4"x17"
Close Focus: Olympus 4.3' Canon 8.5'
Cost: Olympus $7,500. Canon $17,000.
And the Olympus just looks better.

I guess there is no market for something like 300 mm f/2.8 lenses since there are very good 300 mm f/4 lenses available for much less money and they are also much lighter.

noirdesir: True. Also, the 300/4 seems to be out of favor because of the super zooms. I had the compact Nikon 300/4 PF for a few years but then traded it in for a 100-400mm because the zoom is more flexible. I think Nikon is the only one that still makes a 300mm FF fixed lens.

This thread made my day. From this discussion I see my smaller one can be more impressive than the bigger one.

@PredatorsPrey: Just for the sake of keeping the facts right, MFT @ f4.5 is eqv. to f8.2 in FF. So closer to a 800mm/f8 lens than a f11.

I think Predator's point was that the Olympus lens is closer to Canon's 800 mm f/11 than to Canon's 800 mm f/5.6. But that is of course only one way of describing this. Another would be to say that the Olympus lens is roughly halfway between those to Canon lenses.

Mr_Win
LOL Yes all 5 of them that can afford to spend that much on a lens. ;-)

Mr Win. You’re right. I have already listed all of my Sony gear so I can make a portrait of my cat from across the street with the 1200mm prime.

That's a very, very shy cat!

with comparison, it seems more trendy to say: my is __smaller and lighter_ than yours! It's reverse size comparison! The 2 compact Nikon PF lenses seem to sell better than other large aperture telephotos.

The NSA, FBI, DHS, CIA all salivating right now

And btw, the 800mm seem to be the 400/2.8 with 2x TC...Zero development cost except for some magnesium tubing and welding...😁

They still had to design the optical part of the TC (it doesn’t match existing TCs).

600 F4 RF = 17 elements and 13 groups. TC 2x 9 elements 5 groups...do the math
26 Elements and 18 groups = specs for 1200 F8. They just put a RF and 2x TC on a Ver III EF lens and jacked the price up.

It’s a quick fix they probably launched a few months ago when they heard about the 800mm f6.3 PF. Priced to not sell except in some bling countries.

@ TomFid - nope, I've been shooting with a "tiny sensor" Olympus for 10 years 😉

Real men use real measurements.

The built-in TC on the Nikon is an excellent feature.

I don't see Nikon's "normal 100-400" to be a better option than Canon's. With the Canon 100-500 you gain extra 100mm on the long end for the exchange of 1/3 stop of light loss at 400mm (6.3 vs 5.6). The extra reach is much more valuable.

^ It's f6.3 thru ~470mm even, tho f5.6 by ~360mm. I think the biggest selling point of the recent xxx-500s (I've been looking at Tamron's 150-500) is that they're basically no larger than competing 100-400s (actually smaller in some cases) and even the weight is pretty close. The Canon is actually marginally lighter than the Nikon Z 100-400, tho with a longer MFD.

@Andyyy "The extra reach is much more valuable."
No. it isn't. With the number of pixels on modern sensors, the 100mm is more marketing than useful benefit. I'd better have that 1/3 of a stop so I can crop-zoom into a cleaner/brighter image. 100mm. gives me absolutely nothing.

I think the inbuilt TC is nifty, its like having a zoom without a zoom. Easier to acquire subject zoomed out than in.

"this new RF 800/5.6 is only a grand more than the Z 800/6.3"

Has pricing for the Z 800 been announced? Did I miss it?

"No. it isn't. With the number of pixels on modern sensors, the 100mm is more marketing than useful benefit. "
I guess you never shot wildlife where there is no such thing as enough focal length. 400mm on FF is nothing, even cropped.

"100mm. gives me absolutely nothing "

100mm gives you extra 50% more pixels per subject. 1/3 stop less light with modern sensors is nothing. And heavily cropped image gives you noisier image, not cleaner.

It's already working!

The apparently represent a desirable compromise between speed/shallow DOF and size/weight/price for those wanting top image quality. Even faster would tip them over an important threshold on the second set of characteristics. Slower and lesser IQ is covered by zooms.

But there is a market between those exotics and most zooms. For once there some zoom exotics (120-300 mm f/2.8, 200-400 mm f/4), then are some slower primes, conventional (300 mm f/4, 500 mm f/4) as well as fresnel lenses (500 mm f/5.6, 800 mm f/6.3).

mosc, I thought your point was why Canon released four lenses with almost the same front lens diameter, instead of there being more diversity from lens to lens.

Yeah, the 150mm physical aperture seems to be a sweet spot for what the wildlife shooters want. That's what I was getting too.

I don't think the people buying these care about getting a 200mm f/2 as an alternative. Different tool for a different job.

The 1200 can take pictures of cats on the moon.

As clear as possible while shooting through the entire thickness of the Earth's atmosphere.

Unfortunately it will cost more than $100K and would weigh 200 pounds
Canon did make a EF1200 5.6 and it was never made for commercial use.

Zeiss could sell you a 1700 mm f/4 (at least they’ve built two of them).

they also have 600 and 800 mm that cost less than 1000 bucks, yet people still complaint 🤷

@Alam12

At mere f11 those are not for the same market. Nikon is soon releasing 800mm f6.3 PF lens, most likely much cheaper thant the Canon 800/5.6 or Nikkor 800/5.6 FL.

Why the heck would you compare these against a 400/2.8? That makes no sense and it takes a special kind of blind brand bias to make that leap...

Canon has a 400/2.8 too, and it's the same weight as Nikon's and $2K cheaper, the TC isn't built in so there's that but c'mon... I've not got in the fight btw, I don't shoot either brand.

Yeah it's the EF600 + built-in TC 2x that is slightly optimized for that focal length. I saw the optical formula of the 1200 and the 600, and it's a 100% match.

@Sittatunga: The SI unit for distance is meter. 1mm is 1/1000 of a meter, whereas 1cm is 1/100...

Centimeters and decimeters are just as much SI units as are meters and millimeters. There is nothing special about milli- compared to them.

https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-prefixes

“Micron” however is not, the proper name is “micrometer”. https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/13-1967/resolution-7

https://i.imgur.com/blZoEJP.png

@Sittattunga: just follow the links provided by spider-mario. Centi is equally acceptable as milli. There is no cause for confusion...

I've been working in mechanical engineering for over 30 years and its always been millimetres. You might use larger units of measurement like metres if you were doing land surveying etc but we're talking about camera lenses here, so it's millimetres.

"see the table you linked to."

Sittatunga, go back and look at it again, and you'll see that it includes hecto, deca, deci and centi. Those prefixes are officially part of the SI system.

@Clan3307. Civil engineering too. A UK bridge span will be dimensioned as 42 062, and there might be a note on the drawing "All dimensions in mm" but after 50 years of mks units there probably won't be.

These lenses look very front heavy/unbalanced with very thin DOF, I doubt they will be usable handheld. Compare them to the Olympus 150-400/4.5 1.25TC @ 1.8 kg + OM-1 and MFT makes much more sense shooting small birds at closer distances.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

@jon55: Chiropractor included?

It's not the lens, it's the Canon marketing that is funny...

Good luck shooting your 20k lens at f32, the point is that the DOF is counted in mm, not cm at non-diffractive f-stops. I did assume it was f5.6 but it's actually f8, so the DOF will be 4 mm instead of 3... Shooting "small birds at minimum focusing distance" sound mostly like imaginative marketing slur to me. There are more suitable lenses for that purpose.

Maybe true, but if you fill the frame with a small bird, the DoF will be the same with any telephoto lens, assuming you're shooting at the same f-stop. You just have to be closer with a 400 or 600, but the DoF is the same.

I never said that it wouldn't...but a big, long heavy lens with narrow FOV at close focus will be very hard/slow to use. Compare them to the Olympus 150-400/4.5 1.25TC @ 1.8 kg + OM-1 and MFT makes much more sense shooting small birds at closer distances. It's a more agile lens, even at 1000mm and using it handheld is no problem, and the price is 1/3. And Nikon will release a 800/6.3 PF, shorter and around 2.2 kg.

Ok, so we're moving the goal post now. Bye.

Canon lenses tend to slow down the AF speed on purpose when a teleconverter is attached. If these lenses focus as fast as native versions, then it might be worthwhile.

From the sideline here: I have the Berlebach Report and also some Gitzo tripods. The wooden tripod is sturdy and I like it a lot, but the more portable Gitzo series 5 is the clear winner.

@Kirnbichler: It would be great if you could do a review of the 1000/8 on Pentax Forums with a digital camera. There is an article about this lens that reports using the 1000/8 on a digital sensor results in severe sensor reflections:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319745

It would be interesting knowing your opinion about this and the usability of it on digital cameras.

@hibikitaisuna:
I've got a Report 2042 which is no longer manufactured.
I've used it mostly with a 4x5 camera.

Here's a description (didn't find one on Berlebach's website) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/302816-REG/Berlebach_BE2042_2042_Wood_Tripod_Legs.html.

I bought it in Saxony, direct at the manufacturer.

What is very practical is the built-in ball through which passes the center column. By that it is possible to adjust that to a precise vertical alignment, so that panoramic sweeps are in an exact horizontal plane. Try that with a typica ballhead on a slightly skewed tripod.

@henricoo:
I'll see what is possible, but it takes some planning due to the weight, which doesn't lead to a quick trip to the next park.

An out-of-the-window shot is no option due to the missing view.