Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM sample gallery

Good for you. But how many % of people will use this lens for other kinds of photography than wildlife do you think?

Don't make assumptions for other photographers, and don't judge this lens (800mm) until you have shot with it yourself. I'm a pro (look me up) and I guess I'm a kook because I can see it's sharp and as a nature photographer I can see a lot of use for it. The alternative is a monster 800mm f/5.6 that is reasonably sharp and cost $13,000. And I have the knowledge to judge this lens and the R5 camera!

I did look you up.
George, as an "Canon Explorer of Light" by definition you are part of Canon's Marketing effort. Therefore anything you say is potentially suspect.
Before jumping down on people, perhaps you should include this disclosure in your comments.

@Ruairi - yes there is that. But the limitations such a lens gives seems to go at odds with spending good money on an interchangeable lens camera in the first place. I have a sigma 150-600. In a good photographers hands (not necessarily mine) I'd think wide open at f6.3 on nikons least expensive camera (d3500) all the photos taken in that gallery would show better image quality.

The sigma 150-600 is slightly more expensive new, yes, but the Canon setup is not economical imo of course. I am well aware it may work for others

mft will give significantly better results

Perhaps not all have $14,000 to spend on an F4 lens and will be very happy to have some fun with an affordable one? Hey kids. You will have to do without for a few years because dad needs a faster lens. A very smart move by Canon. They will make more money from selling thousands of affordable lenses than a few hundred than can afford the big whites, which will eventually come in the RF mount.

or carry it.

They can afford a much cheaper camera/lens combo with better results.

Here's a link to a post with a couple of photos made in low light at slow shutter speeds: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63158781

Last Friday, I had an opportunity to photograph an elk herd at sunrise. There are a couple of keepers I made at 1/60 still being tweaked. Here's another photo from that shoot: https://flic.kr/p/2jujbYe

I know how I shoot and slow shutter speeds in low light, while not the norm, are sometimes necessary at the times of day when animals are active. These f/11 primes will undoubtedly appeal to folks intrigued by the idea of long focal lengths at comparatively affordable pricing. But once hooked on wildlife or bird photography, a person will pretty quickly recognize how useless a fixed f/11 lens is for those genres.

"These f/11 primes will undoubtedly appeal to folks intrigued by the idea of long focal lengths at comparatively affordable pricing."

...appeal and serve...there's nothing "intriguing" about it. Different users have different needs.

"But once hooked on wildlife or bird photography, a person will pretty quickly recognize how useless a fixed f/11 lens is for those genres."

...Or continue to be a generalist photographer, with a competent tool for one specific type of photography, under specific circumstances.
(cont.)

(cont.)

Not everyone will necessarily evolve into being "hooked" by any given type of photography.

And, if one does get hooked, there are plenty more Canon options available and Canon lenses have great 2nd hand value, so this lens will contribute to the heavy financial effort those other tools entail.

The value and uniqueness of this offer are not overshadowed in any way by any other offers, in the very same way a less performing camera for wildlife photography at a very affordable price is not overshadowed by a much more expensive tool for the same purpose.

As a final note Bill, let me please tell you, in the most candid and honest possible way, that whatever tools you're working with, they are not doing a fantastic job, if what can be seen is anything to go by.

PhotoKhan, my commentary on the Canon f/11 primes is based solely on a desire to help photographers choose and use the tools that will help them make the photos they dream of making. Full stop.

If one objectively pursues the question, for what genre of photography would I want a 600mm or 800mm lens, I would suggest wildlife and bird photography would be the most common responses. As someone who's been doing that kind of photography a few years, I've developed a perspective. You and others may agree or disagree and that is awesome. We're not required to emulate some mythical central truth. That said, when I talk about the limited usefulness of an f/11 optic at sunrise or sunset in twilight conditions, I'm speaking from experience. I've been there. My f/5.6 500mm keeps me waiting 10-15 minutes longer than an f/4 lens in morning twilight until I'm able to shoot. An f/11 lens would keep me waiting another 30-45 minutes. That's not opinion. It's just a fact.

The same holds for evening twilight. My f/5.6 500mm lens means I'm packing up 15-20 minutes before the photog shooting with an f/4 prime. An f/11 prime would have me walking to the car and on the road a good 30-45 minutes earlier than I'm now shooting. That's simply unacceptable.

Does this mean nobody will make any good images using the Canon f/11 primes? Of course not. In fact, I would argue the most brilliant shots we'll see will be by photographers who apply these very slow primes to photographic genres most of us are ignoring. Somebody's gonna use one of these lenses to make a bodacious landscape and it's going to challenge the common presumptions about focal lengths and apertures needed for that kind of work.

I've also been very open in acknowledging the attractiveness of a 600mm or 800mm lens priced well below a kilobuck. A lot of novice wildlife and bird photographers will be intrigued. Very few experienced photographers in either genre are going to be interested.

I say, very few, because experienced photographers in these genres have encountered similar low light limitations as I have. They've been frustrated by shooting at f/8, f/6.3 or f/5.6 and missing a potential keeper because of weak or failing light. The laws of physics are immutable. We can't change them; we can learn to work within them.

You write that not everyone will become hooked by any particular genre of photography. You're right, which makes that condition no less pitiful. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't feel true passion for a hobby or profession they've committed to. And I simply reject the notion that people can be equally committed to all genres. There's something that gets under your skin; that speaks to you; that inspires you to do things you'd never consider for another endeavor. If that's missing from your life, I pity you. It's magical.

Finally, PhotoKhan, I'm the first to acknowledge neither you nor anybody else should feel any obligation to like my photographic work. That goes hand-in-hand with the fact I don't give a damn if you or anybody else likes my work. What I do with a camera, I do for me and only me.

That's why these gimmicky f/11 primes hold so little interest for me. I'm up at 4;00 AM when it's pitch dark; parking at 4:30 AM when it's still dark; Walking across an open field under starlight to be set up at the edge of the forest at 5:00 AM when only photographers and people with troubled consciences are awake. I've done that a hundred times over the last four years because of a deep belief that one of those mornings would deliver an opportunity like this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64238845

if you don't like my work, that's your right and privilege. If you don' like that photo, you can't call yourself a wildlife photographer. You've no idea what it means to be a wildlife photographer.

The canon f4 option for 500mm runs $9000. Nikon is 10, and their 5.6 option is still upper 3s. Sony is 12. On serious 3rd party side, Sigma is 5-6.

Let's not pretend the lens is for the same market. Or that there is an f4/ 800mm from Canon or Nikon. You can pay 13 or 16k for 5.6 lenses that weigh 10lbs each.

And the RP isn't weatherproof, has no IBIS, and isn't particularly awesome in the DR department.

A more fair comparison would be to the R6, which has the same 20mp resolution.

Mr. Bolton is a wiseman. I fully agree with his comments vs M4/3. I'm a G9 shooter with an affordable 100-300mm (200-600mm) lens that gives me exactly what i want at a very reasonable price. But...we must also admit that for all FF shooters on a budget, this lens is quite interesting and a good compromise.

No one is going to pair these lenses with an R5 in the field. These go with the RP.

@entoman: Making fun of Tony Northrup's abuse of bokeh with his F1.2 L lens.

@Bolton it's sort of silly to use a dedicated video camera comparison in a wildlife stills context.

Obviously resolution is great for wildlife, as you're always going to want to crop in for a bit more reach...

Brent - Yes, I wouldn't want to go lower than 30MP for wildlife. Not just for the extra reach, but because wildlife is usually moving, often unpredictably. So it can be difficult to compose accurately in camera, and a certain amount of cropping and horizon-levelling in usually necessary in post.

It's very much a balancing act though, between MP and noise. Once you get above 30MP the noise levels can be high enough to negate the advantage of extra resolution. Especially when using the high ISO settings that are often required for low light wildlife photography.

However, looking at the studio comparison test, with image size set to comparison mode, the 20MP sensor from the R6 actually looks sharper than the 30MP of the R.

contradictio in terminis.

First you say it is not for wildlife to then say it is for wildlife...

Choice is good right?

This means the lens is more suitable for the R6 than for the R5... ;)

What do you usually shoot at ISO 10,000 in daytime?

Lovely real estate shots at 10000 iso

Pandemics like this happen every so often. The last one was 100 years ago in the US. This too will pass. Your comment makes for a great sci fi movie though. :)

Shame on the photographer if they are doing focus/recompose in 2020.

And on an R5??? If this camera can't focus well enough, then Canon has much bigger problems than a soft 800 f/11 lens design.

Uh... the camera is supposed to lock onto focus!

I'm not so sure it is non sense. What he suggests is that semi pro people won't buy this f11 because of its limitations and I agree. I also agree on the fact that people who buy a R5 can afford a better and more flexible lens, other wise it is non sense to buy a R5 but not non sense to buy a more affordable body with a more flexible lens. An amateur don't care about 45 mp and t his is even a problem for post-production (heavy files), for him 20 mp are more than enough.

Thank you for the "non-sense" compliment.
I was commenting from years of experience of wildlife photography.
The other experience in printing enlarged photographs, taught me that mega pixel are secondary to lens quality, especially in comparison to lens edge to edge quality. Actual enlargement of photographs on paper shows that lens quality is first visible, pixel count (lack of) , being homogeneous, isn't as eye catching as lens quality. Believe what you like, my comment is from actually taking photographs in the field and printing hundreds of photographs on physical media, up to 60" wide.

P.S.: it's interesting to read people judging other's comments as non sense without any clue who is the background of the person writing a comment.

LOL. That Panasonic lens is twice as expensive and then you also have to buy a good m43 camera. This lens is the budget alternative to all that, which is the point of it.

I really doubt that MFT can keep up with the high ISO behavior of the R5. Just look at studio tests for MFT.

1) Panasonic lens is twice the price: it cover both 600 f11 and 800 f11
2) With MFT you don't need such high iso, because the MTF glass is two stops faster, that means you get two stop better dynamic range / tone gradation.

Comments prove lack of knowledge.

"because the MTF glass is two stops faster, that means you get two stop better dynamic range / tone gradation." The glass is faster -but the sensor is much less sensitive.. You can't ignore the laws of physics. I suspect the result will be similar.

Think you'd be better off comparing images than nerd-talk. I guess we'll see how you get on with the 100-600 in your gallery.

M43 absolutely is flexible. Quite a few pro portrait shooters active in the m43 forum. I've done a few successful portrait shoots myself, including a bunch of LinkedIn profile headshots using a tiny GM5. Easy.