Why? I think most of the people complaining thought about their DSLR not AF at high F, or only focusing on a single point in the middle, but seems nobody has thought about the mirrorless AF being able to do magic on almost full frame coverage, not only the center. I'm using shitty EF lenses with the EF Extender 2x III, at 32F and they still work amazingly on the R, I cannot imagine a RF new lens with a brand new R camera would look bad at all.
Yea I kinda did... I just ordered a sigma 150-600 contemporary, I'm waiting for it to be delivered. I still have my EOS 77d aps-c so I figured I could use that for even more reach, and use it with an adapter on my EOS R. How does the image quality compare between the Sigma zoom and Canon lenses? Did I make a mistake?
@@vaibhavpisal I would say, there is a slight improvement in IQ and it does focus faster, and it is a lot lighter (same size though), I attribute those to it being a prime (less glass to move around)and being newer tech. but the difference is so negligible. Sigma did a really good job with that 150-600, it has never failed me. If I had to choose only 1, I would take the 150-600, but having both gives a great long range, but you cant beat 600@6.3.
Is it a clickbait? They are unusefully difficult to shoot with. F11 (WHY) so super-duper ISO or long exposures (that cannot be used with a fast subject).
I really dont like this dude i mean im not hating on him or anything i just simply dont like him but this clickbait titles always get me to watch his videos ugh
B Roli why would he be ripping off people? If he thinks they are worth the money he listed them for, then they are worth that. If you dont think they are worth the money just dont buy them then. Its easy.
@@rokjazbec9804 I bought it (Stupid as I am) and you could find same tips and tricks on RUclips... For free. I learned more from RUclips. On the other hand I could see it be helpfull for somebody but if you're not happy you will get you money back as I did. So I wouldn't call it a scam really.
I've lugged an EF600 f/4.0L IS on a Gitzo and Wimberly for several years, and an ED800mm f/5.6 Nikkor before that. There are some pretty severe restrictions coming from the lack of mobility such behemoths impose. My 800 arrives on Friday and I am looking forward to it. I am not so naive as to expect it can do everything the big lenses can do as the laws of optics preclude that. But I expect a lot of fun with this lens. I won't be too quick to get a 1.4x or 2x onto it though. That just seems "a bridge too far" for an already glacially slow lens.
It should do well for stationary wildlife. But as soon there is movement involved, especially fast movement, than you might be in trouble with the new 800/f11.
Did you notice ISO1600 though in the bright midday sun? Besides the background blur issue, which can be solved sometimes, I’m most concerned with the light gathering or non gathering and slow AF. I admit like Jared the 800mm is great for beginners or someone into birding that’s not into photography as much. There are practical uses for this, one is Astro, like moon pictures, etc. However I think Canon really needs a lens similar to the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF, which with 1.4x tc is a 700mm f8, that’s very useable in more scenarios. Plus the AF is so much faster on the 500PF, granted it’s much more expensive though. If this 800mm f11 was more expensive than we could all laugh and make fun of it, but honestly for the money it’s pretty awesome, if it’s for you or for your use case you have in mind!
@@peterebel7899 Not sure. But I guess panning with a such a long tele is difficult and warrants a great deal of experience, and thus, probably not in the league for customers who this lens are intended for.
blackcoffee absolutely useless for any serious armature to pro. If you are a casual shooter that just wants some snapshots... perfect. Probably shoulda just made it a zoom. 400-800 f8-f11
@@Jessehermansonphotography I'm an amateur that does around 6 or 7 hours photographing birds a week. I just ordered an 800. These lenses will be great for filming wildlife as you use a slower shutter when filming. Also, the focus on these will be better than adapted EF lenses.
@@laeicawezlar4417 not really at 800mm. I film wildlife all the time. Yes, of course a wider aperture is nice but an f4 800mm lens will cost you 20 grand. I'm discussing shooting with low iso not really talking about dof here.
I have the 800 5.6L, and it has surprised me how useful that lens is. But I will remember the pain of paying for it until I die. These small lenses are interesting because they are easy to transport, plus people might not ask for a permit to use it. But f5.6 is already slow. Wildlife is often in the dim forest, and news often happens at night. F11 is simply too slow for anything except bright sunlight. Saving a truckload of money is brilliant, but if there is not enough light to get the photos or video, even a low price is too much.
I think you would be shocked by the image quality of these lenses. I have used the third party 150-600 lenses and I would say the image quality is preferable. Not as good as the 400 f5.6 but IS makes it close. For birding with the R5 you can get a good result.
@@ThreeCeeProductions I got sick of waiting for Canon to introduce a mirrorless camera, and sold my 800 5.6, and my 400 2.8, and bought into MFT. I did keep the EF 180 3.5 Macro which works great on a speedbooster and for bright light, I am very pleased with the Olympus 100-400. We are very fortunate that the mirrorless revolution has lead to the development of fabulous lenses from most manufacturers.
For me, this is what I thought mirrorless was about when it started to make itself known: compact gear with greatly reduced weight. Nice to see an OEM full frame camera company leading the way.
@@lukegardiner6926 F11 lenses are not really possible with DSLR's because they need a wider aperture to find focus. The ability to make F11 lenses is not an RF exclusive, but a mirrorless exclusive.
@@lukegardiner6926 They were designed to be used with their mirrorless cameras not their DSLR line. F 11 allows the lens to be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than any telephoto they have designed for DSLRs. Perfect for their new cameras!
@@shaolin95 I love how people communicate so aggressively online. 'You thought wrong!' 🤣 Thanks for your positive vibes! If you look at what people said about mirrorless then and say about it now you will find a lot of people saying they love the lighter weight of their mirrorless gear. Many choose mirrorless for this very reason. At least I am not alone in being wrong!
these lenses seems like the perfect pair for surfing or kitesurfing, usually done in bright sunlight and far enough to warrant an 600 or 800mm lens with teleconverter
Surf photographer here, maybe during overcast days it'll be less that ideal, but usually shooting at f/5.6-f/8 at ISO 200 and well over 1/3200 of a sec on sunny days, f11 won't be that much of a problem
As a wildlife photographer, I can absolutely tell it’s at F11 or at least I can see the separation is not all that great. It is good separation for who it is aimed at.
I bought this lens (the 800mm). Its actually a really good lens. F11 is f11, but I can handhold a 1/160 second handheld with an EOS R (no IBIS). The lens stabilization is amazing, and I bet with the R5 or R6 IBIS, you could handhold some amazing shots (asuming your subject doesn't move).
I agree it works great for stationary subjects but your last remark is very important! I was photographing ducks swimming yesterday at around 1/400, and the stabilization appeared to be introducing motion blur. Perhaps I need to get used to how to pan this lens (it's about 40% lighter than my Tamron 150-600 G2 despite being similarly-sized) but it doesn't look like there's panning detection built in to the stabilization (or you have to pan fast enough for it to work).
Jared something for future consideration for these lenses as there is a huge *gotcha* lurking at super long focal lengths. You don't usually shoot wildlife so it's probably not something you've run into. In the zoo - this is not going to be an issue. If you're actually photographing wildlife for real, in the field - especially wildlife that wants nothing to do with humans - then it becomes a huge issue: *Atmospheric distortion* aka *Heat Haze* Shooting at f/11 you need gobs of sunlight to make it work. Gobs of sunlight hanging off the end of 800+mm or 1600mm means absolutely monstrous amounts of heat haze happening in your images, especially their backgrounds if you're shooting out over wide open spaces. I have so many *amazing* shots that have subjects in sharp focus and filling the frame (relatively close actually), but they have absolutely *hideous* backgrounds. It's like those backgrounds are covered in a layer of Vaseline they're so bad. If your subject is 30 meters away and nicely filling your frame at 800+mm but your background is hundreds of meters or even miles away... you're gonna have a bad day at f/11. This combination of relatively close subject and super distant background happens more often than you might realize - especially shore mammals and birds, or raptors hunting over large fields or lakes. The subject is very close but the background is literally miles away -- and so warped in your frame as to make your foreground subject pointless.
@@serioussam909 No, not really - since you don't need anywhere near as much light you can shoot golden hour, winter, overcast etc and still have acceptable shutter speeds and ISOs. More importantly at the wider apertures the backgrounds blow out much more thoroughly. The problem with f/11 is they don't really do that.
@@serioussam909 Follow up - representative sample of the problem. 840mm (600 + 1.4x TC) at f/11 -- mid summer. I had been shooting all morning and it steadily warmed up to the point that things like this started happening... i.imgur.com/eVFyj2l.jpg
Having f11 can be a plus. Since you’re usually far away on small birds having more depth of field will help assure bird focus and give a more realistic fade from sharp to blurred in a 3D appearance. I have canon primes and the new RF and all have their place. Cost vs function winner!
Question: with 600mm F11 on a full frame R6, What would make that any better than my 1 inch Rx10's 600mm F4? F4 on 1 inch is basically F11 Bokeh with F4 light reception
This is the review I needed! A field work of the lenses! I’m an amateur with a new RP and a 35mm who is gonna make a safari (if COVID let us...). I looked for a telephoto and before buying the rp, the idea to reach a lion in a safari was economically impossible. But with the rf mount and these lenses, it is absolutely possible. I’m not a pro, so I only want conserve memories of my travel! Not wining a contest! Thanks Jared!! Love your reviews sight!
As always, another great video. However, there is one correction I would like to offer. When shooting long in astrophotography using a tripod and remote shutter release, it is best to turn OFF image stabilization. Often the "stabilization" will INTRODUCE camera shake into the photo.
The FF 800 f/11 lens is equivalent to an MFT 400mm f/5.6... which any MFT shooter will tell you does produce decent bokeh, and with good IBIS and a lower shutter speed can produce good results. Note that since the FF lens is 2 stops slower than the MFT, the light (photons) captured is the same for both despite the 4x larger FF area, and you will need 2x higher ISO for the FF so same noise for both.
Canon knows that most users are coming from APS-C and that the higher ISO and AF ability offset the dim lens, and terms of depth of field, you're getting about the same as an f8 lens mounted on an APS-C body.
I think we should also consider that these are made for the R series cameras which have amazing ISO performance. Yes, traditionally we don't want to increase the ISO in yesteryears, but the improvements in ISO performance has made it possible to push it up at these F numbers and still not have it negatively affect the image.
I’ve got the RP and the R10, up from the 6D and SL3. The ISO seems a little better but I still don’t like the noise over 1000 ISO and if I need to lift shadows anything over 600 gets pretty noisy. I’m doing okay with the 100-400 but that’s f8. I’m curious about these lenses but don’t think I’d ever bite the bullet at f11. I see some people getting awesome images though. I mean people put doubles on f7.1 so…
Jared : your content is amazing at talking about real world situations, with the camera settings you’re likely to encounter, AND then results you would get. In other words, you teach WHILE you review. You’re showing us all the WHY things are important factors to consider. Great work! Thank you for making files available too! 👏👏👏
I like the review. I own both and they are great for birding. You wouldn’t expect the $13.000.00 EF600 f4 image quality at this price. Especially good for waterfowl where usually can’t get too close. It’s getting harder to sell bird pix so the quality is good enough to capture your bird list for the day.
There's no Olympus 400mm f5.6, the new zoom is 6.3 at 400mm and i have no interest as they didn't incorporate sync IS. (even if they did the Panasonic 100-400 looks sharper at 400mm according to ephotozine test) The 300mm f4 pro with 1.4x tc will give 420mm f5.6. Many reviewers have trashed m43 for their lack of ability to isolate subjects like a full frame system can with 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6. but now canon comes out with f11 lenses that will give the same equivalency and its awesome.
thats cool. can u do a test for me please? can u test an see if the new rf extenders and the rf to ef adaptor can work together. wanna see if its worth getting to extend the range of my sigma ef 150to 600mm lens. dont wanna lose that zoom feature with the rf600 an 800 lenses?
@@fromthesidelines1453 Or RF to EF Adapter and the use the Sigma EF 2x teleconverter with the 150-600 so the teleconverter and lens are from the same system. I haven't tried this myself.
@@brendanfarthing just wanted to know if it can be used with the adaptor. everyone cant give me a straight yes or no and that they have tried it. not looking to buy anymore ef products. guess ill have 2 wait for sigma an tamron to come out with there new rf zoom telephoto.
I enjoys walking with R7 and 800mm f11. It feel so satisfying to have 1280mm hand held that focuses like lightning to your subject. Just need to chose bright morning or bright evening for superb shots. Sadly i must say that this lens is not for clody days unless you want to turn ISO to 1600 and beyond. At good days i hardly turn ISO over 500. 1280mm hand held that is usable. Think about that. Little tip if you like to shoot with auto ISO set maximum ISO to 100-1600 or lower for this lens and keep shutter speed at 1/400 or higher.
I think the zoo is a bad usecase to test a lens like this, because light is not a big issue there. The lens is marketed for wildlife photography and thats my biggest gripe with it. Most wildlife is crepuscular which means shooting with f/11 is going to be a huge challenge. I use a 600mm f/6.3 for wildlife and I already need to push my shutter and iso to uncomfortable values.
@@edrader If light is the biggest weakness of a lens, then ofcourse that is the thing that is most interesting to push to the limits in a review. Especially since canon markets this lens as a wildlife lens which in my opinion is very dishonest and misleading. As Jared explained there are purposes for a lens like this, but wildlife isnt one of them.
@@edrader Im sure its fine for shooting the moon but youre avoiding my point. Canon put this as a wildlife lens, and that is misleading and dishonest. Nobody is expecting a compact 800mm that can do everything well, but Canon should also be a bit more straight forward about the limits of this lens. Especially since there are more options at that pricepoint. At the same price there is the tamron and sigma zooms, so canons marketing might push people to make a wrong decision. Ps, do people really enjoy shooting the moon enough to put down 1k+ on a lens? I mean the moon is pretty static, so doesnt it get stale after a few shoots? Im not meaning to critize anyone elses interest, just genuinly wondering if that niche is big enough for people to invest in it.
At 13:27 mark how do you set up large zone AF with continuous eye tracking like that? On my R6 the eye tracking is only available as the first AF method (face/object tracking) with the single 1 point. If I change the AF method to zone I cannot use eye AF.
Hi Jared, very entertaining review as always. I think for most Canon bird/wildlife photographers - the key comparison - and one I would certainly be interested in is between the 600 or 800 f11 + Eos R5 - and the Canon 100-400 II (with / without 1.4 extender III) and the 5D IV. This is nearer to the weight and cost of the new Eos R combo and what I take out for hikes when I can't face carrying my 600 F4 II. Any purchasing decision for me at least will be based on seeing wildlife / bird photographers doing this comparison - for perched and in flight birds. Keep up the good work!
One thing worth pointing out is that an f11 with AF was only really made possible by mirrorless cameras. Because of the geometry of phase detect AF on a DSLR, it's pretty will impossible to get it working at such narrow apertures. I should add, before somebody else points it out, it might be made to work on a DSLR with live-view, but then it's really acting like a mirrorless camera in that mode. In any event, the results were impressive and, whilst in theory, they should be diffraction limited at f11, the detail looked very good.
Damn brother! That 800 mm lens shot of the flamingos creating a heart shape was a great capture! Btw, you absolutely rock for sharing raw files! They so help as i learn from you and enter into learning some editing!
600mm F11 on a full frame R6? What would make that any better than my 1 inch Rx10's 600mm F4? F4 on 1 inch is basically F11 Bokeh with F4 light reception.
Hey Jared, thanks for the awesome review. I currently have an Eos R with ver.8 update. Do you think the 800 will work on it or is still limited to R5,6 & 3..(?).
I think they are a great idea, if someone wants to be able, the key word is ABLE, to be more versatile. Let’s say their work is primarily close range photography (portrait, event, wedding), BUT they want to go out birding or put a 600 in their bag for a boating trip, whale watching, it’s AFFORDABLE and you won’t feel bad buying it and letting it sit or not really make you money. After I get the trinity lenses for my R5, I think I might get one of these just for the occasional outing, at less than $1,000, think about bringing it on an Alaskan cruise, or to a national park. You wouldn’t want to bring a big 600 or 800 with you.
These lens are great for birders that don't need the highest quality image. They need "ok" photo for Identification. For serious and pro bird/wildlife photographers, we are waiting for RF 600 f/4 or RF 500 f/4.
that's not true, it has limitations in low light because of F11 but image quality is great when you have good condition, watch a dedicated review by Jan Wegner or Duade Paton, all they do is bird photography and people can adapt their existing EF glass to these cameras so i don't think so you will ever see RF F4 in 500-600 mm range
I saw and tested the RF 600 in a store, and despite not having a direct comparison, as i bought a RF 800 2nd hand... wow! 600mm vs 800mm isnt probably as big of a difference as the RF 600 vs 800 size, but the 800s reach is too nice for wildlife. I thought about a sigma or tamron 150-600mm, the RF 600 or RF 800 (anything else with that supertele range was too expensive and too heavy) Whats really annoying, the missing lens hood and tripod mount. Cost additionally around 80$+ together, luckily at least the lens hood was already with the 2nd hand 800 F11 i bought at least, but after just 1 week of using i knew: IT NEEDS A HANDLE if you are often just walking around with a single hand holding the lens comfortable. I love the lens - and i found out - the 26MP of my RP are more of a problem than the lenses performance when it comes to cropping which i have to do a lot, but thats good - headroom of the lens for a R5 or even R3 upgrade anytime in years.
I'm a birder and shoot mostly in the early morning & late afternoon so f11 would be totally useless to me. I hope canon comes out with a 600mm 5.6 DO like the Nikon 500mm 5.6 prime, that would be awesome.
With the 800mm EF f5/6 and 1.4x the 1Dx Mark II is only able to use the center focus points. Also, the 800mm with the 2x extender won't autofocus at all. I would like to know if these lenses with both of these extenders will autofocus with the entire field of view.
Sorry. I have used the EF800mm f/5.6 with thboth the Ef 1.4x and EF 2x. The 1.4 was really good, but the 2x starts to lose sharpness, but it's still doable. More of an issue becomes air quality. Heat shimmer can give you issues. Turn off the IS. I know you'll be on a tripod.
Nice video Jared I’d like to know how these compare with an EF400mm f/5.6 plus teleconverters as I have this lens and the 1.4x and 2x EF mark ii teleconverters (which can be stacked to give 2.8x) I also have an old EF300mm f/2.8 non is and would like to know how well these lenses work with the R5 and R6 I’m also keen to see a comparison between the new RF100-500 zoom and the EF100-400 I’m thinking about upgrading to one of these cameras from my 7D mark ii so would like to know how they compare but also concerned about losing the 1.6x crop as I shoot birds and you can always do with more reach Thanks Noel
@Mark Cooper Yes but the R5 is extremely expensive and has a lot of bullshit video features I will never use , the rumoured R7 would be hopefully more sensibly priced
Great review! The explanation using the exposure triangle really helped in understanding the context and setting the expectations! Having already owned a 100-400 Canon Lens and after buying the Canon EOS R6 recently, I am thinking of going for the 800 mm RF lens.
i was thinking about the 600mm for planes over my house and at a distance on their approaches to JFK. i was looking at the SIgma 150-600mm aswell but id need to use the RF to EF mount like i already do with the planes over my house. will the sigma 150-600mm with the adapter lose any features than with an EF mount? i got another camera with an EF mount already so it wouldnt be an issue since that lens is staying at my house
Good review - I think you are spot on. Having recently spent two weeks in an African game park with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 and a 1.4TC most shots are at 700mm but motion blur is a problem because you need to be 1/1200 or faster most of the time - unless the animals are sleeping during midday heat - and then you have to deal with heat haze. That becomes a challenge in early morning late afternoon when there is more activity so iso will be way up. I now have the 500PF 5.6 which is sharper across the frame, seems to suffer very little degradation with the 1.4TC and appears to let a bit more light in - sadly no chance of getting back to Africa any time soon it seems. Having said that you absolutely must have a long lens at a game park if you want to come away with any decent memories. The big action is almost aways a long way off, and small action (snakes, birds, meerkat) can be quite close but to fill the frame you still need at least 400mm. So while the 200-500 gives a bit more flexibility I would rather have tack sharp images across the frame that you get from a prime. So my setup for travelling is D850 with the 500PF + TC1.4 and Z6 with a 70-200 f2.8 + TC2 for when things are closer or when you need a wider frame and for video. I can just get all that in hand luggage if batteries, chargers etc go in check-in luggage. One other consideration, which is a bit of a show stopper on mirrorless is blackout when shooting action. I find it’s almost impossible to shoot action where following the subject is required without losing the subject because of viewfinder blackout/lag on the Z6. Don’t know if that’s also a problem with Canon and Sony mirrorless. Can’t see these lenses being useful for tracking moving subjects though - shutter speed will need to be 1/2000 or higher and at f11 I think iso will be too high to get good quality images. Personally I would think the Sigma or Tamron 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 might be a better option. In the Nikon world the 200-500 or the 500PF but that’s becoming pricy too.
I have got it today as I may have a short safari in Kenya at the end of the month and I don't know if I can bring the 500 f/4 L IS II let see. Curious what will be the outcome. I think for handheld will be great, but needs a lot of light.
Holy shit! Those are freaky ultra mega sharp pictures and for that ISO it is almost noise free. I am so getting the R5 and maybe even the 800, it will be great for my "steel birds" photography on air shows. Great review as always Jared, thanks. Btw, those flamingos and eagle details are amazing, excellent shot.
I think you would have a hard time finding airplanes with an 800mm lens and keeping them in frame. I shoot a 150-600mm Sigma Sport and I miss some shots at 600 because the tail is cut off or too high or low in the frame. Most of my shots are in the 300-500 mm range but having the 600 available with the twist of the lens is good for planes far away. You also run into the problem of it is too close to get the whole plane in the picture. A fighter will be fine but when the C-5 lands you will just get pictures of the front of the cockpit area. I carry two bodies one with an 18-400 mm and another with 150-600mm. The 18-400 is good for ground shots or planes taxing and the 150 - 600 mm is great for flying shots. I think the new 100-500 RF lens for $2600 might be a good airshow lens. It is a lot of money but 100-400 mm II EF lens is around $2000 for old technology.
Keith good point! It might be a but too much, I completely agree. I was shooting with 70-200 until now and most of the shots are fine, maybe with some small crop. I just remembered how guy standing next to me with 150-600 could get much better framing and I got carried away by Jared’s review, because I didn’t expect it to be so good. Steel birds are in fact too big :) but it still seems to be a great lens if used properly.
I was very skeptical about the 800mm f11, but it turned out I really like it. It is not perfect, but it is inexpensive, compact, lightweight, and has quite good image quality. It is a big change from my 300-800mm f5.6 "Sigzilla" which is massively heavy and needs a heavy tripod and heavy gimbal to use. And the Sigzilla is never gets to go on a plane with me.
Jared: your videos are awesome. I picked my first camera about 8 years ago because of your channel, and HERE I STILL AM learning from you. I hope we get to connect one day and talk about cameras!
If you have a Mac or an iOS device, you have the ability to natively view Canon’s Camera Raw 3 (.CR3) files in any app that supports images (including Files/Finder and Photos/Photos). It’s just Android and Windows that lack it, although Microsoft’s free Raw Image Extension (Microsoft Store) gives that ability to Windows too. So it’s just Android without a native viewer.
I agree.. It is a crying shame that MFT seems to be misunderstood. Particularly irksome to me is where it is put down (especially on some RUclips channels and one in particular), when MFT has clear advantages for many photographers.
just got an eos rebel sl3 and the 600mm f11 thinking they were compatible. is there anyway of putting them together or is it better to get an r5 or r6?
These are actually very smart lenses. A lot of wildlife photographers always shoot at f11-16 if there's enough light to get a bit more depth of field, which is very thin at 600 or 800mm. So if these are actually sharp, which seems to be, I'm sure even a lot of professional photographers will pick those up, 3.5kg less on the bag is a big deal.
I've owned "big glass," an ED800 f/5.6 Nikkor and an EF600 f/4.0L IS for a total of about 15 years. The RF800 is amazing. Just as sharp as my big lenses! Yes, that was an oh-so-pleasant surprise. And so much easier to use it's uncanny! Of course, it goes without saying that f/11 is f/11 and that imposes some restrictions. As Jared stresses, do NOT allow the camera to decide it should be shooting at 1/1000 and ISO 12800! It WILL try to do that, if you allow it. The IS is plenty good enough to shoot at 1/160 . . . even slower if the subject allows it. Do not listen to anyone trashing these lenses. Almost certainly they have neither one of them, and likely not a "Big White" to compare them with either.
I set a shutter speed I think I need, The f/11 is constant, and I set the control ring to ISO. I adjust the ISO to get the right exposure keeping an eye on any really excessive ISOs like over 6400. The R% is really good at ISOs to 6400.
So these lenses are sharper at 600mm than a Sigma/Tamron 150-600, correct? But...if a person DOES need to freeze action, does the increased ISO these lenses need to freeze action, (one and 2/3rd's stops) hurt the image more than the decreased sharpness of a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 at a lower ISO?
There is a nice programm which you can use to enlarge the picture to higher mp counts and than crop it....and in the beginning i thought it will not work but the results are way better than expected.
Cool review. It's a bit like my old Tamron 500 mirror lens: Everyone tells you those things are unsharp and crappy, but if you *exactly* know what you're doing, they are very capable!! Still it's a bit of a weird strategy, I think a 400/5.6 (with 2x converter you'd still get a 800/11 ...) would have been much more versatile. Also I don't like the HUGE minimum focus distance. Ok for big birds but if you'd chase smaller animals it can become a problem.
@@petercreagh8797 Do able with some practice and skill. I've seen people use the current 600mm and 800mm primes and Canon's 200-400 with the 2x TC with great results. Obviously, these guys are setting up these lens up on tripods, or if they are really strong, they are hand holding them carefully.
@@robertmodalo8086 it would be much more hand holdable and lighter than the existing 600mm and 800mm lenses, and since most air shows are done in bright sunlight, a f/11 aperture won't matter too much.
These are great lenses for the price, people just have to understand what they do - they are the first budget option for a lens longer than 300mm (besides bad mirror lenses). Just don't expect a 1k lens to behave like 14k pro lenses...
better then this ,,other options like sigma contempreory 150-600 and tamron 150-600..atleast we get f6.3 lowest f stop..no need to compensate with high iso...i knw these lenses are not better then canon or nikon lense in this segment but not bad at all in their price range....
If you do the maths it is easy to see why these lenses still have good separation. An 800mm f/11 will give the same separation at the same distance as a 400mm f/5.6, a 200mm f/2.8, a 100mm f/1.4 or a 50mm f/0.70. And those last two would be the most amazing portrait lenses.
Sorry, didn't read all the comments. What about using the lenses with an APS-C body? You would keep the f11 and gain 1,6x in focal length. Any downsides?
Hey.. Can you please tell me this Rf11 600mm is good for shooting the sports event or fast moving objects? Like surfing or racing games sometimes like that. And is it compatible for Canon D1500? Or do i have to use the connector? Thank you for your help Cheers 🤙🏾
I’m surprised at how good everything looked. But Canon has always excelled at tele’s. The fact that they gave no diaphragm, and so are always f11, allowed Canon to spend. More money on the optics, and to also make a lens that’s diffraction limited just below that actual f stop, ensuring the highest possible quality. I’m planning on buying an R5 once the second batch comes out in November, and the 800 will be on my short list.
Summary: Nice lenses & image quality for the money, when you need to cover distance on subjects that can't be moving any faster than a tired sloth 😉🤷🏻♂️
kinda wondered... is your background a blurred poster or a blurred photo of your drawer of cameras and jst made it your background for this video? kind of an odd question but jst ive always been curious how you and your table is so nicely separated
Jared is a bit of an acquired taste. Very obvious personality traits that could prove grating, unless they’re a manufactured persona for the channel? But he’s growing on me. Despite constantly pushing his Fropak stuff, does anybody actually purchase those?
I wouldnt recommend anyone those tbh. Too niche of lenses. Im a full time birder but still I would need those only less than 10% of the time I do birding. 1. My Location is not Australia or Florida where its super bright most of the time. 2. The 19 foot MFD is too much. 3. My 400mm is often limiting because of the fixed focal length. Cant imagine it being 800mm. 4. I like my photos sharp and birds are always moving. Need 1/800 or more shutter all the time. 1/320 etc at iso 12800 most of the time will not just cut it. IBIS only reduces my shakes, not the bird's. Fantastic choices for Star/Planet/Galaxy spotters btw. Plus potentially very good for Shore bird shooter. Not for Small forest birds/warblers etc.
Not so good for astropics, either...too slow and narrow FoV means you're exposures need to be long to gather enough light. No good for extended objects like nebulae and star clouds. No good for most galaxies and other objects, as well. Too dim. They'll be OK for planetary work, though the lenses won't have enough reach to give you good image scale. You'll have OK images, but nothing like you'll get with a proper scope. An 8" SCT with a x3 or larger barlow lens and a small chip camera like a 290MC/MM will blow these lenses (and cameras) out of the water, naturally, for planetary work. No more need be said for other types of astropics. If I were going to use either of them for astropics, I'd stick to the 600mm lens and no teleconverter. Unless I was doing planetary, then I'd use the 800mm and x2 teleconverter, which acts just like a barlow. But, in all honesty, I'd forget both of them. As expensive as it is, I'd rather the 800mm f/5.6 L series lens. But, for $13K, I'd buy a scope instead. The moral of this story is you're better off buying a scope :)
These are good, affordable lenses for shooters who know WTF they're doing. Tyros should stay away. I'm a birder. The 800mm is definitely on my radar. Also, the flamingo chick was sitting on its heels (what most people mistake for backwards-pointing knees). Its legs are actually quite long. We know you're not a birder. Or a mathematician. No worries.
No doubt they are for birders and I am a birder. But, here is the thing, say if you are coming off from an APS-C body paired up with one of the super zooms such as a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm, even with the 800mm f/11 you would be losing reach because you would have been shooting at a max focal length of 960mm previously already. That means you would have to use a teleconverter in order to get even further reach for you which is far from ideal for such a lens as the ISO would be too high to cause noise. In my opinion, the most ideal body for these lenses would be an APS-C mirrorless body, although there have been rumours Canon might make a high-end APS-C RF mount body, right now such a body doesn't exist and if I am not wrong RF mount lenses cannot be adapted. However, if you have been shooting full frame all along and haven't or are not planning to pull the pin on a 800mm f/5.6 $13K huge prime, then I can see the 800mm f/11 giving you a bit of fun.
"800mm at f11? will everything be sharp?" You can tell Jared Polin rarely shot with crop sensor cameras with this review. I remember first shooting with a cheap telephoto zoom with m43 just at equivalent 300mm (150mm) and equivalent f11 (f5.6) and was impressed by the subject separation achieved.
Great review!! You sold me...I had tried the 600 MM on foxes in the wild...and I like to give them space. My pictures I think are quite excellent on a sunny day and based on your review I will be purchasing the 600! I was a little nervous when I read your title because it sounded negative but the review summarized my thoughts and clarified usage. Thanks again Jared for your amazing explanations and reviews.
Honestly, I get that f/11 might give you decent results if you have decent light, but quite often, I find myself in situations where I can hardly get a decent picture, with much brighter lenses. F.e. a kingfisher sitting on a branch in the dark shadow. Even at f/4, I had to use a really slow shutter speed to get a decent picture noise-wise. Is the IBIS + Lens IS seriously so good, that you can take pictures with a 600mm for 0"3sec exposures handheld?
RAW of the gorilla image is exceptionally good in terms of image quality, I am impressed, my journey to acquire this lens is officially started. BTW: Canon has durable shoulder bags for cheap.
Sigma 150-600 is probably the main contender for a bit more money. It is faster and a zoom. I've yet to heat anybody compare the quality. The Canon zooms are a lot more expensive.
@@RichFreeman For reference it's a 150-600 5-6.3, and does have IS (OS). It's much heavier (4.25 lbs). I'm seeing prices under $900 with discounts. 1 2/3 stop faster, but probably lower IQ since it's a zoom. At that price it makes these a tougher sell unless you really need the smaller size/weight or the 800mm.
@@fwiffo yeah. I've yet to see an IQ comparison. The prime could be better, but I wouldn't assume that it is better. The zoom also isn't fixed aperture which adds some versatility.
They're priced rather for buyers of the R6 and older R or RP with stable hands or a tripod, while the L lenses that came out back then are priced for the R5 audience :) That said, they do great on an R5. Those bird shots are stunning.
Mr. Fro - These are photo lenses but think spotting scopes and digiscoping! Most birders are 50+ years and some can afford to stomp around all day in the tropics with binoculars, camera and 800mm lens, and teleconverter. So light weight + high magnification is deal. Adding autofocus and IS to a spotting scope is a very, very big jump in birding/wildlife. Thanks - A Birder.
Did anyone expect these lenses to SUCK super hard like I did?
yeh
any free used camera :/
Why? I think most of the people complaining thought about their DSLR not AF at high F, or only focusing on a single point in the middle, but seems nobody has thought about the mirrorless AF being able to do magic on almost full frame coverage, not only the center. I'm using shitty EF lenses with the EF Extender 2x III, at 32F and they still work amazingly on the R, I cannot imagine a RF new lens with a brand new R camera would look bad at all.
Yea I kinda did... I just ordered a sigma 150-600 contemporary, I'm waiting for it to be delivered. I still have my EOS 77d aps-c so I figured I could use that for even more reach, and use it with an adapter on my EOS R. How does the image quality compare between the Sigma zoom and Canon lenses? Did I make a mistake?
i agree on liking the 800 better, i think it would be a great affordable lens addition.
I bought an 800, and use it on an R. Works great and focuses well. I have a sigma 150-600, but the 800 is so light and compact. I love it so far.
Does it produce better results as it's a prime?
@@vaibhavpisal I would say, there is a slight improvement in IQ and it does focus faster, and it is a lot lighter (same size though), I attribute those to it being a prime (less glass to move around)and being newer tech. but the difference is so negligible. Sigma did a really good job with that 150-600, it has never failed me. If I had to choose only 1, I would take the 150-600, but having both gives a great long range, but you cant beat 600@6.3.
@@rjgmedia6298 How good is Animal Eye AF tracking on the 150-600? I assume this is an EF adapted to RF, right?
I would laugh at you if I saw you with that lens.
frostybe3r well then your an idiot who doesn’t know anything about photography.
Man, you do not need this idiotic clickbait title, you already a successful RUclipsr.
Is it a clickbait? They are unusefully difficult to shoot with. F11 (WHY) so super-duper ISO or long exposures (that cannot be used with a fast subject).
I really dont like this dude i mean im not hating on him or anything i just simply dont like him but this clickbait titles always get me to watch his videos ugh
B Roli yeah but he has to make money right?
B Roli why would he be ripping off people? If he thinks they are worth the money he listed them for, then they are worth that. If you dont think they are worth the money just dont buy them then. Its easy.
@@rokjazbec9804 I bought it (Stupid as I am) and you could find same tips and tricks on RUclips... For free. I learned more from RUclips. On the other hand I could see it be helpfull for somebody but if you're not happy you will get you money back as I did. So I wouldn't call it a scam really.
I've lugged an EF600 f/4.0L IS on a Gitzo and Wimberly for several years, and an ED800mm f/5.6 Nikkor before that.
There are some pretty severe restrictions coming from the lack of mobility such behemoths impose.
My 800 arrives on Friday and I am looking forward to it.
I am not so naive as to expect it can do everything the big lenses can do as the laws of optics preclude that.
But I expect a lot of fun with this lens. I won't be too quick to get a 1.4x or 2x onto it though. That just seems "a bridge too far" for an already glacially slow lens.
It should do well for stationary wildlife. But as soon there is movement involved, especially fast movement, than you might be in trouble with the new 800/f11.
Did you notice ISO1600 though in the bright midday sun? Besides the background blur issue, which can be solved sometimes, I’m most concerned with the light gathering or non gathering and slow AF. I admit like Jared the 800mm is great for beginners or someone into birding that’s not into photography as much. There are practical uses for this, one is Astro, like moon pictures, etc. However I think Canon really needs a lens similar to the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF, which with 1.4x tc is a 700mm f8, that’s very useable in more scenarios. Plus the AF is so much faster on the 500PF, granted it’s much more expensive though. If this 800mm f11 was more expensive than we could all laugh and make fun of it, but honestly for the money it’s pretty awesome, if it’s for you or for your use case you have in mind!
@@peterebel7899 Not sure. But I guess panning with a such a long tele is difficult and warrants a great deal of experience, and thus, probably not in the league for customers who this lens are intended for.
You will find that small and lightweight 800mm will have a definite place in your lens harem.
Haha, love how all the "experts" on forums declared these lenses useless before even seeing some results.
blackcoffee absolutely useless for any serious armature to pro. If you are a casual shooter that just wants some snapshots... perfect. Probably shoulda just made it a zoom. 400-800 f8-f11
@@Jessehermansonphotography I'm an amateur that does around 6 or 7 hours photographing birds a week. I just ordered an 800. These lenses will be great for filming wildlife as you use a slower shutter when filming. Also, the focus on these will be better than adapted EF lenses.
Hugh Sweeney excellent point Hugh. That is a huge benefit to these lenses I had not thought about
Hugh Sweeney its no different filming or photo, u usually want more dof control hence f/4 with ND is always prefered
@@laeicawezlar4417 not really at 800mm. I film wildlife all the time. Yes, of course a wider aperture is nice but an f4 800mm lens will cost you 20 grand. I'm discussing shooting with low iso not really talking about dof here.
I have the 800 5.6L, and it has surprised me how useful that lens is. But I will remember the pain of paying for it until I die. These small lenses are interesting because they are easy to transport, plus people might not ask for a permit to use it. But f5.6 is already slow. Wildlife is often in the dim forest, and news often happens at night. F11 is simply too slow for anything except bright sunlight. Saving a truckload of money is brilliant, but if there is not enough light to get the photos or video, even a low price is too much.
I think you would be shocked by the image quality of these lenses. I have used the third party 150-600 lenses and I would say the image quality is preferable. Not as good as the 400 f5.6 but IS makes it close. For birding with the R5 you can get a good result.
@@ThreeCeeProductions I got sick of waiting for Canon to introduce a mirrorless camera, and sold my 800 5.6, and my 400 2.8, and bought into MFT. I did keep the EF 180 3.5 Macro which works great on a speedbooster and for bright light, I am very pleased with the Olympus 100-400.
We are very fortunate that the mirrorless revolution has lead to the development of fabulous lenses from most manufacturers.
For me, this is what I thought mirrorless was about when it started to make itself known: compact gear with greatly reduced weight. Nice to see an OEM full frame camera company leading the way.
They’re compact because they’re F11, not because theyre RF
@@lukegardiner6926 F11 lenses are not really possible with DSLR's because they need a wider aperture to find focus. The ability to make F11 lenses is not an RF exclusive, but a mirrorless exclusive.
@@lukegardiner6926 They were designed to be used with their mirrorless cameras not their DSLR line. F 11 allows the lens to be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than any telephoto they have designed for DSLRs. Perfect for their new cameras!
Then you thought wrong. Mirrorless has a lot of advantages. Making it smaller was not the main idea
@@shaolin95 I love how people communicate so aggressively online. 'You thought wrong!' 🤣 Thanks for your positive vibes! If you look at what people said about mirrorless then and say about it now you will find a lot of people saying they love the lighter weight of their mirrorless gear. Many choose mirrorless for this very reason. At least I am not alone in being wrong!
these lenses seems like the perfect pair for surfing or kitesurfing, usually done in bright sunlight and far enough to warrant an 600 or 800mm lens with teleconverter
Except you’d want faster shutter speeds for those things.
@@hautehussey well bright light day you might be able to hit 1/1000 without bumping the iso to the moon
Doesn’t sound like a booming market tho...
Surf photographer here, maybe during overcast days it'll be less that ideal, but usually shooting at f/5.6-f/8 at ISO 200 and well over 1/3200 of a sec on sunny days, f11 won't be that much of a problem
@@felipegalvezengels what do you recon of the 800mm for that purpose
As a wildlife photographer, I can absolutely tell it’s at F11 or at least I can see the separation is not all that great. It is good separation for who it is aimed at.
I bought this lens (the 800mm). Its actually a really good lens. F11 is f11, but I can handhold a 1/160 second handheld with an EOS R (no IBIS). The lens stabilization is amazing, and I bet with the R5 or R6 IBIS, you could handhold some amazing shots (asuming your subject doesn't move).
I agree it works great for stationary subjects but your last remark is very important! I was photographing ducks swimming yesterday at around 1/400, and the stabilization appeared to be introducing motion blur. Perhaps I need to get used to how to pan this lens (it's about 40% lighter than my Tamron 150-600 G2 despite being similarly-sized) but it doesn't look like there's panning detection built in to the stabilization (or you have to pan fast enough for it to work).
During the time you used the RF800 did you take pics of fast things like the moon? How was it?
Jared something for future consideration for these lenses as there is a huge *gotcha* lurking at super long focal lengths. You don't usually shoot wildlife so it's probably not something you've run into. In the zoo - this is not going to be an issue. If you're actually photographing wildlife for real, in the field - especially wildlife that wants nothing to do with humans - then it becomes a huge issue: *Atmospheric distortion* aka *Heat Haze* Shooting at f/11 you need gobs of sunlight to make it work. Gobs of sunlight hanging off the end of 800+mm or 1600mm means absolutely monstrous amounts of heat haze happening in your images, especially their backgrounds if you're shooting out over wide open spaces. I have so many *amazing* shots that have subjects in sharp focus and filling the frame (relatively close actually), but they have absolutely *hideous* backgrounds. It's like those backgrounds are covered in a layer of Vaseline they're so bad. If your subject is 30 meters away and nicely filling your frame at 800+mm but your background is hundreds of meters or even miles away... you're gonna have a bad day at f/11. This combination of relatively close subject and super distant background happens more often than you might realize - especially shore mammals and birds, or raptors hunting over large fields or lakes. The subject is very close but the background is literally miles away -- and so warped in your frame as to make your foreground subject pointless.
But the same applies to those expensive f/4 and f/5.6 lenses.
@@serioussam909 No, not really - since you don't need anywhere near as much light you can shoot golden hour, winter, overcast etc and still have acceptable shutter speeds and ISOs. More importantly at the wider apertures the backgrounds blow out much more thoroughly. The problem with f/11 is they don't really do that.
@@serioussam909 Follow up - representative sample of the problem. 840mm (600 + 1.4x TC) at f/11 -- mid summer. I had been shooting all morning and it steadily warmed up to the point that things like this started happening... i.imgur.com/eVFyj2l.jpg
Having f11 can be a plus. Since you’re usually far away on small birds having more depth of field will help assure bird focus and give a more realistic fade from sharp to blurred in a 3D appearance. I have canon primes and the new RF and all have their place. Cost vs function winner!
Question: with 600mm F11 on a full frame R6, What would make that any better than my 1 inch Rx10's 600mm F4?
F4 on 1 inch is basically F11 Bokeh with F4 light reception
This is the review I needed! A field work of the lenses! I’m an amateur with a new RP and a 35mm who is gonna make a safari (if COVID let us...). I looked for a telephoto and before buying the rp, the idea to reach a lion in a safari was economically impossible. But with the rf mount and these lenses, it is absolutely possible. I’m not a pro, so I only want conserve memories of my travel! Not wining a contest! Thanks Jared!! Love your reviews sight!
As always, another great video. However, there is one correction I would like to offer. When shooting long in astrophotography using a tripod and remote shutter release, it is best to turn OFF image stabilization. Often the "stabilization" will INTRODUCE camera shake into the photo.
The FF 800 f/11 lens is equivalent to an MFT 400mm f/5.6... which any MFT shooter will tell you does produce decent bokeh, and with good IBIS and a lower shutter speed can produce good results. Note that since the FF lens is 2 stops slower than the MFT, the light (photons) captured is the same for both despite the 4x larger FF area, and you will need 2x higher ISO for the FF so same noise for both.
Canon knows that most users are coming from APS-C and that the higher ISO and AF ability offset the dim lens, and terms of depth of field, you're getting about the same as an f8 lens mounted on an APS-C body.
I think we should also consider that these are made for the R series cameras which have amazing ISO performance. Yes, traditionally we don't want to increase the ISO in yesteryears, but the improvements in ISO performance has made it possible to push it up at these F numbers and still not have it negatively affect the image.
I’ve got the RP and the R10, up from the 6D and SL3. The ISO seems a little better but I still don’t like the noise over 1000 ISO and if I need to lift shadows anything over 600 gets pretty noisy. I’m doing okay with the 100-400 but that’s f8. I’m curious about these lenses but don’t think I’d ever bite the bullet at f11. I see some people getting awesome images though. I mean people put doubles on f7.1 so…
10:20 "gorilla up in the little tree fort that they just built."
Gorilla has decent metalwork skills.
Jared : your content is amazing at talking about real world situations, with the camera settings you’re likely to encounter, AND then results you would get. In other words, you teach WHILE you review. You’re showing us all the WHY things are important factors to consider. Great work! Thank you for making files available too! 👏👏👏
"I'm not a birder" - Jared Polin, 2020
I want to become a wildlife biologist just so I can discover a new bird species and name it the spotted dicklilly
Bird up!
Give him a few years lol
Quarantine does a lot to you
biggen
I like the review. I own both and they are great for birding. You wouldn’t expect the $13.000.00 EF600 f4 image quality at this price. Especially good for waterfowl where usually can’t get too close. It’s getting harder to sell bird pix so the quality is good enough to capture your bird list for the day.
Nobody complains about 400mm F5.6 if it's Micro four thirds lens for their Olympus, they'll only heap praise.
There's no Olympus 400mm f5.6, the new zoom is 6.3 at 400mm and i have no interest as they didn't incorporate sync IS. (even if they did the Panasonic 100-400 looks sharper at 400mm according to ephotozine test) The 300mm f4 pro with 1.4x tc will give 420mm f5.6. Many reviewers have trashed m43 for their lack of ability to isolate subjects like a full frame system can with 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6. but now canon comes out with f11 lenses that will give the same equivalency and its awesome.
Are these RF 800/600 f11 lenses good choices for smaller sensor sized cameras like the R7?
I kept my rp at 1000 shutter with my 600 f11 and everything looks soooo good
af area become smaller like on the new R5/R6 or you get the same 100/88% af area coverage?
thats cool. can u do a test for me please? can u test an see if the new rf extenders and the rf to ef adaptor can work together. wanna see if its worth getting to extend the range of my sigma ef 150to 600mm lens. dont wanna lose that zoom feature with the rf600 an 800 lenses?
@@fromthesidelines1453 Or RF to EF Adapter and the use the Sigma EF 2x teleconverter with the 150-600 so the teleconverter and lens are from the same system. I haven't tried this myself.
@@brendanfarthing just wanted to know if it can be used with the adaptor. everyone cant give me a straight yes or no and that they have tried it. not looking to buy anymore ef products. guess ill have 2 wait for sigma an tamron to come out with there new rf zoom telephoto.
It looks good because you can't afford anything better.
I enjoys walking with R7 and 800mm f11. It feel so satisfying to have 1280mm hand held that focuses like lightning to your subject. Just need to chose bright morning or bright evening for superb shots. Sadly i must say that this lens is not for clody days unless you want to turn ISO to 1600 and beyond. At good days i hardly turn ISO over 500.
1280mm hand held that is usable. Think about that.
Little tip if you like to shoot with auto ISO set maximum ISO to 100-1600 or lower for this lens and keep shutter speed at 1/400 or higher.
Jared: They just came out!
Steven: Kinda like you!
He does that often. I always kind of knew :D
I think the zoo is a bad usecase to test a lens like this, because light is not a big issue there. The lens is marketed for wildlife photography and thats my biggest gripe with it. Most wildlife is crepuscular which means shooting with f/11 is going to be a huge challenge. I use a 600mm f/6.3 for wildlife and I already need to push my shutter and iso to uncomfortable values.
so he should have used the lens in impossible situation? LMAO
@@edrader If light is the biggest weakness of a lens, then ofcourse that is the thing that is most interesting to push to the limits in a review. Especially since canon markets this lens as a wildlife lens which in my opinion is very dishonest and misleading. As Jared explained there are purposes for a lens like this, but wildlife isnt one of them.
@@haaspaas2 i'd love the 800mm for shooting the moon, which i do at f11. this may not be the lens for you. TANSTAAFL
@@edrader Im sure its fine for shooting the moon but youre avoiding my point. Canon put this as a wildlife lens, and that is misleading and dishonest. Nobody is expecting a compact 800mm that can do everything well, but Canon should also be a bit more straight forward about the limits of this lens. Especially since there are more options at that pricepoint. At the same price there is the tamron and sigma zooms, so canons marketing might push people to make a wrong decision.
Ps, do people really enjoy shooting the moon enough to put down 1k+ on a lens? I mean the moon is pretty static, so doesnt it get stale after a few shoots? Im not meaning to critize anyone elses interest, just genuinly wondering if that niche is big enough for people to invest in it.
@@haaspaas2 are you a photographer? you sound like noob or youtube content creator
I'm happy you used a clip of the Fstoppers guy saying "did you kill a cheetah?"
At 13:27 mark how do you set up large zone AF with continuous eye tracking like that? On my R6 the eye tracking is only available as the first AF method (face/object tracking) with the single 1 point. If I change the AF method to zone I cannot use eye AF.
Hi Jared, very entertaining review as always. I think for most Canon bird/wildlife photographers - the key comparison - and one I would certainly be interested in is between the 600 or 800 f11 + Eos R5 - and the Canon 100-400 II (with / without 1.4 extender III) and the 5D IV. This is nearer to the weight and cost of the new Eos R combo and what I take out for hikes when I can't face carrying my 600 F4 II. Any purchasing decision for me at least will be based on seeing wildlife / bird photographers doing this comparison - for perched and in flight birds. Keep up the good work!
One thing worth pointing out is that an f11 with AF was only really made possible by mirrorless cameras. Because of the geometry of phase detect AF on a DSLR, it's pretty will impossible to get it working at such narrow apertures. I should add, before somebody else points it out, it might be made to work on a DSLR with live-view, but then it's really acting like a mirrorless camera in that mode.
In any event, the results were impressive and, whilst in theory, they should be diffraction limited at f11, the detail looked very good.
Damn brother! That 800 mm lens shot of the flamingos creating a heart shape was a great capture! Btw, you absolutely rock for sharing raw files! They so help as i learn from you and enter into learning some editing!
600mm F11 on a full frame R6? What would make that any better than my 1 inch Rx10's 600mm F4?
F4 on 1 inch is basically F11 Bokeh with F4 light reception.
Hey Jared, thanks for the awesome review. I currently have an Eos R with ver.8 update. Do you think the 800 will work on it or is still limited to R5,6 & 3..(?).
They all have the same RF mount it will work.
Hey Jared,
When are your full review of the R5 comming out? It's highly anticipated :)
I think they are a great idea, if someone wants to be able, the key word is ABLE, to be more versatile. Let’s say their work is primarily close range photography (portrait, event, wedding), BUT they want to go out birding or put a 600 in their bag for a boating trip, whale watching, it’s AFFORDABLE and you won’t feel bad buying it and letting it sit or not really make you money. After I get the trinity lenses for my R5, I think I might get one of these just for the occasional outing, at less than $1,000, think about bringing it on an Alaskan cruise, or to a national park. You wouldn’t want to bring a big 600 or 800 with you.
These lens are great for birders that don't need the highest quality image. They need "ok" photo for Identification. For serious and pro bird/wildlife photographers, we are waiting for RF 600 f/4 or RF 500 f/4.
that's not true, it has limitations in low light because of F11 but image quality is great when you have good condition, watch a dedicated review by Jan Wegner or Duade Paton, all they do is bird photography and people can adapt their existing EF glass to these cameras so i don't think so you will ever see RF F4 in 500-600 mm range
These are much better than ok
I saw and tested the RF 600 in a store, and despite not having a direct comparison, as i bought a RF 800 2nd hand... wow! 600mm vs 800mm isnt probably as big of a difference as the RF 600 vs 800 size, but the 800s reach is too nice for wildlife.
I thought about a sigma or tamron 150-600mm, the RF 600 or RF 800 (anything else with that supertele range was too expensive and too heavy)
Whats really annoying, the missing lens hood and tripod mount. Cost additionally around 80$+ together, luckily at least the lens hood was already with the 2nd hand 800 F11 i bought at least, but after just 1 week of using i knew: IT NEEDS A HANDLE if you are often just walking around with a single hand holding the lens comfortable.
I love the lens - and i found out - the 26MP of my RP are more of a problem than the lenses performance when it comes to cropping which i have to do a lot, but thats good - headroom of the lens for a R5 or even R3 upgrade anytime in years.
I'm a birder and shoot mostly in the early morning & late afternoon so f11 would be totally useless to me. I hope canon comes out with a 600mm 5.6 DO like the Nikon 500mm 5.6 prime, that would be awesome.
f11 in the forest of Costa Rica??? XD
they have a 600mm DO in development for a few years now. Who knows when/if we'll see it.
EF L 600mm f4 is too dope?
@@smashexentertainment676 too heavy
@@Agora1981 I'm using a 500mm f4 at 7lbs so if the 600 5.6 prime would be under 6lbs it would be good for me
With the 800mm EF f5/6 and 1.4x the 1Dx Mark II is only able to use the center focus points. Also, the 800mm with the 2x extender won't autofocus at all. I would like to know if these lenses with both of these extenders will autofocus with the entire field of view.
Using the R5 I have animal and eye detection with the 800mm and 1.4x and even with the 2x which is a bit much at f'22. But the AF still works at f/22!
@@georgelepp Hi George, I was asking how the 1.4 and 2x performed with the Canon EF 800 f/5.6.
Sorry. I have used the EF800mm f/5.6 with thboth the Ef 1.4x and EF 2x. The 1.4 was really good, but the 2x starts to lose sharpness, but it's still doable. More of an issue becomes air quality. Heat shimmer can give you issues. Turn off the IS. I know you'll be on a tripod.
Killer surfing lens! As long as it is on a good bright day.
Nice video Jared
I’d like to know how these compare with an EF400mm f/5.6 plus teleconverters as I have this lens and the 1.4x and 2x EF mark ii teleconverters (which can be stacked to give 2.8x)
I also have an old EF300mm f/2.8 non is and would like to know how well these lenses work with the R5 and R6
I’m also keen to see a comparison between the new RF100-500 zoom and the EF100-400
I’m thinking about upgrading to one of these cameras from my 7D mark ii so would like to know how they compare but also concerned about losing the 1.6x crop as I shoot birds and you can always do with more reach
Thanks
Noel
@Mark Cooper Yes but the R5 is extremely expensive and has a lot of bullshit video features I will never use , the rumoured R7 would be hopefully more sensibly priced
Great review! The explanation using the exposure triangle really helped in understanding the context and setting the expectations! Having already owned a 100-400 Canon Lens and after buying the Canon EOS R6 recently, I am thinking of going for the 800 mm RF lens.
i was thinking about the 600mm for planes over my house and at a distance on their approaches to JFK. i was looking at the SIgma 150-600mm aswell but id need to use the RF to EF mount like i already do with the planes over my house. will the sigma 150-600mm with the adapter lose any features than with an EF mount? i got another camera with an EF mount already so it wouldnt be an issue since that lens is staying at my house
Good review - I think you are spot on. Having recently spent two weeks in an African game park with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 and a 1.4TC most shots are at 700mm but motion blur is a problem because you need to be 1/1200 or faster most of the time - unless the animals are sleeping during midday heat - and then you have to deal with heat haze. That becomes a challenge in early morning late afternoon when there is more activity so iso will be way up.
I now have the 500PF 5.6 which is sharper across the frame, seems to suffer very little degradation with the 1.4TC and appears to let a bit more light in - sadly no chance of getting back to Africa any time soon it seems.
Having said that you absolutely must have a long lens at a game park if you want to come away with any decent memories. The big action is almost aways a long way off, and small action (snakes, birds, meerkat) can be quite close but to fill the frame you still need at least 400mm.
So while the 200-500 gives a bit more flexibility I would rather have tack sharp images across the frame that you get from a prime. So my setup for travelling is D850 with the 500PF + TC1.4 and Z6 with a 70-200 f2.8 + TC2 for when things are closer or when you need a wider frame and for video. I can just get all that in hand luggage if batteries, chargers etc go in check-in luggage.
One other consideration, which is a bit of a show stopper on mirrorless is blackout when shooting action. I find it’s almost impossible to shoot action where following the subject is required without losing the subject because of viewfinder blackout/lag on the Z6. Don’t know if that’s also a problem with Canon and Sony mirrorless. Can’t see these lenses being useful for tracking moving subjects though - shutter speed will need to be 1/2000 or higher and at f11 I think iso will be too high to get good quality images.
Personally I would think the Sigma or Tamron 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 might be a better option. In the Nikon world the 200-500 or the 500PF but that’s becoming pricy too.
How would they be for photographing concerts, would the lack of light (except the stage) make to harsch contrast?
Honestly that f11 will probably not be the best option for concert photography. Depending how close you can get I’d stick to something like a 70-200
Jared needs to make a t shirt with " its not the best T-shirt since sliced bread" with sliced bread on it.
I have got it today as I may have a short safari in Kenya at the end of the month and I don't know if I can bring the 500 f/4 L IS II let see. Curious what will be the outcome. I think for handheld will be great, but needs a lot of light.
I would like to see how these lenses perform with EOS R...
Or the rp
if you shoot at dawn? when do most birders shoot?
Holy shit! Those are freaky ultra mega sharp pictures and for that ISO it is almost noise free. I am so getting the R5 and maybe even the 800, it will be great for my "steel birds" photography on air shows. Great review as always Jared, thanks. Btw, those flamingos and eagle details are amazing, excellent shot.
I think you would have a hard time finding airplanes with an 800mm lens and keeping them in frame. I shoot a 150-600mm Sigma Sport and I miss some shots at 600 because the tail is cut off or too high or low in the frame. Most of my shots are in the 300-500 mm range but having the 600 available with the twist of the lens is good for planes far away. You also run into the problem of it is too close to get the whole plane in the picture. A fighter will be fine but when the C-5 lands you will just get pictures of the front of the cockpit area. I carry two bodies one with an 18-400 mm and another with 150-600mm. The 18-400 is good for ground shots or planes taxing and the 150 - 600 mm is great for flying shots. I think the new 100-500 RF lens for $2600 might be a good airshow lens. It is a lot of money but 100-400 mm II EF lens is around $2000 for old technology.
Keith good point! It might be a but too much, I completely agree. I was shooting with 70-200 until now and most of the shots are fine, maybe with some small crop. I just remembered how guy standing next to me with 150-600 could get much better framing and I got carried away by Jared’s review, because I didn’t expect it to be so good. Steel birds are in fact too big :) but it still seems to be a great lens if used properly.
These pictures have no color....f11 is too dark
I was very skeptical about the 800mm f11, but it turned out I really like it. It is not perfect, but it is inexpensive, compact, lightweight, and has quite good image quality. It is a big change from my 300-800mm f5.6 "Sigzilla" which is massively heavy and needs a heavy tripod and heavy gimbal to use. And the Sigzilla is never gets to go on a plane with me.
During the time you used the RF800 did you take pics of fast things like the moon? How was it?
@@leometal123 no
Jared, I believe they're called Birdenators.
Nope. Wrong again my fine student. They are called “Bographirdologists”.
Jared: your videos are awesome. I picked my first camera about 8 years ago because of your channel, and HERE I STILL AM learning from you. I hope we get to connect one day and talk about cameras!
Jared usually forgets that not everybody is a Pro who needs $13.000 600mm f1.2 ultra speed lens. Sometimes F11 is just enough for hobbyists
If you have a Mac or an iOS device, you have the ability to natively view Canon’s Camera Raw 3 (.CR3) files in any app that supports images (including Files/Finder and Photos/Photos). It’s just Android and Windows that lack it, although Microsoft’s free Raw Image Extension (Microsoft Store) gives that ability to Windows too.
So it’s just Android without a native viewer.
I like how this kind of stuff has always been available on MFT but people just don't realize the potential.
I agree.. It is a crying shame that MFT seems to be misunderstood. Particularly irksome to me is where it is put down (especially on some RUclips channels and one in particular), when MFT has clear advantages for many photographers.
just got an eos rebel sl3 and the 600mm f11 thinking they were compatible. is there anyway of putting them together or is it better to get an r5 or r6?
These are actually very smart lenses. A lot of wildlife photographers always shoot at f11-16 if there's enough light to get a bit more depth of field, which is very thin at 600 or 800mm. So if these are actually sharp, which seems to be, I'm sure even a lot of professional photographers will pick those up, 3.5kg less on the bag is a big deal.
I've owned "big glass," an ED800 f/5.6 Nikkor and an EF600 f/4.0L IS for a total of about 15 years.
The RF800 is amazing. Just as sharp as my big lenses! Yes, that was an oh-so-pleasant surprise. And so much easier to use it's uncanny!
Of course, it goes without saying that f/11 is f/11 and that imposes some restrictions. As Jared stresses, do NOT allow the camera to decide it should be shooting at 1/1000 and ISO 12800! It WILL try to do that, if you allow it. The IS is plenty good enough to shoot at 1/160 . . . even slower if the subject allows it.
Do not listen to anyone trashing these lenses. Almost certainly they have neither one of them, and likely not a "Big White" to compare them with either.
I set a shutter speed I think I need, The f/11 is constant, and I set the control ring to ISO. I adjust the ISO to get the right exposure keeping an eye on any really excessive ISOs like over 6400. The R% is really good at ISOs to 6400.
Dear Jared: Stop saying 2.8 when you're talking about an 800mm lens unless you've got a 800mm 2.8 on the market.
I noticed that too.
even most (humanly) affordable refractor telescopes with that focal lenght are like f5-7,
The front element of a 800mm f/2.8 would be ridiculously huge. Even bigger than that of the 1200mm f/5.6 and that lens is massive.
Haha. Rowe Ackermann Schmidt astrograph wants to have a chat with you
@@serioussam909 only 30cm, so tiny if you ask me.
So these lenses are sharper at 600mm than a Sigma/Tamron 150-600, correct? But...if a person DOES need to freeze action, does the increased ISO these lenses need to freeze action, (one and 2/3rd's stops) hurt the image more than the decreased sharpness of a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 at a lower ISO?
The great ISO capability of the R5 and R6 makes up for a lot. I bought the 800mm f/11 and it's great, and it fits in the bag!
The camera focused on the baby flamingo's eye - wow even though it was small in the frame!
Is this good for shooting landscapes during the day? You can use a slow shutter speed and keep the iso very low.
Just purchased the 600mm I’m in the Bahamas so it’s always sunny!
During the time you used the RF600 did you take pics of fast things like the moon? How was it?
There is a nice programm which you can use to enlarge the picture to higher mp counts and than crop it....and in the beginning i thought it will not work but the results are way better than expected.
"Enbiggen" is my new favorite word lol
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
@@rpgroome One of my favourite episodes of The Simpson's.
Cool review. It's a bit like my old Tamron 500 mirror lens: Everyone tells you those things are unsharp and crappy, but if you *exactly* know what you're doing, they are very capable!! Still it's a bit of a weird strategy, I think a 400/5.6 (with 2x converter you'd still get a 800/11 ...) would have been much more versatile. Also I don't like the HUGE minimum focus distance. Ok for big birds but if you'd chase smaller animals it can become a problem.
At 800mm and min focus I can get a good shot of a hummingbird.
These lenses might be the favourite of budget-minded air show photographers. Long reach, cheap, and super lightweight.
Would not be any good for jets as they would fly too fast for it.
@@petercreagh8797 Do able with some practice and skill. I've seen people use the current 600mm and 800mm primes and Canon's 200-400 with the 2x TC with great results. Obviously, these guys are setting up these lens up on tripods, or if they are really strong, they are hand holding them carefully.
What are you gonna do with f11?
@@robertmodalo8086 it would be much more hand holdable and lighter than the existing 600mm and 800mm lenses, and since most air shows are done in bright sunlight, a f/11 aperture won't matter too much.
Peter Creagh How is that, most air shows are in the middle of the day, so you should be able to get fast shutter speeds.
These are great lenses for the price, people just have to understand what they do - they are the first budget option for a lens longer than 300mm (besides bad mirror lenses). Just don't expect a 1k lens to behave like 14k pro lenses...
better then this ,,other options like sigma contempreory 150-600 and tamron 150-600..atleast we get f6.3 lowest f stop..no need to compensate with high iso...i knw these lenses are not better then canon or nikon lense in this segment but not bad at all in their price range....
@@Jackourd Oh, I didn't know about these 2 :D
Try this, Canon 100-400, v2 with 2x teleconverter, on the Canon R, hand holdable, f11, 1/250 200 iso, completel with the focusing that the 100-400 has
Where do you buy 100-400 II + 2x teleconverter for 900 $?
Lmao
If you do the maths it is easy to see why these lenses still have good separation. An 800mm f/11 will give the same separation at the same distance as a 400mm f/5.6, a 200mm f/2.8, a 100mm f/1.4 or a 50mm f/0.70. And those last two would be the most amazing portrait lenses.
portraits with an 800mm would be quite fun, as long as you have a really long hallway and a loud voice :)
1:26 "...it’s a perfectly cromulent word."
Sorry, didn't read all the comments. What about using the lenses with an APS-C body? You would keep the f11 and gain 1,6x in focal length. Any downsides?
Great review. Those images are tack sharp! Thank you Jared.
Picked up the 600mm. Stepped outside to try it out, humidity got condensation on the front lens, went immediately back inside. Good experience so far
Reminds me of pirates‘ spy glasses 😂👍😜
Hey..
Can you please tell me this Rf11 600mm is good for shooting the sports event or fast moving objects? Like surfing or racing games sometimes like that. And is it compatible for Canon D1500? Or do i have to use the connector?
Thank you for your help
Cheers 🤙🏾
Do you realy need eye af at f11?
want one for my R6. with IBIS and low light 20 mp...should be able to handheld for longer exposure so I don't have to use high ISO in day time.
I picked an 800mm up for my EOS R, surprisingly, it’s been great and a lot of fun.
I’m surprised at how good everything looked. But Canon has always excelled at tele’s. The fact that they gave no diaphragm, and so are always f11, allowed Canon to spend. More money on the optics, and to also make a lens that’s diffraction limited just below that actual f stop, ensuring the highest possible quality. I’m planning on buying an R5 once the second batch comes out in November, and the 800 will be on my short list.
Summary: Nice lenses & image quality for the money, when you need to cover distance on subjects that can't be moving any faster than a tired sloth 😉🤷🏻♂️
kinda wondered... is your background a blurred poster or a blurred photo of your drawer of cameras and jst made it your background for this video?
kind of an odd question but jst ive always been curious how you and your table is so nicely separated
I'm here for Jared , not for the lenses
Nothing wrong if you are a broke back mountaineer! -QMFT
@@JPMoron imnto broke for this lenses and canon camera .... I have phase one medium format
Jared is a bit of an acquired taste. Very obvious personality traits that could prove grating, unless they’re a manufactured persona for the channel? But he’s growing on me. Despite constantly pushing his Fropak stuff, does anybody actually purchase those?
3:15 "If you lose it, you're going to buy another one" - Such insight. Much wow. Instant subscribe.
WTF.
me who bought the cheapest 500mm f8 lens for 80 bugs :D (manual, without stabilisation...)
I wouldnt recommend anyone those tbh. Too niche of lenses. Im a full time birder but still I would need those only less than 10% of the time I do birding.
1. My Location is not Australia or Florida where its super bright most of the time.
2. The 19 foot MFD is too much.
3. My 400mm is often limiting because of the fixed focal length. Cant imagine it being 800mm.
4. I like my photos sharp and birds are always moving. Need 1/800 or more shutter all the time. 1/320 etc at iso 12800 most of the time will not just cut it. IBIS only reduces my shakes, not the bird's.
Fantastic choices for Star/Planet/Galaxy spotters btw. Plus potentially very good for Shore bird shooter.
Not for Small forest birds/warblers etc.
Not so good for astropics, either...too slow and narrow FoV means you're exposures need to be long to gather enough light. No good for extended objects like nebulae and star clouds. No good for most galaxies and other objects, as well. Too dim. They'll be OK for planetary work, though the lenses won't have enough reach to give you good image scale. You'll have OK images, but nothing like you'll get with a proper scope. An 8" SCT with a x3 or larger barlow lens and a small chip camera like a 290MC/MM will blow these lenses (and cameras) out of the water, naturally, for planetary work. No more need be said for other types of astropics. If I were going to use either of them for astropics, I'd stick to the 600mm lens and no teleconverter. Unless I was doing planetary, then I'd use the 800mm and x2 teleconverter, which acts just like a barlow. But, in all honesty, I'd forget both of them. As expensive as it is, I'd rather the 800mm f/5.6 L series lens. But, for $13K, I'd buy a scope instead. The moral of this story is you're better off buying a scope :)
On point. f/11, really?
The third gorilla photo is amazing...
Can I use this lenses with just an EOS R? because I don't have the R5 or R6..
These are good, affordable lenses for shooters who know WTF they're doing. Tyros should stay away. I'm a birder. The 800mm is definitely on my radar.
Also, the flamingo chick was sitting on its heels (what most people mistake for backwards-pointing knees). Its legs are actually quite long. We know you're not a birder. Or a mathematician. No worries.
No doubt they are for birders and I am a birder. But, here is the thing, say if you are coming off from an APS-C body paired up with one of the super zooms such as a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm, even with the 800mm f/11 you would be losing reach because you would have been shooting at a max focal length of 960mm previously already. That means you would have to use a teleconverter in order to get even further reach for you which is far from ideal for such a lens as the ISO would be too high to cause noise. In my opinion, the most ideal body for these lenses would be an APS-C mirrorless body, although there have been rumours Canon might make a high-end APS-C RF mount body, right now such a body doesn't exist and if I am not wrong RF mount lenses cannot be adapted. However, if you have been shooting full frame all along and haven't or are not planning to pull the pin on a 800mm f/5.6 $13K huge prime, then I can see the 800mm f/11 giving you a bit of fun.
"800mm at f11? will everything be sharp?"
You can tell Jared Polin rarely shot with crop sensor cameras with this review.
I remember first shooting with a cheap telephoto zoom with m43 just at equivalent 300mm (150mm) and equivalent f11 (f5.6) and was impressed by the subject separation achieved.
using these lens on a crop sensor will make them literally useless
Tiny sensor superzooms are even slower with the P1000 being like f32 at 800mm eq, but they still get some subject separation.
Great review!! You sold me...I had tried the 600 MM on foxes in the wild...and I like to give them space. My pictures I think are quite excellent on a sunny day and based on your review I will be purchasing the 600! I was a little nervous when I read your title because it sounded negative but the review summarized my thoughts and clarified usage. Thanks again Jared for your amazing explanations and reviews.
“I Shoot Embiggened”
it's a perfectly cromulent word.
@@KitesurfingEnviro Intrigueulating.
Honestly, I get that f/11 might give you decent results if you have decent light, but quite often, I find myself in situations where I can hardly get a decent picture, with much brighter lenses.
F.e. a kingfisher sitting on a branch in the dark shadow. Even at f/4, I had to use a really slow shutter speed to get a decent picture noise-wise.
Is the IBIS + Lens IS seriously so good, that you can take pictures with a 600mm for 0"3sec exposures handheld?
RAW of the gorilla image is exceptionally good in terms of image quality, I am impressed, my journey to acquire this lens is officially started.
BTW: Canon has durable shoulder bags for cheap.
Do the Extenders work with the RF to EF Adapter to throw (for example) the old but gold EF 70-200 f2.8L II IS USM on the R/R5/R6/RP?
One moment while I enbigge my telephoto lens.
Riight?! that drove me crazy, And I thought he was a double edumacated feller like the rest of his religious order.
So, the competition for these lenses would be super-zooms. Are there any that reach to 600 or 800 mm, with IS, at this price-point?
Sigma 150-600 is probably the main contender for a bit more money. It is faster and a zoom. I've yet to heat anybody compare the quality.
The Canon zooms are a lot more expensive.
@@RichFreeman For reference it's a 150-600 5-6.3, and does have IS (OS). It's much heavier (4.25 lbs). I'm seeing prices under $900 with discounts. 1 2/3 stop faster, but probably lower IQ since it's a zoom. At that price it makes these a tougher sell unless you really need the smaller size/weight or the 800mm.
@@fwiffo yeah. I've yet to see an IQ comparison. The prime could be better, but I wouldn't assume that it is better.
The zoom also isn't fixed aperture which adds some versatility.
When Canon released these two lenses along with the R5, I was literally like- "WHAAAATTT.... WHHHHYYYYY??"
They're priced rather for buyers of the R6 and older R or RP with stable hands or a tripod, while the L lenses that came out back then are priced for the R5 audience :) That said, they do great on an R5. Those bird shots are stunning.
Mr. Fro - These are photo lenses but think spotting scopes and digiscoping! Most birders are 50+ years and some can afford to stomp around all day in the tropics with binoculars, camera and 800mm lens, and teleconverter. So light weight + high magnification is deal. Adding autofocus and IS to a spotting scope is a very, very big jump in birding/wildlife. Thanks - A Birder.