For everyone asking, I've done some calculations, and I think my test chart was about 40m / 131 feet from the camera for these tests :-) it was a real challenge to test!
Hm-m... Considering the fact that full-frame sized sensor at this focal length has the field of view of a = 2* atan (d/2f) = 2 * atan (36/2400) = 1.72 degrees or 0.03 radian, the chart size at this distance should be almost 1.2 x 0.8 meters... Is it really that huge? If this chart is somewhat around A4-A3 standard (297*210 mm for A4 and double of that for A3) than the distance should be around 10-20 meters. 40 meters seems a bit too far for me.🤷♂
I seem to remember a video about a _supremely_ wide lens that showed that the test chart is attached to a window (attached _outside_ ) and the shots are taken outside. Can't for the life of me remember which one it is, though.
Would love to see a comparision between this lens and the RF 600mm with the 2x teleconverter. If it's close then the 600mm combo is a much better deal.
Well, I (and most other photographers I know) have rarely been able to get a sharp image with a 2x attached to........pretty much anything. I sincerely doubt that this is merely "a 600 f4 with a 2x glued to it"! This lens has 26 elements in 18 groups, compared to 17 elements in 13 groups in the 600 f4. This is a much more sophisticated lens!
@@alansach8437 The 600 F4 III has 17 elemens in 13 groups, the 2x extender has 9 elements in 5 groups. In total 26 elements in 18 groups, exactly like this 1200mm lens. Even the lens diagram is pretty much the same. I think this lens is just an EF 600 F4 + added extender elements with an RF mount. Maybe slightly optimised but certaily not a new design.
@@todanrg3 You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are stretching it a bit in order to make your theory match reality. Even if there is some truth to your theory "optimized a little bit" can make a huge difference in performance. It's a lot more sophisticated than "gluing a two x to a 600mm lens"! Quote from the video: "The sharpness you are getting here is still way sharper than you would get putting a two time converter on even the sharpest 600mm lens!"
@@alansach8437 Meh, the older EF 600mm mk II with a 2x was MUCH sharper than this overpriced junk. This is the most shameless cash grab on Canon's part ever.
I would go into an unceasing mantra of "My Precioussss...." holding that thing. This lens is so far down the list of priorities that I will have to wait until my next lifetime to buy it!
Great review! I've to say I did (and still do!) a focal-length-monster with my EF 70-200 f2.8 (the original non-IS from 1995) where I stack two 2X Canon extenders, for a very great 800mm f11 focal, and I can still autofocus it(it's super precise and even pretty fast) both on R6 and R10. Then, I stuck a third 2x extender, a relatively old Kenko MC7, for a super optical focal length of 1600mm f22! R10 cannot autofocus this time, it hunts back and forward, probably the Kenko screws it all being with very old algorithms (but with manual focus the indicator works and gets green when focussed, so camera focus sensors still works, so I think if I can retrive a third original Canon extender I can probably still autofocus it with all three extenders on at f22 on a R10, not really a pro camera!), and I always forget to test it on my R6; but I prefer to use that thing on the R10 where, thanks to the crop, I can reach the equivalent FOV of 2560mm...hand holding it it's funny 😀
I loved the reference to the Bob Ross of Photography Videos. It was really fitting, for just as I had enjoyed watching Bob Ross knowing I could never paint that way, I enjoyed watching your video knowing I would never be able to get my hands on one of these lenses. Well done and thanks for taking the ‘extra mile’ or so to fit the test chart in the frame ;-)
Canon took a EF 600mm, permanently added a 2x TC and RF adapter and charges $20k for it lol insane. I wonder how Nikons 800PF with the Z 1.4TC compares for 13000 less.
I think Canon missed the opportunity to do this right by developing a modular approach in the same manner as the old Leica R super telephoto lenses. Basically Canon went 95% of the way there and then turned to their potential customers and told them "screw you, you will bave to buy both complete lenses, hahaha...", when they could have made this a$13K lens for the 600 and what, another $3K or $4K for the 1200 module? That would have been far, far more marketable to people. Look up the Leica 400/560/800 Telyt-r lens head and focus modules. Canon basically went as far as to say the head optics are the same... what a shame.
Z9’s AF is order magnitude inferior vs a R6 in any AF test,…..so cheapness argument is mute because Z9 photos will be blurry, sorry if truth hurts and please 🙏 don’t triggered 😂
Wow. Great review. I have a 600F4RF and put a 2xExt on R7 crop sensor to take an image of the moon.... the atmospheric distortion was very challenging........
Even with my 500 f/5.6, i have to shoot between wind gusts to get good images of the moon or jupiter, i cannot imagine with 1200 f/8 (or 1800 f/8 in your case)
There is actually one point of disappointment: It has a special custom 2x extender in it. Why is it not removable? Or offered as a standalone item for the 600mm f4? Now you have to buy two lenses with a ridiculous price tag on it, or you have to accept an image quality hit with the standard 2x extender.
They should have motorized that "dedicated teleconverter". That way you have 600 f4 lens and this 1200 f8 also that would make target acquisition much easier.
In comparison to the previous (and old) EF model, it makes sense they went the "add a 2x teleconverter to 600mm" route because the previous EF lens was simply unusable without a tripod, that lens weight close to 40lbs! Whereas the RF version is only 7.4lbs 😅 Im sure when making this lens, they specially made the teleconverter optics for this lens, especially since it's prime lens. Other than that, im a little skeptical about this lens use case, might have issues dealing with heatwaves. But I guess if you REALLY want to fill the frame with the best of the best optic quality then this is it.
Pretty outrageous price for what you're getting... An already existing lens with an added teleconverter that was more appropriately placed to get a little sharper result. Then they dare to almost double the price. I can see why they gave you a 24MP camera to test it with, they tried to hide that it wasn't perfectly sharp.
At 1200mm I suspect that the environment (such as heat haze) starts to affect image quality before you start hitting the diffraction threshold. For what it is, this lens is amazing.
It depends on the environment. Not always, but yes, at 1200mm haze and other atmospheric conditions can be a real issue (perhaps I should have talked about this more in the review)
I know this is a very niche lens that will sell in very small numbers and they need to recoup R&D costs. But even if i was a pro wildlife photographer etc, I would find it hard to accept that they're charging £9000 for a modified 2x extender on the back
It is about making money. If some 600mm f4 user wants to get 1.200mm, he will have to spend 20k on this lens instead of 2-3k which would be the normal cost of that teleconverter.
@@SuperLisandro86 canon RF 2x entender is about £700... I dunno, who knows what the R&D costs were or what canon's business strategies are, but to me personally it doesn't feel like good value, but this is niche and you always pay more for that I guess
@@SuperLisandro86 Even for that price its unlikely canon makes any substantial amount of money. Lenses like that are mostly for just to show what they are capable of
I guess if you're working the Olympics or something, getting that one perfect shot that nobody else could get would make that money back in one flick of the shutter... But I can't disagree, it seems like a purely showoff, halo product
You’re the best Chris! The 24mm to 1200mm comparison was really eye opening. Wherever you are located is a beautiful place, what a blessing for a photographer. Can you do a comparison with this lens and some more conventional options? Sony E or Nikon Z 600 + 2xTC, Nikon Z 800 + 1.4xTC, canon RF 600 + 2xTC. I have a feeling these set ups may challenge your statement that there’s no other way to achieve that sharpness above 1000mm.
i.e. the 600mm with a built in extender that you can't change out.... I personally think the IQ with the newer 2x extenders is just fine, if not exceptional.
Enjoyed the review even though I'll only own this lens in my dreams :) Agreed with many other comments, the 24mm vs 1200mm really gives people an idea how much 1200mm really is
WOW! All your test photos were amazing, or I should say what is amazing is how many amazing photos you got from your tests. I _could_ "afford" one... but... 20k is like this should be for the kids college level of money 💰 BUT maybe in 20 something years when I retire I can get one used.
First off your wife is gorgeous. I hope to one day be that lucky. Secondly, thanks for the review on not just this lens but the RF 400mm lens you did before. Because the market on super telephotos is so small, I feel like there just aren't enough reviews on them, but unfortunately only when it comes to Canon. Sony and Nikon have a good amount of videos up on their super telephoto lenses but Canon doesn't seem to have as much. Therefore, whenever a video comes up from an amazing reviewer like yourself, it is very much appreciated!
Thanks for your interesting test. I own the rf 600/4, with the regulär TC 2x there is not much of an difference in IQ. Taking in consideration, that other circumstances have more effect in relation to IQ. The 1200 is about 9000 Euro more for the 700 Euro TC built-in. That‘s redicolous. You can find the more customer friendly and cheaper solutions in the recent Nikon lineup.
Canon: Releases this lens for RF mount Also Canon: Releases yet another godawful dark kit lens for RF mount They've really no concept of such a thing as a middle ground, do they.
@@doghouseriley4732 Since I had to sell my Tamron 100-400 Di VC and Sigma 150-600C to upgrade to the R7, I share your annoyance. But to play devil's advocate, the RF 100-500 is insanely good: it weighs less than either of these 3rd party lenses, the lens IS synchronizes well with the R7 IBIS, and the image quality is breathtaking. And while it's pricy, Canon is also providing for budget-conscious buyers with their consumer lenses e.g. the RF 100-400 and the F11 primes, which are well reviewed despite their low cost. As long as they have a range of choices, I suspect the clamour among Canon users will eventually subside. And if it improves Canon's profit margins, I predict you will see other manufacturers follow suit (as Nikon announced just this week). But I'm still annoyed :)
This video broke RU-vid!! Yikes the 1,200mm f8 review. What a monster and great job with it. Moon closeups a piece of cake, Comet 2022 E3 non problem lol
My guess? Not very. Except in perfect, still, cool conditions atmospheric interference (known affectionately as "heat waves") would destroy most images with that kind of magnification. It would look like a Sergio Leone "spaghetti western" where the hero is riding into the sunset!
@@alansach8437 Not really the answer for the question I was asking. Heat haze is a non-ideal any camera would have a hard time with. The main idea behind asking was as a litmus test for the lens in question. Just how sharp is it?
Looks super cool, but how much better is it than a EF 600mm f4/IS II with a 2X Extender III. That combo is known for being sharper than the RF 600 and RF 2X. And can be acquired for about 1/3 of the $20K for this lens. You can even add RF extenders behind it to get to 2400mm.
Great review of a lens I'll never get my hands on LOL. Would be nice to see the info i.e. speeds you were using handheld with such a massive lens and I take it, it was at the f8 setting too.
I wouldn't have dared to even lift it from the packaging...Which leads me to a question if not video subject: How does awareness of high value gear, one has to save up or pay down for many years, or one can even never afford, impact the way one takes photos and even perhaps selects subjects?
I looked at reviews of the newer Sony/Canon/Nikon 600s and I think they are pretty much identical to this with the 2x tc in terms of IQ, especially in the middle. You could put another tc on this thing of course, for 2400mm, but I doubt that's worth it over using a higher resolution body. Kind of disappointed with the rf supertelephotos, nikon is doing it much smarter.
Nowadays the good high ISO performance of even entry full frame mirrorless cameras can deliver good photos under poor light or fast shutter speeds at f/8 or f/11 apertures. The new digital image sensors are a game changer. Good photos can be shot at ISO 6400 or even ISO 12800. Something nearly impossible a decade ago.
Kinda wish Chris was in South Carolina last week to capture some interesting balloon shots! Can anyone explain why a high-megapixel camera is more likely to show the effects of refraction (R5 vs. R3 shooting the test target in the video)? Is it sort of a virtual effect because the higher resolution photos allow more zooming in, to the point where the blurriness becomes visible at 1:1 on-screen viewing?
With a zoom lens, it's easier to find the subject (birds) by zooming out then zooming back in. I can imagine with 1200mm it'd be extreming difficult to find the subject.
Thank you for sharing the details of the lens, I'm also wondering why canon made a such a lens in the first place, since 600 f4 with x2 is visibly soft.
He specifically says that this lens is "sharper than what you would get with even the sharpest 600mm lens and 2x converter!" So even if it is technically a 600mm lens with a 2x permanently attached, it's a specially designed 2x that is calibrated specifically for this lens and optimized for maximum sharpness. Which isn't the same as just slapping a stock 2x on a 600mm lens.
using it for surf photography or any sport photography can justify the price as long as you get paid lol. I'm sure during the olympics we gonna see this lens being quite popular.
I would love you to test the Nikon P950 or P1000 superzoom camera. I bought a P950 as a video camera, but I have been surprised by the still photographs I have taken with it. I guess it's a case of "the camera you have with you is the best camera". It does require manual set up to reduce auto sharpening etc.
