[Klaus]

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup...mf63_vr_s/

Seems that Nikon wants to kill Sony and Canon at least in terms of super tele lenses.

[toni-a]

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup...mf63_vr_s/

Seems that Nikon wants to kill Sony and Canon at least in terms of super tele lenses.

When a lens is that big an adapted SLR lens or a mirrorless lens are the same.  and here Canikon both offer plenty of choices.
In the past When EOS system was launched, some super tele lenses were simply modified versions of their FD predecessors

[Klaus]

Well, (most of?) the new Nikkors aren't warmed-up DSLR lenses.

[toni-a]

canon RF 800mmf5.6 is canon 400mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter plus RF mount
rf 1200is just 600f4 plus teleconverter and RF mount.
Dunno why someone would pay a premium price for any of them when he can get 400mmf2.8 plus the teleconverter plus mount adapter for a cheaper price and have a more versatile equipment.
It's not the first time Canon does this, in the past they made FD 1200mmf5.6 then converted the same lenses to EF mount they even included teleconverters for some
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens

[davidmanze]

canon RF 800mmf5.6 is canon 400mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter  plus RF  mount
rf 1200is just  600f4 plus teleconverter and RF  mount.
Dunno why someone would pay a premium price for any of them when he can get 400mmf2.8 plus the teleconverter plus mount adapter for a cheaper price and have  a more versatile equipment.
It's not the first time Canon does this, in the past they made FD 1200mmf5.6 then converted the same lenses to EF mount they even included teleconverters for some
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens

Have you anything factual to back up these claims?   After reading a review of the 400mm F2.8 RF using a the Canon 2X TC and I quote:


"the image sharpness hit with the 2X extender is stronger than with the 1.4X TC (already softer in the center) and the 800mm F5.6 results are a bit soft (though the circle periphery seems to take less of a hit"

  that leads me to think 400mm RF F2.8 and the1200mm F5.6 are two different lenses, as the sharpness is clearly not of the same caliber .......

  let's not assume things from the practices of the past ....

[Klaus]

RF 1200mm f/8
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf12...uction.png

vs

RF 600mm f/4
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf60...uction.png

So yes, the 1200mm f/8 is a warmed-up 600mm f/4. Whether the rear "tc" has been specifically optimized.. dunno.


The same goes for the

RF 800mm f/5.6
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf80...uction.png

based on the RF 400mm f/2.8:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf40...uction.png

[toni-a]

canon RF 800mmf5.6 is canon 400mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter  plus RF  mount
rf 1200is just  600f4 plus teleconverter and RF  mount.
Dunno why someone would pay a premium price for any of them when he can get 400mmf2.8 plus the teleconverter plus mount adapter for a cheaper price and have  a more versatile equipment.
It's not the first time Canon does this, in the past they made FD 1200mmf5.6 then converted the same lenses to EF mount they even included teleconverters for some
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens

Have you anything factual to back up these claims?   After reading a review of the 400mm F2.8 RF using a the Canon 2X TC and I quote:


"the image sharpness hit with the 2X extender is stronger than with the 1.4X TC (already softer in the center) and the 800mm F5.6 results are a bit soft (though the circle periphery seems to take less of a hit"

  that leads me to think 400mm RF F2.8 and the1200mm F5.6 are two different lenses, as the sharpness is clearly not of the same caliber .......

  let's not assume things from the practices of the past ....

sure https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi...-Lens.aspx

[davidmanze]

RF 1200mm f/8
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf12...uction.png

vs

RF 600mm f/4
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf60...uction.png

So yes, the 1200mm f/8 is a warmed-up 600mm f/4. Whether the rear "tc" has been specifically optimized.. dunno.


The same goes for the

RF 800mm f/5.6
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf80...uction.png

based on the RF 400mm f/2.8:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf40...uction.png

  Are you saying they use exactly the same glass elements and not just a similar optical layout ?

[toni-a]

RF 1200mm f/8
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf12...uction.png

vs

RF 600mm f/4
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf60...uction.png

So yes, the 1200mm f/8 is a warmed-up 600mm f/4. Whether the rear "tc" has been specifically optimized.. dunno.


The same goes for the

RF 800mm f/5.6
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf80...uction.png

based on the RF 400mm f/2.8:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf40...uction.png

  Are you saying they use exactly the same glass elements and not just a similar optical layout ?

that's what it looks like, they just addded a teleconverter and RF mount

[Klaus]

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. I would guess that the "rear converter" is not 100% identical to a 2x TC. It would be silly if this was the case.

The only benefit of an unaltered 2x converter in the native design would be a better centering quality compared to a separate add-on. But who knows ...

A more disappointing aspect at Canon is the lack of progress.

The 600mm f/6.3 is a "PF" lens - similar to Canon's abandoned (?) DO. The 600mm f/6.3 has a weight of just 1.4kg, which is CRAZY LIGHT for such a lens.