RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM equivalent with internal zoom coming?

[Richard CN]

There has been a ton of talk for probably a year now about an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM, and in more recent months, there has also been talking of a lens that would "cannibalize sales of an existing RF lens," but that wouldn't be the aforementioned f/4L "big white." As that lens will cost five figures.

RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM equivalent with internal zoom coming?

There has been a ton of talk for probably a year now about an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM, and in more recent months, there has also been talking of a lens that wo

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Del Paso]

I hope no internal 100-500 is coming since I just bought mine (the current one, of course) a few weeks ago!
Unless the new one costs lots more, is heavier, is built like a Sony, is longer and optically inferior (this I doubt).

 

[docsmith]

The price, especially refurbished sales, on the 100-500L have been getting extremely good, even sub-$2k. This is sometimes a good indicator that something is about to happen.

I suspect that I will be most interested in a price drop of the current 100-500L more than the new lens, but we will see. I currently use the EF 100-400 II primarily as a travel telephoto. I am just trying to think of advantages of another 100-500L other than 1/3 stops of aperture here or there and an internal zoom. It is a bit difficult to think that they could make the lens much sharper than the 100-500L. It already has a very fast and accurate AF, but Canon has introduced new AF technologies since the current 100-500L, so perhaps an improvement there. They could make it compatible with TCs for the entire focal length range. That would be a tempting advantage.

Potentially exciting. I will eventually upgrade from the EF 100-400 II. It is nice to have options.

... since I just bought mine a few weeks ago!

This just went from being a rumor to a fact. Bring back CR3 and slap it on this one.


I did the same for the 50 f/1.4 VCM. So, for those wanting the 50 1.4, you are welcome. I had bought the RF 50 f/1.2 a few weeks prior to the 50 1.4 announcement.

 

[Del Paso]

I did replace my EF 100-400 L II with the RF 100-500 for a set of reasons.
Less weight (fully removable tripod collar, no adapter needed), shorter (no adapter) and, of course, + 100mm. Additionally, I can now leave the 1,4 X extender at home (500mm vs. 560mm). A bit of cropping does the trick. Again, weight advantage, this matters in the Alps...
Optical quality was no consideration, the 100-400 never disappointed me. I paid about $2200 for a brand new one, so, I didn\'t hesitate.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I did replace my EF 100-400 L II for a set of reasons.
Less weight (fully removable tripod collar, no adapter needed), shorter (no adapter) and, of course, + 100mm. Additionally, I can now leave the 1,4 X extender at home (500mm vs. 560mm). Again, weight advantage, this matters in the Alps...
Optical quality was no consideration, the 100-400 never disappointed me. I paid about $2200 for a brand new one, so, I didn\'t hesitate.

the RF 100-500LIS is a really sweet lens. It's a gentle warm over / upgrade to the EF 100-400 II LIS in just about ever area. It's lighter, it's AF is a bit better, it's IS is a bit better, it's MFD is a bit better and it's got that extra 100mm. However, none of these improvements are significantly revolutionary but make a lot of sence once all put together.

 

[GreenViper]

Seems disappointing that they didn't go for one of the 600 options from those patents. Something more to really make the undoubtly larger expense worth it. I expect something in the 4k-5k range and I'm not sure internal zoom, third of a stop and incremental sharpness/focussing capability justifies the expense. Mind you a properly fitting extender would mean the combination wouldn't be much different to the current 100-500 with 1.4x

 

[docsmith]

They could make it compatible with TCs for the entire focal length range. That would be a tempting advantage.

Quoting myself here...but thinking about this a bit more....this may be the lens I wanted when the RF 200-800 was announced.

If the new RF 125-500L takes a 1.4xTC well and gives 175-700 mm f/7.1-9, potentially with better IQ at 700 mm than the current 200-800 (which falls off a bit >600mm) depending on the size and weight, then this could potentially replace two of my lenses.

I am officially interested. And, if the above ends up being correct, this is going to cannibalize the sales of two lenses: the 100-500L and 200-800.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The way I understand the article is that Canon is planning on a supertele lens with the same focal length but some upgrades which will push the price near five digits. Hmmm, the EF 100-400mm mkii was F4.5-5.6. I imagine a 8k € plus lens would/ should match those f-numbers even it has a focal length of 500mm at the long end. That´d be 2/3 stops faster. Built like a tank probably means internal zoom, I guess this would be the second "upgrade" (imho, internal vs. external zoom is a personal preference that may vary). Of course, it should be fully compatible with both extenders. What else could it be? Maybe the focal length could vary a bit and Canon could release a 150-600mm L lens.

 

[candyman]

However, none of these improvements are significantly revolutionary but make a lot of sence once all put together.

Valid points raised by @Del Paso. But not enough for me personally to upgrade to the 100-500L. With cashback, the lens currently still costs €2949. I bought the 100-400 II new for €1300 (with trade-in of the 70-300L). The new price was €2199. My version of the 100-400 II is sharp and the AF works great on the R8 and R6. The weight of the lens is still easy for me to handle (incl. adapter and 1.4x III). I am curious about the developments of this type of lens.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I hope no internal 100-500 is coming since I just bought mine (the current one, of course) a few weeks ago!
Unless the new one costs lots more, is heavier, is built like a Sony, is longer and optically inferior (this I doubt).

I don´t believe the article implied that there is a mkii version coming. The only thing Canon could (and should) improve with a mkii version would be to make the extenders fully compatible with this lens. Although, I´d rather have mkii extenders which are shorter and therefore fully compatible with the RF 100-500mm. It would be cheaper for me and since I´m absolutely super happy with my RF100-500mm I'm not planning on buying a mkii or anything similar.

Oh yeah, of course Canon could always make the lens even lighter as it is.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 100-500 described in the patent would be 2-3 cm shorter than the 200-800. The latter is about the same length as the 100-300/2.8, and for me the length is not ideal. Worth the inconvenience for the 100-300/2.8, but wouldn’t be (for me) just to have a fixed length 100-500.

 

[Maximilian]

I'm not sure whether any of these optical formulae will become a product, and if so, which ones.
Yes, internal zoom is something special compared to the 100-500 and 200-800, but otherwise they seem too close to those lenses to me.
Personally, I don't like a 30 cm long internal tele zoom over a 20 cm long retracted lens - even if that internal one would take a TC from 100 to 500 mm.

The latter (original) is much more convenient IMO.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Personally, I don't like a 30 cm long internal tele zoom over a 20 cm long retracted lens.

The latter is much more convenient IMO.

Same here.
The RF 100-500mm just barely fits in both my backpacks (peakdesign 20 L for city travels - 34 L Rotation for hiking) when not attached to the camera. So, the collapsible design works great for me! I can pack it mounted to the camera as well, but for the PD it needs some rearranging and limits the storage space. For the 34 L rotation, it is just a bit unpleasant to carry when mounted.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The 100-500 described in the patent would be 2-3 cm shorter than the 200-800. The latter is about the same length as the 100-300/2.8, and for me the length is not ideal.

Even with your R3 or now R1 camera? I thought it would be fine with a gripped camera, but I've never tested it.

 

[AlanF]

Sony has an absolutely stellar 200-600 f/6.3 with internal zoom. But, too large and heavy for me. The RF 100-500mm/7.1 is just so light and compact for travel, which is a real plus.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even with your R3 or now R1 camera? I thought it would be fine with a gripped camera, but I've never tested it.

Should have clarified – in use, it’s fine. Fitting it into a case was the issue. The Think Tank DH-150 works, but it’s a tight fit as is the LowePro FlipSide 400 (sometimes the R3 eyecup comes off when taking it out).

 

[KirkD]

I currently own the Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L and greatly appreciate how compact it is at the shorter focal length, for packing and traveling purposes. I can pack my R5 II and five lenses, including that one, in a carry-on case. I would not want a 100-500 that could not be shortened down like the current one. If, however, I was working in a very dusty, gritty situation, I think the internal zoom would keep the interior of the lens cleaner.

 

[LSXPhotog]

If this is Canon’s plan - to correct any perceived flaws in first generation RF lenses - then I’m all about it - so long as they keep the first gen lenses at a reduced price. The 100-500 is just a terrific lens aside from two “flaws” that have been well documented, teleconverter compatibility and weather sealing. I have, however, spoken to more than one photographer that refused to buy the lens because it was 7.1, so any improvement to this area would certainly be welcome by all…but we know that comes with additional cost, weight, and size. Balancing that is delicate dance. But if the lens is the size reflected in these patents, It’s going to be a big boy. The 100-500 is so nice and compact…hard to beat that lens for that reason!

What’s been going on with the potentially new teleconverters? I agree that I would rather see the 100-500 come down and price and then Canon introduce new teleconverters that may work with a less protruding front element or has a lever to adjust magnification.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think the internal zoom would keep the interior of the lens cleaner.

That’s a common misconception that was debunked by ‘Uncle Rog’ (founder of LensRentals).

 

[AlanF]

If this is Canon’s plan - to correct any perceived flaws in first generation RF lenses - then I’m all about it - so long as they keep the first gen lenses at a reduced price. The 100-500 is just a terrific lens aside from two “flaws” that have been well documented, teleconverter compatibility and weather sealing. I have, however, spoken to more than one photographer that refused to buy the lens because it was 7.1, so any improvement to this area would certainly be welcome by all…but we know that comes with additional cost, weight, and size. Balancing that is delicate dance. But if the lens is the size reflected in these patents, It’s going to be a big boy. The 100-500 is so nice and compact…hard to beat that lens for that reason!

What’s been going on with the potentially new teleconverters? I agree that I would rather see the 100-500 come down and price and then Canon introduce new teleconverters that may work with a less protruding front element or has a lever to adjust magnification.

I've missed the well documentation of the flawed weather sealing of the RF 100-500mm. Could you point me to it.