A bit more information on the upcoming RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS

[neuroanatomist]

Doesn´t the patent RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 actually go to around F6.7, which doesn't exits in setting. Depending on your camera setting it chooses to show F6.3 or 7.1. The lens is sold as a F7.1 at the long end, so I guess it does exist.

Good catch. There were a bunch of 100-500mm patents, but the one where the example diagram matches the lens’ block diagram is 102-490mm f/4.6-6.8. Rounding that down to f/6.3 would be too much of a stretch.

So perhaps they’d sell an f/8.5 as f/9 instead of f/8. We’ll see.

 

[danfaz]

The older EF 70-300 USM also used nano USM.

Indeed, and it was very fast focusing!

 

[john1970]

Look on the bright side. If it's not weather sealed, it will dry out faster.

That is a very unique way of looking at the situation! Thank you for the dry humor.

 

[bbasiaga]

I'm really hoping this is as fast focusing as ay the EF100-400 L II. I do t really need the weather sealing. Plenty of workarounds for that.

Brian

 

[josephandrews222]

Indeed, and it was very fast focusing!

Not was...is very fast focusing for some of us!

I find that the (adapted)

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II​

works quite well on the M6MkII...including ergonomics. Focus is good enough for me...and the lens punches above its class in terms of image quality, I think.

In fact, I always wondered what the specifications/dimensions of the EF-M version of this lens would be...if nothing else shedding the EF-to-EF-M adapter would be a positive, at least for me.

I see where Canon is selling discounted R100 bodies right now.

For the life of me I don't understand Canon's decision to basically cede the small-and-light market to its competitors.

I, for one, have paid premium prices for thin-and-light laptops...going back to (yikes) the 20th century.

I would pay premium prices for size-and-weight optimized Canon APS-C ILCs as well.

...I trust that my M6MkII bodies will serve me well until that time, or until I find the need to look at an alternative brand.

 

[AlanF]

Doesn´t the patent RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 actually go to around F6.7, which doesn't exits in setting. Depending on your camera setting it chooses to show F6.3 or 7.1. The lens is sold as a F7.1 at the long end, so I guess it does exist.

Bill Claff has measured the focal length to be 489.99 mm and f/7.2.

 

[AlanF]

Good catch. There were a bunch of 100-500mm patents, but the one where the example diagram matches the lens’ block diagram is 102-490mm f/4.6-6.8. Rounding that down to f/6.3 would be too much of a stretch.

So perhaps they’d sell an f/8.5 as f/9 instead of f/8. We’ll see.

One of the best kept secrets on the net is that Bill Claff measures these data using an optical bench. But, you have to be extremely anal to dig out the results.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Maybe DO element (or some other part of the design) loses enough light to pull the T-stop down a bit, so they decided to go the other way with the naming.

Canon certainly did not do that with the 85 f/1.2 DS L.
There is also no indication that DO affects T-stops one way or the other.

 

[EricN]

Canon certainly did not do that with the 85 f/1.2 DS L.
There is also no indication that DO affects T-stops one way or the other.

This would have confused people greatly, because it's the same lens other than the DS. It is an example and I do see your point though.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

If it's true that this lens is a $2.5K lens (and not a $5K 600mm f6.3) then it's fair to say that this is an interesting alternative to the RF 100-500mm f7.1. It's in a similar price point.

 

[usern4cr]

Ahoy, matie! Looks like another "pull-that-long-lens-out" pirate lens is commin' out! I bet it'll find a lot of treasure!

 

[blackcoffee17]

If it's true that this lens is a $2.5K lens (and not a $5K 600mm f6.3) then it's fair to say that this is an interesting alternative to the RF 100-500mm f7.1. It's in a similar price point.

It could be a $5K lens if it was L quality with very sharp optics, fast AF, weather sealing, and around F6.3 at 600mm. But it also could be F6.3 at 400mm already.

 

[john1970]

It could be a $5K lens if it was L quality with very sharp optics, fast AF, weather sealing, and around F6.3 at 600mm. But it also could be F6.3 at 400mm already.

and I wish it was, but unfortunately is not.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Bill Claff has measured the focal length to be 489.99 mm and f/7.2.

Wow, never heard of the guy and the lens being F7.2 although I read tons of reviews on this lens because I needed to decided whether to keep the EF 100-400mm L II IS USM or to get the RF 100-500mm. Is there anybody to back this guy up? I only read the lens being F6.7 at the long end and most camera deciding whether it is f6.3 or f7.1

Anyway, it was an easy decision at last and I'm very, very happy with my 100-500mm lens.

 

[Dragon]

Wow, never heard of the guy and the lens being F7.2 although I read tons of reviews on this lens because I needed to decided whether to keep the EF 100-400mm L II IS USM or to get the RF 100-500mm. Is there anybody to back this guy up? I only read the lens being F6.7 at the long end and most camera deciding whether it is f6.3 or f7.1

Anyway, it was an easy decision at last and I'm very, very happy with my 100-500mm lens.

I can't think of anyone in the photo community who questions Bill Claff's expertise. You can see his work in a nice compact form here https://www.photonstophotos.net/ Lots of very useful information.

 

[gbasilemc]

I don't really understand this lens, wouldn't a 100-500 with 2x extender be better (same aperture at max range but with 200mm more) ?

 

[AlanF]

Wow, never heard of the guy and the lens being F7.2 although I read tons of reviews on this lens because I needed to decided whether to keep the EF 100-400mm L II IS USM or to get the RF 100-500mm. Is there anybody to back this guy up? I only read the lens being F6.7 at the long end and most camera deciding whether it is f6.3 or f7.1

Anyway, it was an easy decision at last and I'm very, very happy with my 100-500mm lens.

He's the guy behind photonstophotos.net and utterly reliable. You can calculate for yourself that the figures of f/6.3 and f/6.7 are impossible. The measured diameter of the front element of the 100-500mm is 71mm. The f-number of a true 500mm lens of that diameter would be 500/71 or narrower, that is f/7.04 or narrower. For a 490mm length, f/6.9 or narrower.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I don't really understand this lens, wouldn't a 100-500 with 2x extender be better (same aperture at max range but with 200mm more) ?

The 100-500 is around 6.3 at 400mm. Add the 2X extender and you are 1 stop slower than this 200-800 and likely image quality will be worse.

 

[fogleman]

I don't really understand this lens, wouldn't a 100-500 with 2x extender be better (same aperture at max range but with 200mm more) ?

The 100-500 is 700mm f/10 with a 1.4x which is already less aperture than 800mm f/9 of this new lens. Also, there's the hassle of putting on the TC.

 

[Dragon]

The 100-500 is around 6.3 at 400mm. Add the 2X extender and you are 1 stop slower than this 200-800 and likely image quality will be worse.

The limit of angular resolution for any telephoto lens is determined by the objective diameter. 90mm is bigger than 71mm, so this lens has at least the potential for better resolution than the 100-500 with TC and I suspect it will realize some of that potential.