A Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM makes an apperance

[1ll]

Not my EF 600/4 II, ALL of them. Canon only services products for so long. The official end of service life for the 600/4 II is July 2025. Canon will stop accepting them for repair after that. 3rd party shops might still service them, if they can find parts.

As for my lens, an extended warranty certainly isn’t an option for a lens I bought nearly 13 years ago.

Maybe they're friends with Microsoft. Reminds me of a movie title I saw somewhere, Pay or Die. In your case, it's buy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The weight difference is substantial, and much better balanced, world of difference when you're walking around with it all day. I've owned the version 2 so I can attest to what I say here. The "reported" better IQ is just silly, if I put images from both side by side you wouldn't tell the difference. Majority of people reporting this silly fact most likely have never owned these lenses. This is just people trying to get too scientific, and it's stupidity if you ask me. I wouldn't pay this much if it rendered a soft image. It doesn't.

Funny how you have no problem with image degradation when you request a built in extender. Cause regardless how little, there still will be image degradation.

Certainly the weight difference is significant, and it would matter to me if I had trouble carrying the 600/4 II. But I go on hikes of a few miles with it and shoot handheld, so... I do use a monopod with it if I'm going to be standing in one spot for a few minutes, and I use a tripod/gimbal for raptors in winter, when I'm in the same spot for a few hours.

The bare lenses are not really different in terms of IQ (the MTFs from Canon do show that the MkII is very slightly sharper as borne out by anecdotal information, but they're really close, i.e. 0.90 in the center for the MkIII and 0.91 for the MkII). No doubt comparing them side by side no differences would be evident. So, I expect that I'd see no real difference between the MkII and RF lenses in terms of IQ...for about 23% of my shots.

I want the built-in extender because about 65% of my shots with the 600/4 are with the 1.4x, and another 12% are with the 2x. That's the use case where the difference between the MkII and MkIII/RF becomes evident, for example see the comparison by Bryan/TDP – that's a difference that will show up in pictures. Bryan tested two copies of the MkIII, the bare lenses have similar performance, one copy is a little better with the 1.4x and the other is a little better with the 2x but both are meaningfully worse than the MkII with either TC. The RF 600/4 is similar. So for the majority of my shooting with a 600/4, the MkII will give noticeably better output than the MkIII/RF.

Next logical question is why not get the 800/5.6 if I shoot mainly at 840/5.6 anyway? When the 600/4 II came out, with the 1.4x it was optically better than the EF 800/5.6, as well delivering a longer focal length and costing less. The RF 800/5.6 is really just the EF 400/2.8 III aka RF 400/2.8 with a purpose-built 2x TC behind it, and so it's not a surprise that the EF 600/4 II with the 1.4xIII outperforms the RF 800/5.6 just as it does the RF 600/4 + 1.4x.

So I suppose I should modify my comment that I'd swap my EF 600/4 II for an RF 600/4 + 1.4x in a heartbeat. I'd do so only after seeing the optical performance of the lens. I'd probably preorder such a lens anyway, but make the decision on keeping it later based on optical performance compared to my current setup.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe they're friends with Microsoft. Reminds me of a movie title I saw somewhere, Pay or Die. In your case, it's buy.

Only if my EF 600/4 II fails and can't be serviced. I have lenses that are older than that one and are still working fine.

 

[EricN]

Only if my EF 600/4 II fails and can't be serviced. I have lenses that are older than that one and are still working fine.

Not only you, there are an impressive (impressive for me anyway) number of lenses in circulation rated to be in good quality not only from Canon, but other companies as well. Hopefully it never happens, but even after the original manufacturer quits supporting a lens, there are smaller companies that might take a look.

 

[1ll]

Only if my EF 600/4 II fails and can't be serviced. I have lenses that are older than that one and are still working fine.

Your lenses are your eyes through which you see the world. They serve you well.

 

[jabbermack]

f/5.6 of the modern RF lens is the optical equivalents of an f/4 lens 10 years ago.
Thanks to sensor technology and advancements in optical performance.
A perfect example is the focus tech of a 5D MK3 compared to the R5.
Another perfect example...moores law!!

 

[AlanF]

Not only you, there are an impressive (impressive for me anyway) number of lenses in circulation rated to be in good quality not only from Canon, but other companies as well. Hopefully it never happens, but even after the original manufacturer quits supporting a lens, there are smaller companies that might take a look.

Problem can be availability of parts.

 

[EricN]

Problem can be availability of parts.

It's true

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's true

Yes, it is...

3rd party shops might still service them, if they can find parts.

 

[1ll]

Yes, it is...

Time to upgrade.

 

[Weed]

I do not see how a 200-500 F5.6 would be significantly better than the 100-500. The only advantage could be an internal zoom and full TC support. I doubt it could be considerably better optically or have better AF. Is 2/3 stops extra light at 500mm worth a few $1000 more?

I completely agree, the current RF 100-500 is f5.6 or better at 100-363mm, with the benefit of going down to 100mm. Buying a lens that only does better at 364-500mm doesn’t really make sense to me. Hopefully we will still see a 200ish-500ish f4

 

[Ozarker]

As a non-native speaker, I tend to use 'constant aperture' for that situation. And I realize that isn't less confusing, it certainly feels like someone got a thesaurus as a present and went wild

Exactly. Constant and fixed just don't seem to have to correct nuance, but it can seem that way when the nomenclature relates to a specialized subject.

 

[1ll]

I remember all the hate the 100-500 got when it released.
People were furious about the f/7.1 aperture and declared the lens to be unusable in anything else than broad daylight.
Of course the same was said about the f/11 lenses, but those were below the financial threshold of those snobs.

So if canon releases a new lens with a max aperture of f/5.6 I am very much interested in seeing if the same people now find some other reason to say it's unusable.
They'll probably say something like "why would you buy this lens, if there's already a 100-500?" Or "it's far too heavy to handhold so it's unusable"

I used my 100-500mm at night shooting the Brooklyn Bridge Manhattan tower at 8:14 pm using a tripod ISO 320, 500mm, f7.1, 1/10 s and shot was perfect. I was standing on Pier 6 of Brooklyn Bridge Park. I hope I'm allowed to post this.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Keep in mind this is a patent application. Canon files thousands of those per year, very few actually become products.

That's it. We'll see with which specs Canon will finally come up. For me personally, a 200-500mm f/5.6 L quality zoom (that does not extend while zooming) would be very attractive. I think I then would trade in my RW 200-800, because I'd prefer a more rugged L lens design that isn't prone to break into two pieces. In fact, I find myself that I nearly always take my big EF 600mm f/4.0 III with me even when a lighter gear would do it, because I do not want to end up with a broken lens during a photo trip. So, such a faster 200-500mm + TC's would be a better solution for photographers with a profile like mine, and I guess I am not the only one.

 

[1ll]

That's it. We'll see with which specs Canon will finally come up. For me personally, a 200-500mm f/5.6 L quality zoom (that does not extend while zooming) would be very attractive. I think I then would trade in my RW 200-800, because I'd prefer a more rugged L lens design that isn't prone to break into two pieces. In fact, I find myself that I nearly always take my big EF 600mm f/4.0 III with me even when a lighter gear would do it, because I do not want to end up with a broken lens during a photo trip. So, such a faster 200-500mm + TC's would be a better solution for photographers with a profile like mine, and I guess I am not the only one.

We all have wish lists. Hopefully, we won't have to wait another year for an outcome.