Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[hollybush]

I am heartily sick of these comments about lenses being too dark. The 100-500mm is f/7.1 at 500mm, which is only 0.24 stops faster, and all those here who have it rave about the lens.

I’m here, I have it, and not only do I not rave about it online but have become somewhat disenchanted with it, in part because of its slowness. I think most of the situations, for me, where the slowness doesn’t matter are also ones where my old EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II would have been OK (principally adventure travel outside Australia). The old lens is heavier and less ergonomic, but if not for the pandemic I *would* have done those trips with it and never known the difference.

1/3 stop here,1/3 stop there, where do you draw the line?

 

[E_ATL]

24-105mm was my most coveted focal length range for the EF-L series. So versatile for fashion and beauty. I'm happy to see it available, and faster. Finally. My current kit with the 24-70 and 70-200 makes it redundant though, unless price becomes less of an object.

 

[koenkooi]

I’m here, I have it, and not only do I not rave about it online but have become somewhat disenchanted with it, in part because of its slowness. I think most of the situations, for me, where the slowness doesn’t matter are also ones where my old EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II would have been OK [...]

FWIW, the physical apertures in the EF100-400LII and RF100-500L are the same, the reported apertures in the EXIF are mainly different due to rounding to 1/2 or 1/3 stops.

 

[bbasiaga]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

 

[P-visie]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

Does your wife sleep on the couch when she’s mad?

 

[SwissFrank]

Manual aperture ring on the 24-105 is cool. It's listed as "for video use", but I wonder if it could also be used for photography?

With current firmware, does NOT work in still mode but DOES work in movie mode. Canon won't commit to whether a firmware upgrade for existing cameras would make it work in still mode, however it WILL work in still mode on future bodies.

 

[SwissFrank]

I wonder if the 24-105 is compatible with the RF extenders. Being able to make it a 48-210 would be fun.

I haven't seen definitively no, but I've seen for instance in the 200-800 vid where TCs are mentioned and when talking about other lenses that TC works with they do not mention the 24-105.

I actually used the 2x TC's on the 24 tilt-shift, if I recall correctly. It sounds like an expensive and stupid way to make a 50mm f/7.0, but the shift range also doubled, so I was able to get a squared-off correct-perspective shot of a little church on top of a tiny hill or mound. using that extra shift range. The hill was about 2-3 stories tall, not tall, and just big enough at the top for the church, so you couldn't stand near to the church and take a photo of it level. This was around 1996-1998 so there correcting it in photoshop wasn't as simple as it is now, though I think I ended up doing exactly that to get a sharper photo.

 

[bbasiaga]

Same filter size as the RF 800 f/11.
Although, I doubt very many people will have both.

I have the 800/11. But will probably sell it if I can after the 200-800 arrives.

I wish it was 7.1 at 600mm. F8 is a too dark already at 500mm but let's see the reviews.

The EF 100-400 was 5.6 at 400mm, or 8 at 560mm with the 1.4x TC. So the way I see it this one is similar in speed to the older EF L series with the TC. But then 240mm longer. And about the same price, actually a bit cheaper when comparing release prices. Not too shabby!

Regarding sports, I've been photographing way too much kids' soccer this past year. Parents want more than a single player in focus, and, even at 500mm, f/9 doesn't give me enough DoF in many cases. This new zoom could definitely be of use to many photographers.

Edit: And, oh yeah, the PS CC AI Content-Aware Fill helps get those folks in folding-chairs staring at their smartphones right out of the picture entirely. Just saying, with new editing tools, it's so easy to clean up a distracting background. Balance that against lenses that way a ton and cost five figures.

I am looking at this lens for soccer as well. I use my 100-400L vII now, sometimes with TC. I doubt I'll stop using that one because it is a bit brighter for the late season games which are late in the day, and on unlighted fields. But this 200-800 could be great for some extra reach to get the goalie or breakaway plays that happen on the far corner of the field. We'll see how it goes. I've learned a bunch of tricks to get good shots of the kids, even isolated on the field. And you are correct in that the parents of those kids do not notice the photos weren't taken at 2.8. Photographers do, and forum dwellers do, but luckily they are not the customer.

I’m here, I have it, and not only do I not rave about it online but have become somewhat disenchanted with it, in part because of its slowness. I think most of the situations, for me, where the slowness doesn’t matter are also ones where my old EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II would have been OK (principally adventure travel outside Australia). The old lens is heavier and less ergonomic, but if not for the pandemic I *would* have done those trips with it and never known the difference.

1/3 stop here,1/3 stop there, where do you draw the line?

Canon has some great offerings for you that are faster. THe 200-400 f/4 is still very viable. The 100-300 2.8 is a lovely, lovely lens. Even the 400 DO II is very nice performer and not too much more used than you 100-500 was new.

 

[YuengLinger]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

One advantage of the 10-20mm is being able to easily conceal it. You know, once you've had a lens for more than a few months, you can just say, "Oh, I've had that for a long time now. That's one of my older lenses."

 

[JustUs7]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

What they don’t know is that it’s like camping for us. We don’t mind. . Fair trade for a new toy!

 

[clearwaterphotog]

With current firmware, does NOT work in still mode but DOES work in movie mode. Canon won't commit to whether a firmware upgrade for existing cameras would make it work in still mode, however it WILL work in still mode on future bodies.

Well come on now! That aperture ring is actually the cherry on top for me, even though I'm pretty sure my travel kit won't accommodate this lens (+ a telephoto like I usually bring). I'm honestly shocked they included it, but given the focus on cinema use, it makes some sense. I can't fathom a single valid reason why it shouldn't work in stills mode, though - that seems like an intentional block. The cripple hammer strikes again... lol... because of COURSE we have to drop a few thou' on a new body just to use a control ring on the lens! Sheesh

 

[jeffa4444]

What prices are you referring to?
AFAIK the $1,899.00 are ex. VAT.
And every country has its own tax system.
Germany has 19% VAT, that's it.
Therefore, German price ex. VAT would be 2.100 €.
To the US price (1.900$ = 1.800€, roughly) that leaves 300€.
And yes, European prices are higher than US.
Ask the British... they would be happy with German prices.

Yes ask the British! The 24-105mm f2.8L is £ 3,439.00, the RF 200-800mm £ 2,299.00 and the RF-S 10-18mm £ 379.00 including 20% VAT. So the most expensive prices in Europe.

 

[Maximilian]

... Hoods included with inexpensive, non-L lenses?...

View attachment 212613

Not here in Germany. See screenshot from canon.de store.


Could this be a mistake at B&H?

 

[jam05]

This is about to be the most hater thing I\'ve ever posted on this website, but . . . Is it just me, or is the 24-105/2.8 just a touch ugly looking? Like, what is going on with the wide spacing of the marks on the focus ring? It looks like the EF 200/2.8 L II, released in 1996.

Wide spacing for video applications

 

[photographer]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

www.airbnb.com

 

[AlanF]

I’m here, I have it, and not only do I not rave about it online but have become somewhat disenchanted with it, in part because of its slowness. I think most of the situations, for me, where the slowness doesn’t matter are also ones where my old EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II would have been OK (principally adventure travel outside Australia). The old lens is heavier and less ergonomic, but if not for the pandemic I *would* have done those trips with it and never known the difference.

1/3 stop here,1/3 stop there, where do you draw the line?

Just rack up the iso and use decent RAW conversion that removes noise. Here are two shots from last weekend with the R5 + RF 100-500 at iso 10,000. These are tight crops, not reduced, which emphasise the effects of noise. I'll next post at ridiculously high iso.

 

[Del Paso]

Just rack up the iso and use decent RAW conversion that removes noise. Here are two shots from last weekend with the R5 + RF 100-500 at iso 10,000. These are tight crops, not reduced, which emphasise the effects of noise. I'll next post at ridiculously high iso.View attachment 212646View attachment 212647

Great shots!

 

[AlanF]

I’m here, I have it, and not only do I not rave about it online but have become somewhat disenchanted with it, in part because of its slowness. I think most of the situations, for me, where the slowness doesn’t matter are also ones where my old EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II would have been OK (principally adventure travel outside Australia). The old lens is heavier and less ergonomic, but if not for the pandemic I *would* have done those trips with it and never known the difference.

1/3 stop here,1/3 stop there, where do you draw the line?

These are just for record. The Nuthatch was taken at iso 51,000, showing full size and the crop. The Pheasant is taken at iso 40,000, cropped and reduced by 20% to fit.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not here in Germany. See screenshot from canon.de store.
View attachment 212643

Could this be a mistake at B&H?

Yes, it was a mistake at B&H. Today, the hood is not shown as 'in the box', it's listed separately for $29. When I look at Canon USA the hood is not listed 'in the box'.

Bummer. At least my faith in Canon's desire to extract maximum cash from their customers is partially restored. I'm not surprised the 200-800 includes the hood, that's been true for their non-L lenses over $1K (except the MP-E 65, which has an odd little hood anyway, and one that's really only of any possible benefit when the lens is used with the twin flash).

 

[mxwphoto]

The 200-800mm looks great for casual fun wildlife hikes with potential for something more serious when needed. I promise to get one right after I get my weather sealed f/1.4 35/50/85 primes for general, street and portrait photography. And a 16 or 20mm f/1.8 for landscape and astro. Until then I'll manage with 70-200 and the 600mm f/11 for wildlife.

Stay buff, my friend. I would not call slinging around 3kg+ on a hike casual fun, but then that's me with my skinny arms.