Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM update [CR2]

[ashmadux]

I was just talking to an independent camera dealer, and he was saying Canon is on a "growth" push with their dealers. Your thinking was basically his response to the Canon rep... "howabout you make the stuff masses of people will actually purchase so we don't feel handcuffed?"

Thank you thank you thank you for mentioning the RF50... Every time I see one of these supposed exotic lens announcements for extraneous lens models I get angrier and angrier at Canon. If I was in the financial position I probably would have bought a Panasonic and slap on some l-mount 50 mm but that's just not the case.

It is utterly obscene how Cannon has released not one single 1.4 lens... They have completely cut out the middle ground... If I didn't have a core set of EF lenses already I would have been forced to buy exorbitantly priced L lens RF versions that honestly don't seem to perform that much better in some cases (24-105, 35mm(non L),etc). And ironically seemingly every single other manufacturer has released a 51.4 recently.

I may have a new R62, but I am an extremely unhappy Canon user. Let's not even mention not having access to the Tamron 30 to 150. Absolutely ridiculous.

Argh.

 

[AlanF]

Thank you thank you thank you for mentioning the RF50... Every time I see one of these supposed exotic lens announcements for extraneous lens models I get angrier and angrier at Canon. If I was in the financial position I probably would have bought a Panasonic and slap on some l-mount 50 mm but that's just not the case.

It is utterly obscene how Cannon has released not one single 1.4 lens... They have completely cut out the middle ground... If I didn't have a core set of EF lenses already I would have been forced to buy exorbitantly priced L lens RF versions that honestly don't seem to perform that much better in some cases (24-105, 35mm,etc). And ironically seemingly every single other manufacturer has released a 51.4 recently.

I may have a new R62, but I am an extremely unhappy Canon user. Let's not even mention not having access to the Tamron 30 to 150. Absolutely ridiculous.

Argh.

Why are you complaining - you have a core set of lenses already and Canon has provided you with an adapter that allows you to use them perfectly without having to spend money on new lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

As I've remarked in other threads, Canon has been less than innovative seems to be targeting either the high end or entry level offerings.

The fact that Canon is targeting the high and low while ignoring the middle doesn’t mean they’re not innovating. You personally have no interest in <$1K supertele lenses and inexpensive FF UWA lenses that deliver very good IQ, or in the lightest and sharpest 1xx-300/2.8 zoom available or a 1200mm f/8 lens that takes TCs, or in an f/2 standard zoom, or a dual fisheye VR lens. Fine. That doesn’t make them lack innovation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why are you complaining

That’s all @ashmadux has been doing for years. Why would he change now?

 

[Tom Raymond]

Other than the convenience of the RF mount, I cannot understand the development of this lens. With the EF 200-400, I already have the zoom flexibility of 200-560mm, with the loss of one F stop. Not including a 1.4X in this new lens is a complete deal breaker, at any price. Conversely I applaud Canon for the release of the RF 100-300mm F2.8. This an indoor sports shooters dream come true. Having this new zoom resulted in the sale of my very cherished Canon EF 200 1.8 (Eye of Sauron). I absolutely loved this piece of glass, and seeing this 30 year old lens perform flawlessly with the R3 was simply amazing. Lastly, my EF 600mm F4.0 III is going nowhere !

 

[koenkooi]

Other than the convenience of the RF mount, I cannot understand the development of this lens. With the EF 200-400, I already have the zoom flexibility of 200-560mm, with the loss of one F stop. Not including a 1.4X in this new lens is a complete deal breaker, at any price. [...]

I'm not in the target audience for this lens, but is that extra 60mm (560mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/4) making a big difference? I would think that having that extra stop would negate the extra 60mm since that would be noisier due to having less light. Genuine question, I haven't used big whites myself

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not in the target audience for this lens, but is that extra 60mm (560mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/4) making a big difference? I would think that having that extra stop would negate the extra 60mm since that would be noisier due to having less light. Genuine question, I haven't used big whites myself

I expect most people would prefer to have 500mm at f/4 over 560mm at f/5.6, especially since it's likely the former will be sharper than the latter when comparing this rumored RF lens to the EF 200-400 with the 1.4x engaged. Furthermore, going from 200mm to 500mm without needing to pause and flip in a TC is likely an advantage in many shooting situations.

I suspect many complaints are based in the hope for a 200-500 with a built-in 1.4x providing 700mm f/5.6, a hope that will apparently go unfulfilled. OTOH, had Canon released a 200-500 + 1.4x, people (probably even many of the same people) would have complained that the lens was too large and heavy.

Keep in mind the analogy to the 100-300/2.8, where Canon designers specifically addressed the question of the built-in TC, which was not included to meet size and weight targets for the lens. They omitted the drop-in slot from that lens as well, opting for 112mm front threads. Instead of both a TC and a filter slot, they put a focusing group close to the mount to yield a shorter, lighter lens.

I wonder if they'll put a drop-in slot in the 200-500/4? Although 112mm is the largest size from B+W, other brands (NiSi, Tiffen, etc.) go larger for screw-in filters. Even B+W's parent company, Schneider Optics, offers larger filters e.g. a 138mm CPL (a decade ago, B+W didn't offer a 10-stop ND in 82mm, so I bought the Schneider version – same glass, different name on the mount). Having said that, the standard sizes may be problematic. 300/2.8 is 107mm, so a 112mm is a good fit without being too large. 500/4 is 125mm, and I'm not sure that the common 127mm filter is big enough. The 138mm filters would seem to be too big, and are problematic for CPLs since most of them seem to be non-rotating (intended for a rotating filter holder).

 

[bbasiaga]

So I'll never buy this lens, but to me the extra 100mm at the long end is a way better deal than the flip in TC. Stop faster, only 10% less reach. DEAL! If the rumored zoom TC (variable TC, IDK what to call it) happens, and you can slap that on as well - whoah, there is some major flexibility. 200 f/4 to 1000f/8. Incredible.

But not for a mere mortal like me. I may actually get a 200-400 on the used market in the next year...been saving for a big splurge.

I'd like the 100-300 2.8 plus the zoom TC as well. That may be my new dream combination. It should be cheap enough for me in about 30 years when canon switches to the next mount.

-Brian

 

[fogleman]

If we get the "zoom teleconverter" that can switch between 1x, 1.4x, 2x, then I think omitting the teleconverter from this lens makes very good sense.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If we get the "zoom teleconverter" that can switch between 1x, 1.4x, 2x, then I think omitting the teleconverter from this lens makes very good sense.

It's good to have dreams. But at some point, people need to wake up.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/new-type-of-teleconverter-coming-from-canon-alongside-a-supertelephoto-zoom.42364/page-2#post-962867

 

[mimbu]

Canon is still having issues meeting demand for certain lenses, such as the RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM.

Interesting. The RF135/1.8 is pretty easily available here in Japan for about US$2180 tax inclusive, about US$1980 pre-tax.

The RF100-300/2.8 is a bit harder to find but it is around. Best price I could find on it was US$10285 tax inclusive, about US$9350 pre-tax.

 

[Del Paso]

It's good to have dreams. But at some point, people need to wake up.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/new-type-of-teleconverter-coming-from-canon-alongside-a-supertelephoto-zoom.42364/page-2#post-962867

Even if this was possible, IQ would take a severe hit!
A zoom (lens) + another zoom (extender) would certainly result in an optical catastrophe.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even if this was possible, IQ would take a severe hit!
A zoom (lens) + another zoom (extender) would certainly result in an optical catastrophe.

Wait, are you suggesting that a 'teleconverter' that includes both reduction (1.0x) and magnification (1.4x, 2x) optics yet has only four elements (compared to 7 in the current 1.4x and 9 in the current 2x) would have a detrimental effect on IQ? It's almost as if you're saying very small rocks won't float. Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

 

[Czardoom]

I'm not in the target audience for this lens, but is that extra 60mm (560mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/4) making a big difference? I would think that having that extra stop would negate the extra 60mm since that would be noisier due to having less light. Genuine question, I haven't used big whites myself

Can't say how it will be with this lens, of course, but I would bet that 500mm native will give you higher resolution than 560mm with 1.4x built in TC. TC's are very convenient, but shooting hand held, I have rarely seen them give you noticeably better results than just cropping. There is always a resolution hit with a TC, in my experience. Granted, my experience is limited, and of course, each particular lens will handle TCs better or worse than others. But given the option of 500mm native or 400 with 1.4x built-in TC (giving you 560mm), I would be very surprised if the 500mm native wasn't actually giving you more reach.

 

[RobbieHat]

This lens with a zoom teleconverter would be the ultimate jack of all trades big white. Heavy, but in many circumstances (sports, safari, birding, dunes, intimate landscapes, etc.) would be well worth it for the flexibility. I would love this lens for dune shots! Super expensive but depending on means and your business model could be invaluable.

 

[SebastiaoSal]

Sadly, this is also the price of some high-end mountain bikes.
Since Covid, many prices have gone crazy.

And unlike the mountain bike high end optics don’t drop value like a rock.

 

[Del Paso]

Wait, are you suggesting that a 'teleconverter' that includes both reduction (1.0x) and magnification (1.4x, 2x) optics yet has only four elements (compared to 7 in the current 1.4x and 9 in the current 2x) would have a detrimental effect on IQ? It's almost as if you're saying very small rocks won't float. Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

In my gin and tonic, rocks do float!

 

[unfocused]

I'm not in the target audience for this lens, but is that extra 60mm (560mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/4) making a big difference? I would think that having that extra stop would negate the extra 60mm since that would be noisier due to having less light. Genuine question, I haven't used big whites myself

I don’t believe it’s about the 60mm with the EF 200-400mm, but rather the decision to drop the built-in teleconverter when going from 400 to 500mm. A 500mm with built in converter would be 700mm 5.6. That would be a ground breaking lens similar to the original 200-400, while a 200-500 zoom is “just” another zoom lens. This can be legitimately criticized as a step backward in innovation. And, given that the rumored price seems more in line with a lens with built in teleconverter that is also a legitimate criticism.

Certainly we should wait and see what Canon actually does, but I can sympathize with those who are disappointed with this rumor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Certainly we should wait and see what Canon actually does, but I can sympathize with those who are disappointed with this rumor.

The RF 100-300/2.8 lacks the built-in 1.4x for which some (myself included) were hoping. As it is, the lens is close in length and weight to the 400/2.8, and with a built-in TC it would likely have matched or exceeded the 400/2.8 in length/weight.

I wonder how those hoping for a switchable 1.4x in the 200-500/4 would feel if that made the lens similar to or slightly greater than the 600/4 in length and weight. Actually, the zoom starting at 100mm added 75 mm / 3” to the 300/2.8, and that’s with the filter slot removed. That’s close to the difference between the 500/4 and 600/4, so the 200-500 is likely to be as long as the 600/4 already, without a 1.4x TC built in.

As with the 100-300/2.8, Canon will decide which more of their users would prefer – a built-in TC and/or drop-in filter slot, or a shorter/lighter lens. We know their choice for the 100-300, it’s likely they’ll make the same one for the 200-500.

Honestly, while I was hoping for a TC in the 100-300, the lens is already plenty long enough.

 

[birdman916]

Gosh I wanted to get this lens really bad. But not it seems maybe just get the 600mm for less money or just get the r1 and keep my 100-500