Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM update [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
$16K USD does not seem so unreasonable for an EF 200-500 f/4 replacement given the current price and how old that lens is.
However, I do not expect a zoomable extender to be cheap.
As for an EF 500 f/4 replacement, I would not consider it one if it costs more than the EF 600 f/4 III.
However, I do not expect a zoomable extender to be cheap.
As for an EF 500 f/4 replacement, I would not consider it one if it costs more than the EF 600 f/4 III.
Upvote
0
You bring up a good point that if the 200-500 mm f4 is the replacement for the 200-400 mm f4 + 1.4x TC that Canon should eventually announce a straight 500 mm to replace the EF 500 mm f4. Personally, I hope you are correct. There were once rumors that Canon was working on a 500 mm f4.5 or f5 DO lens. If Canon goes the route of the 500 mm f4.5 DO lens I would probably buy that as a light weight lens.
Upvote
0
500mm f/5 is only 1 stop faster than f/7.1 and 2/3rd slower than f/4. Can’t see much room for it between the RF 200-500mm f/4 and the RF 100-500mm, both of which will be far more versatile. f/4.5 might have more of an edge But I would guess low priority for Canon.
Upvote
0
Should be a great lens, but way too expensive. I barely know wildlife photographers being able to buy such lenses. I like what Nikon is doing with their midrange 400mm and 800mm. With Canon it’s either below €3200 or above €12000.
Upvote
0
It is clear you're short on a few neurons when it comes to bird/wildlife photography. The 800 f/11 is largely a novelty lens - we've been through that. I know in your world, facts are not pre-eminent so let me clue you in on something. Today, at my usual osprey haunt, the number of Nikon 800 f/6.3 lenses/gear are prevalent while the "big whites" have become increasingly rare. Last year, it was row after row of Canon, now they are endangered species for this photographic application. Stick to neuroanatomy, troll.
Upvote
0
It’s clear that you’re clueless about the ILC market as a whole. Fortunately for their company, Canon is not.
Do you honestly think the type of lenses you personally see in one location has any significance as far as the industry is concerned? LOL. Anecdotes ≠ data.
You should stick to bird and wildlife photography, and not waste time making yourself look foolish on the internet. I hope you’re better at photography than you are at comprehending business realities, but we don’t know because you haven’t posted a single image. The majority of your posts have been complaining about Canon, and more recently you’ve added promoting Nikon. If you’re looking for a troll, find a mirror.
Upvote
0
How many electrons do you save with this CR1 CR2 CR3 ranking system instead of just saying something like all-but-certain, fairly-likely and merely-rumored? I have a lot of things going on in my life besides this forum and despite being on it for 4-5 years I just can't keep it all straight.
Upvote
0
Probably fewer than you’re wasting by complaining about an essentially meaningless thing. Especially one that’s really just not that complicated.
Upvote
0
B-B-But..if it's innovations for inexpensive lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11, that doesn't count, 'cause no rich snob would be caught dead with such a lens, even though pretty much every reviewer is surprised by how much better and more useful it is than they thought. Same is true for the RF 100-400, a lens that is far smaller and lighter than any 100-400 made previously, but that doesn't count 'cause it's f/8 for heaven's sake! No true bird photogrpaher would say the RF 100-500 is innovative, even though it adds 100mm reach and yet is smaller and lighter than the EF 100-400 'cause, well, it's f/7.1, and any "pro" birder knows that is unusable, even though thousands of folks somehow mange to use it and get great results. And of course, essentially replacing an EF 300 f/2.8 prime with a much more versatile RF 100-300 f/2.8 zoom doesn't count, 'cause well it costs a fortune, and that RF 28-70 f/2 lens that has a wider aperture then any similar zoom Canon has made, well, that's just too damn big and heavy, so that doesn't count either.....
Now if they just made an obscure lens that only I want, well that would be innovation!!
Upvote
0
Incidentally, here are a couple of shots at f/11 (EF 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII). Shutter speeds for both are 1/2500 s, ISOs are 2000-2500 (which was no problem on my 1D X and even less so on my R3). I would not call a lens limited to f/11 a novelty.
Of course, like any lens the 800/11 can only produce results based on the skill of the person holding the camera.
Upvote
0
Very well may be true, but I still hope that Canon releases some lighter weight yet fast lens similar to the Nikon 400 f4.5 or 800 f6.3 PF. With that said, I find the Canon 100-300 mm f2.8 to be a remarkable lens. For me a 500 mm f4.5/5 DO would complement the 200-500 mm f4 not replace it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I don’t disagree. I’m just expressing understanding for those who might be disappointed. As you said, zooms are the new primes. So this is really a very expensive replacement for the 500 f4. Or, if it is a replacement for the 200-400 it comes without the versatility of a built-in extender. Which is also a justifiable disappointment to those who used the 200-400.
Upvote
0
Understood. I am very pleased with my 100-300/2.8 and I really like the zoom for my use cases. But if I’d had the choice between the 100-300/2.8 and a smaller RF 300/2.8, I may have gone with the latter and used the 70-200/2.8 on a second body.
I disagree with this one. The difference between 560mm and 500mm is modest at best, and with the EF 200-400 going from 200mm to 500mm is not a seamless process and costs a stop of light. Covering most of the 200-560mm range with a simple ring twist and a constant f/4 seems far more versatile.
However, I suspect you mean a 200-500 with a built-in 1.4x. Agree that offers more versatility. But as I asked, how happy would people be when that versatility means a lens that’s bigger and heavier than the 600/4 and 800/5.6?
Upvote
0
I mean we're nearing the 5th anniversary of the RF mount and there is still not a native 50mm f/1.4, a hugely popular lens. The f/1.8 is a great lens but it's not an f/1.4 (which could/should have IS). The f/1.2 is a phenomenal lens but it's huge and expensive. There is $2000 in retail price difference between the two and nothing in the middle! Except the EF f/1.4, which requires an adapter, and is 30 (!) years old.
The same problem exists at 85mm, but at least the EF f/1.4 has IS and is a relatively new design. 24mm and 35mm are missing a premium option, too. There are expensive and cheap zooms in the line, and a bunch of really unique stuff fixed and zoom, but why not expensive and cheap fixed lenses at the common focal lengths?
Upvote
0
They'll never do RF 50 f1.4 that would eat up 90% of the f1.2 sales. You should look to Sigma EF adapted lenses, the 50 Art is cheap (plenty of them on the used market) and pretty good already, the 40 Art is on par, if not superior, to the RF 1.2 and cost just a third of it, so it's a no brainer.
Upvote
0
It would have been nicer to have a built in TC. I do not buy the 'will add weight' argument. The weight gain would have been of very little percentage increase.
On the other hand, I am happy that the 100-300 does not have a built-in TC. The 100-300 is for the mid tele shots while the 200-500 is for telephoto work and a TC would have been nicer.
On the other hand, I am happy that the 100-300 does not have a built-in TC. The 100-300 is for the mid tele shots while the 200-500 is for telephoto work and a TC would have been nicer.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
