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

[sanj]

According to Canon, for the 100-300/2.8 it was about both weight and size. Based on the patent, the 200-500/4 is the same length as the RF 600/4 (longer than the RF 800/5.6). Those lenses are already at the edge of fitting in an airline-regulation carryon. My 600/4 II is slightly shorter than the patent-based lens length of the 200-500, and here it is in a carryon:

View attachment 210590

A built-in TC would make the 200-500/4 something like 50mm / 2” longer, meaning it wouldn’t fit in a standard carryon. I suspect that factors into Canon’s decision.

2" longer seems like a fine compromise to add a built-in TC. I doubt Canon decides the design of telephoto lenses based on if it can fit overhead bins of aircrafts.. I hope the field use of the lens determines the design. Field use design must keep in mind the dust and time factor of adding a TC. It is what it is, but a built in TC would have worked better...

 

[sanj]

"The last straw that broke the camel's back" isn't an old saying for nothing.

AlanF. Do explain. English is not my first language. Thx.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I doubt Canon decides the design of telephoto lenses based on if it can fit overhead bins of aircrafts.. I hope the field use of the lens determines the design. Field use design must keep in mind the dust and time factor of adding a TC. It is what it is, but a built in TC would have worked better...

I suppose that depends on the field. If it’s a local football pitch then no, carryon restrictions aren’t a concern. But if the field is the African savannah, I suspect Canon would give consideration to transportation. That’s probably more true today, when the target market is shifting from paid photographers to affluent enthusiasts. The former can have their gear shipped, the latter are more likely to carry it themselves and less likely to want to relegate their $15K lens to the baggage hold.

As Canon used the 300/2.8 with RF adapter as a benchmark for the 100-300, I suspect they’ll use the 500/4 and 200-400 as benchmarks for this lens. I believe it won’t have a TC, mainly to keep the size within target. It’s easy to rationalize compared to the 200-400 since this will go to 500 natively.

 

[AlanF]

AlanF. Do explain. English is not my first language. Thx.

It was the last straw that broke the camel's back

www.englishclub.com

 

[sanj]

I suppose that depends on the field. If it’s a local football pitch then no, carryon restrictions aren’t a concern. But if the field is the African savannah, I suspect Canon would give consideration to transportation. That’s probably more true today, when the target market is shifting from paid photographers to affluent enthusiasts. The former can have their gear shipped, the latter are more likely to carry it themselves and less likely to want to relegate their $15K lens to the baggage hold.

As Canon used the 300/2.8 with RF adapter as a benchmark for the 100-300, I suspect they’ll use the 500/4 and 200-400 as benchmarks for this lens. I believe it won’t have a TC, mainly to keep the size within target. It’s easy to rationalize compared to the 200-400 since this will go to 500 natively.

I travel to Africa frequently. I check in my heavy gear. And the TC would be great, particularly in Africa.

 

[sanj]

The big USP of the 200-400 was the built-in TC.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And there's a reason for that. Canon have explicitly stated at one of their Quarterly business calls that they see the photography market shrinking in terms of units,

They have said that in the past but they currently project the market as leveled out.
They are trying to replace DSLR sales with mirrorless sales.
The R100 does cost more than the Rebel T7 but it is also more capable.
They have also dropped the price of the DSLR line.
They have also been having discounts well below the standard price on many of the models.

 

[unfocused]

The big USP of the 200-400 was the built-in TC.

Exactly. It’s splitting hairs, but this is why I consider this an expensive replacement for the 500 f4 prime, not the 200-400 w/ teleconverter.

 

[twoheadedboy]

And there's a reason for that. Canon have explicitly stated at one of their Quarterly business calls that they see the photography market shrinking in terms of units, and they plan on keeping their bottom line by extracting more money per purchase - ie extracting more money from you, I, and everybody else.

They're not extracting more money from me. I have RF f/1.8's and adapted EF f/1.4's. I would buy compelling f/1.4's from Canon in the 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm focal lengths but there's nothing to buy. And it's not like I'm a special case.

 

[AlanF]

Outdoor sports, wildlife seem likely use cases. Personally, I’d find it too short for birds (I typically use a 600/4 + 1.4x).

It's going to outgun a 500mm. However, with a high resolution sensor, 500mm gives a lot of reach.

 

[twoheadedboy]

The last 50 f1.4 was sold 30 years ago; then the 50 f1.2 was presented in 2007, and since then, no more 50 f1.4 was ever seen with the Canon brand. I don't see why they would want to present an RF 50 f1.4 lens in the 1000/1500$€£ range (40/50% less then the 50 1.2), 90% of people would then not spend 1000$€£ extra for just a third of a stop more brightness.
And they did the 85 f1.4 in 2017 because both 85 f1.2's suck and have terrible AF, no one was buying them anymore, and Sigma Art lenses were beating the sh*t out of them (and they even failed, as the 85 Art is sharper then the Canon at any aperture); and they even did it too late, as the last DSLR was presented in the 2020, just three years later, so they presented the 85 f1.4 for a system that was already on the death bed, as Canon original R came out in 2018, just a year later then the 85 f1.4 L (of course the lens was in the pipeline since many years before presentation, you just don't stop it, then).
Consider that, apart from the 1Dx III, from 2017 to 2020 the only DSLR's presented were the 6DII (terrible camera), the 90D (good camera, but wouldn't call it a milestone), all the other cameras were cheap Rebels.
EF system was dead already when the 85 f1.4 L came to the market; lucky for us they gave us adapters, and EF lenses work as good as RF lenses, so the legacy still lives on. But we'll see if Canon will ever manufacture a RF 85 f1.4 and I'm pretty sure they won't, for the same reasons of the 50's.

Not having the 85mm f/1.4 is not something I agree with, but at least it's understandable. 50mm f/1.4 is a hugely popular pro/semi-pro lens format. It gives nifty fifty shooters an upgrade path that the f/1.2 doesn't represent, especially if it had IS. Considering they have a 28-70 f/2 zoom and a 24-70 f/2.8 IS zoom (in addition to 4 other zoom lenses covering the focal range in part or more) it seems insane not to have a 3rd fixed option at the 50mm focal length.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Exactly. It’s splitting hairs, but this is why I consider this an expensive replacement for the 500 f4 prime, not the 200-400 w/ teleconverter.

Perhaps Canon will consider it a replacement for both. Now that there’s a 100-300/2.8, will Canon also release an RF 300/2.8 prime?

The EF 200/2.8L II was a great lens (I had one), but once the 70-200/2.8 zooms came out, the prime languished (technically it was updated the year after the first 70-200/2.8 non-IS came out in 1995, but the 200/2.8 II was optically and mechanically identical to the MkI, they just changed the hood).

Assuming the 200-500/4 comes as suggested sans TC, will Canon also then release an RF 500/4 or an RF 200-400 (or even 500) with a built-in 1.4x? I doubt it.

If Canon does come out with a fancy (= expensive) switchable TC, I think it’s even less likely they’ll bring out a big white zoom with one built-in.

 

[blanddragon]

Hmmmm 15K, Yeah that's a negative Ghost Rider.

 

[1D4]

Someone please wake me up when Canon makes a lightweight 500mm f5.6 like Nikon's PF. All these super-expensive zooms are great for people who can justify the cost and don't mind traveling with bulky gear, but if Canon wants to bring more people into/keep more people in the R system, maybe it would be best to have lenses that attract a bigger segment of customers? I'd never pay over $10k for a lens, but I'd be the first to sign up for a sub-$4k, 3.x lb. 500mm f5.6. There's a reason the 300mm f4 and 500mm f5.6 PF were such big sellers for Nikon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Someone please wake me up when Canon makes a lightweight 500mm f5.6 like Nikon's PF. All these super-expensive zooms are great for people who can justify the cost and don't mind traveling with bulky gear, but if Canon wants to bring more people into/keep more people in the R system, maybe it would be best to have lenses that attract a bigger segment of customers? I'd never pay over $10k for a lens, but I'd be the first to sign up for a sub-$4k, 3.x lb. 500mm f5.6. There's a reason the 300mm f4 and 500mm f5.6 PF were such big sellers for Nikon.

Yes, you're clearly asleep and blissfully unaware of the real world around you. In that real world, Canon has steadily gained MILC market share over the past several years, became the #1 MILC brand in Japan in 2022 (those data came our in 1Q23), and probably became the #1 MILC brand globally (given the trend lines, but those data don't come out until 4Q23).

So here in the real world, they are doing very well bringing people into and keeping them in the R system. Nikon, on the other hand, has been steadily losing market share for the past several years. They used to be the #2 ILC brand and very close behind Canon, now they've fallen to a distant third place in the ILC market, well behind Sony who remains well behind Canon. In Japan for 2022, Nikon didn't even make it into the top 3 for MILC brands (OM/Olympus was in 3rd place).

What Canon does offer besides expensive white lenses are lenses like the RF 15-30, RF 100-400, and RF 600/11 and 800/11, all relatively inexpensive lenses that deliver very good image quality at prices that are affordable to a very big segment of customers (a far bigger segment than can afford $3-4K lenses). A Canon kit can get you three full frame zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for under $1500, something impossible with either Sony or Nikon OEM lenses.

So by all means, keep living in your dream world. Out here in reality, Canon dominates the ILC market and they know far more about making and selling cameras than people like you who live in some fantasyland.

 

[birdman916]

Yes, you're clearly asleep and blissfully unaware of the real world around you. In that real world, Canon has steadily gained MILC market share over the past several years, became the #1 MILC brand in Japan in 2022 (those data came our in 1Q23), and probably became the #1 MILC brand globally (given the trend lines, but those data don't come out until 4Q23).

So here in the real world, they are doing very well bringing people into and keeping them in the R system. Nikon, on the other hand, has been steadily losing market share for the past several years. They used to be the #2 ILC brand and very close behind Canon, now they've fallen to a distant third place in the ILC market, well behind Sony who remains well behind Canon. In Japan for 2022, Nikon didn't even make it into the top 3 for MILC brands (OM/Olympus was in 3rd place).

What Canon does offer besides expensive white lenses are lenses like the RF 15-30, RF 100-400, and RF 600/11 and 800/11, all relatively inexpensive lenses that deliver very good image quality at prices that are affordable to a very big segment of customers (a far bigger segment than can afford $3-4K lenses). A Canon kit can get you three full frame zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for under $1500, something impossible with either Sony or Nikon OEM lenses.

So by all means, keep living in your dream world. Out here in reality, Canon dominates the ILC market and they know far more about making and selling cameras than people like you who live in some fantasyland.

Y is neuroanalscientist always so mad and engaging in keyboard warrior activities on the internet?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Y is neuroanalscientist always so mad and engaging in keyboard warrior activities on the internet?

Do facts offend you, such that you feel the need to be rude and insulting to someone posting them? Yet you're too lazy to even type out a three-letter word. How pathetically petulant you are...

 

[birdman916]

Do facts offend you, such that you feel the need to be rude and insulting to someone posting them? Yet you're too lazy to even type out a three-letter word. How pathetically petulant you are...

Damn you dropped petulant correctly too!! I was just messing around broski. I feel like all the catty back and forth kinda opens you up for people messing with you. I wasn’t meaning to take an actual shot at you, just merely playful banter spurned by the somewhat absurdity of arguing on a photography message board.

 

[unfocused]

Someone please wake me up when Canon makes a lightweight 500mm f5.6 like Nikon's PF. All these super-expensive zooms are great for people who can justify the cost and don't mind traveling with bulky gear, but if Canon wants to bring more people into/keep more people in the R system, maybe it would be best to have lenses that attract a bigger segment of customers? I'd never pay over $10k for a lens, but I'd be the first to sign up for a sub-$4k, 3.x lb. 500mm f5.6. There's a reason the 300mm f4 and 500mm f5.6 PF were such big sellers for Nikon.

I’ll respond in a way that I hope is a bit more respectful.

Canon makes a sub-4k 500mm lens that is less than a stop slower than your dream lens. With today’s sensors and software, the difference in f-stops is not that significant. The Canon lens is as sharp as a prime, costs way less than your target price and has the added bonus of zooming out to 100mm.

None of us has access to Canon’s market research, but I strongly suspect that the research and experience shows that a zoom lens that is cheaper and more compact than a 5.6 prime, while also being light and easily hand-held is a better seller.

Of course you are free to keep waiting for a lens that I doubt will come, but thousands of us are happily enjoying a great 500mm lens.

 

[1D4]

Yes, you're clearly asleep and blissfully unaware of the real world around you. In that real world, Canon has steadily gained MILC market share over the past several years, became the #1 MILC brand in Japan in 2022 (those data came our in 1Q23), and probably became the #1 MILC brand globally (given the trend lines, but those data don't come out until 4Q23).

So here in the real world, they are doing very well bringing people into and keeping them in the R system. Nikon, on the other hand, has been steadily losing market share for the past several years. They used to be the #2 ILC brand and very close behind Canon, now they've fallen to a distant third place in the ILC market, well behind Sony who remains well behind Canon. In Japan for 2022, Nikon didn't even make it into the top 3 for MILC brands (OM/Olympus was in 3rd place).

What Canon does offer besides expensive white lenses are lenses like the RF 15-30, RF 100-400, and RF 600/11 and 800/11, all relatively inexpensive lenses that deliver very good image quality at prices that are affordable to a very big segment of customers (a far bigger segment than can afford $3-4K lenses). A Canon kit can get you three full frame zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for under $1500, something impossible with either Sony or Nikon OEM lenses.

So by all means, keep living in your dream world. Out here in reality, Canon dominates the ILC market and they know far more about making and selling cameras than people like you who live in some fantasyland.

Wow, you really took offense to my post like I'm some Nikon fanboy dissing Canon. I simply stated Canon could potentially attract more people by offering a compact, lightweight prime lens that's in the middle ground between something like a $800 RF 600mm f/11 and a $13,000 RF 600mm f/4.

A huge reason Nikon lost market share because they were slow to the mirrorless game and when they finally did make it, the AF was lacking compared to what Canon and Sony already had available.