Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be announced this year [CR2]

[AlanF]

...quite far from the mount surface, actually. Could be explained by the need to support teleconverters (which, for both Nikon and Canon, protrude into the lens).

I had already checked that. The TCs go in about 5mm leaving another 25mm+.

 

[stochasticmotions]

I read the reviews by Sony shooters and there is pretty much agreement by the ones I follow and trust that the A7RIV is weak for birds in flight and that the A9 or A9II is required to drive the 200-600mm. And you need an extender because of the low pixel density of the A9.

Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.

 

[Nelu]

Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.

Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.

Your kids might be too young now but once they get older, getting into sports, you'll find that focal range very useful. I suggest to wait, if you can, because you might regret selling it.

 

[Nelu]

Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used.

For sure you'll get less shots in focus than with the A9 but for the ones you do get in focus, there are 61MP to work with, not 24. The detail level has to be fantastic.

 

[AlanF]

Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.

The Birds in Flight and Portrait threads are replete with excellent sharp shots of BIF taken with a wide variety of lenses and bodies, and I have no doubt you take excellent photos too - it would be nice if you joined in and posted some. For relatively slow moving birds against a clear background the keeper rate is very high with most systems. The more erratic the movement, the higher the speed and the more complex the background, the fewer the keepers, until they tend to zero, but with luck the impossible shot can be recorded. I am always looking for the best gear to improve my keeper rate for BIF and for general use, and I will buy any make or lens I can hand hold. The A7RIV clearly fulfils your expectations, so congratulations, but it doesn't the extreme BIF shooters I follow. Similarly, I am happy with the 5DSR (and now 90D) for most of the time, but others scorn them. For difficult BIF shots, I have recently purchased another set up favoured by the affcionados, the D500/500PF combo, and it has gotten me shots I could only dream about. But, for most of my bird photography I am sticking with Canon.

 

[AlanF]

For sure you'll get less shots in focus than with the A9 but for the ones you do get in focus, there are 61MP to work with, not 24. The detail level has to be fantastic.

By that token, the M6II and 90D will outresolve both as they have an 83 Mpx equivalence. And, they are much cheaper. What you also have to consider is aperture and diffraction: f/6.3 is narrower than the diffraction limited aperture of the A7RIV of f/6 and so you are wasting some of the resolution already; and noise at the isos for BIF, at the higher isos of 800 and above resolution is increasingly lowered

 

[SecureGSM]

The weight of the 100-400mm II with the lenshood and tripod foot is 1.7kg. The Sony lens is 115g less. The Sigma and Tamron are lighter still but they are only f/6.3. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is lighter than the 100-400mm II at 1.46kg.

Thank you, Alan for setting the numbers straight. Much appreciated.
I typically shoot with 70-200 and 100-400 "barefooted" (tripod collar and foot removed for 70-200 and foot for 100-400) so to speak Therefore my numbers correct more or less at least for my use case.
I found that EF mount of 5DIV handles 1.5kg lens hanging of it just fine. A lighter 70-400 lens is most welcome, however I am really contain with the current 100-400 lens ergonomics.

 

[Bert63]

Could me a winner if it's optically superior to the current lens.

The 100-400L II and 1.4X III are a permanent fixture on one of my two primary cameras - the EOS-R and 5D4. The 100-400L II also spends time on my 7D2 but not nearly as much as it used to.

To buy this lens would be to buy a lens that would exclude the other two bodies on my shelf and that would be a hard step for me to take unless there was a strong driver (better performance/images/faster focus/etc) but the weight thing isn't even in the equation for me.

I'm so used to my right arm being three inches longer than my left from carrying my "brick" around that I'm used to it. It's like it isn't even there. That my change as I age - I'm 56 - but for now it doesn't bother me at all.

Add in a new teleconverter - say a 2X - that doesn't noticably impact image quality and I might become enthusiastic.

 

[Del Paso]

Whenever I hike in the mountains or visit places I've never been before, I carry the 5 DIV with 100-400 always on a Capture Peak clip mounted on a backpack shoulder strap.
Access is easy and quick and I hardly feel the weight, additionally, there is no camera swinging against my hip like with a Black Rapid strap.
I'd never sell this (my most used) great lens!

 

[AlanF]

Thank you, Alan for setting the numbers straight. Much appreciated.
I typically shoot with 70-200 and 100-400 "barefooted" (tripod collar and foot removed for 70-200 and foot for 100-400) so to speak Therefore my numbers correct more or less at least for my use case.
I found that EF mount of 5DIV handles 1.5kg lens hanging of it just fine. A lighter 70-400 lens is most welcome, however I am really contain with the current 100-400 lens ergonomics.

I carry my 5DIV/5DSR + 100-400mmII on a BlackRapid with connectors to the tripod foot and the camera to spread the load, have a back up if one attachment fails and also not have the camera fall off if just the lens held. I can manage and enjoy those combos on long hikes and for extensive hand holding but am reluctant if not able to carry more weight. The double attachment means there is less swinging of the lens against my hip.

 

[FramerMCB]

The benchmark for a longer zoom is now the 200-600mm f/6.3 a la Sony, it's a cracking lens with IQ and AF way ahead of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. However, both those lenses are too heavy for me, and the Sony too big. 70-400mm is the best compromise for a lightweight lens for hiking and safari. I am finding that attached to something as pixel dense as the 90D the 100-400mm II is providing a good long effective focal length as well as versatility. I, personally, want Canon to produce a really lightweight 500mm f/5.6 DO prime to rival the Nikon, as well as a 300mm DO.

...THIS!

 

[Optics Patent]

Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor does allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.

Interesting. A true RF version of a big white with its own optical design might be a little shorter, which would be welcome. However until RF takes over the pro market in ~5 years (or arguably more) there's no motivation to develop a new optical system that is unusable on EF mounts. Easy to create either a RF rear housing for current and future EF designs, or a universal version with a detach-for-EF "de-adapter."

 

[AlanF]

...THIS!

I am getting out of touch and hand to look up what THIS means! https://www.internetslang.com/THIS-meaning-definition.asp. THIS!

 

[SteB1]

Yes, let's completely forget about those who do not have something like this, and forget about new buyers of such a lens. This is something people seem to forget about: That just because "I" have it and don't need or want it then nobody else does or should. The market is fluid with people exiting and entering all the time, and people who just stay put. Just because you have something that satisfies you does not mean "most" do. You know, it just may be that people in the RF ecosystem want a native lens and also may want a lens that goes wider and is more compact when stored. Ever think of that?

Some people new to the RF system are happy to adapt their EF lenses. Some want to go all native. There's nothing wrong with either choice. That's a personal decision. There are lenses I had in EF that I wish were already available in RF that are not. I would never be so presumptuous as to think my choices and desires were those of most other people.

As far as Sony goes; have at it.

My point is that for a long time there were rumours, if I remember rightly backed up by other information that Canon was developing a 200-600mm lens for the EF system. I'm not saying that Canon shouldn't produce a 100-400mm RF lens. What I am saying is that Canon should learn how and why the Sony 200-600mm lens has been so well received. First it is competitively priced, cheaper than their 100-400mm lens. It performs very well. The extra focal length is a big advantage, and the fixed length and internal zoom is a huge advantage. Anyone who has ever had a flying bird suddenly change direction and fly towards you, knows how difficult it is with an extending zoom with a large throw, to react to this.

 

[AlanF]

Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.

Here is a thread started two days on dpr by Sony users about problems with the A7RIV with the 100-400mm and 200-600mm, with posts about many owners reporting problems of focussing and tracking with the camera and these lenses and even how they didn't have the problems with their Canon gear. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63508971
It reinforces what I have read in fredmiranda Sony forums; A9 great for BIF, Sony A7RIV is the opposite.

 

[jedy]

Then get a Sony if it is such a God send to us humans and get an adapter to use your shed load of Canon lenses.
I love the telescoping zoom as when packing it for travel it is so compact.
12 5/8" vs 7 5/8" is 5" or a wide angle lens and the 100-400. Also for those who do not live doing birds but have large and diverse interests the unique to Canon only of the close focus capability of the 100-400 MII is absolutely amazing.
Perhaps canon will make a longer 200-600mm type lens. And if they do good for them, but for a broader base of users for the RF system the 70-400mm will be exciting. And those bodies, I imagine if the 1DX MIII and the upcoming RS? is an indicator, there will be some mind blowing QUALITY cameras by Canon that are well built and do not act like toys.

The usual Sony are toys and Canon gear that doesn’t exist yet will blow away the competition comment. You know for a fact a high end Canon R will do what Sony cameras can’t? The point is, it’s pointless making these sorts of statements when there nothing to back them up, especially as the Canon gear in question isn’t in production yet. People said Canon’s first mirrorless would blow away the competition and it didn’t. In fact it got a lot of complaints from long time Canon users. Be careful making such bold statements about unreleased camera gear. Besides, I would Say Sony’s issues with birding have more to do with mirrorless technology not quite there yet compared to DSLR than simply a Sony issue.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Here is a thread started two days on dpr by Sony users about problems with the A7RIV with the 100-400mm and 200-600mm, with posts about many owners reporting problems of focussing and tracking with the camera and these lenses and even how they didn't have the problems with their Canon gear. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63508971
It reinforces what I have read in fredmiranda Sony forums; A9 great for BIF, Sony A7RIV is the opposite.

Thanks, I'll check it out and see if I can replicate any of the issues.

 

[pj1974]

A RF 70-400mm would be a lens I would love, particularly if it will be relatively compact and lightweight, with great optics. If it extends, and that means that when non-extended it is more compact and portable, that is ideal for my uses. I don't need the lens to be faster than f/5.6 for this focal length (when I need truly 'fast glass', I use primes, between f/1.4 and f/2).

Currently I own the Canon EF 70-300mm L Is, which is a great match on my 80D (and previously lived on my 7D). It has great IQ, and the size meant I take it with me on many photo outings, day trips and longer duration travel to many locations.

If Canon can come out with a RF body that meets (at least some of) my main wildlife photography needs, I will likely jump to their mirrorless FF (i.e. RF) platform. Most of my main RF photographic needs include a suitable EVF for tracking fast action and decent FPS and sufficient megapixels to allow some decent cropping of smaller subjects, e.g. birds.

Canon, it looks like our long-term relationship may well continue well into the future.....

 

[lawny13]

That's exciting! Though I wonder if they would have to make some optical compromises in order to get the size down. I thought I'd heard the 100-400 as it currently is, is one of Canon's toughest-to-make lenses, so I feel like miniaturizing that must come with a compromise or two...

But I could definitely see that in my bag should I jump on board with the R system any time soon.

Maybe... But maybe the shorter flange distance (same mount diameter) is a gain that balances out any compromise. Guess we will see.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks, I'll check it out and see if I can replicate any of the issues.

The Digital Picture has just done a very complimentary review of the A7RIV his one negative area is in AF-C for action photography:
"As mentioned, I spent a lot of time photographing wildlife and AF-C AF accuracy with these subjects was not so stellar. Every-other-shot-sharp scenarios were rather common with the odd shots often usable but just slightly out of focus. It seemed that the AF system was wavering the focus distance even when the animal was not moving. " He is hoping it can be fixed with a firmware update.

Sony Alpha 7R IV, IVA Review

Is the Sony Alpha 7R IV, IVA right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com