Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?

[m4ndr4ke]

The f/5.6 could be an interesting lens as well, specially if made compact, but we're looking at two very different targets here.

Also, unless they gave internal zooming to the f/5.6 possibility, there could be some overlapping with the RF 100-500mm, because it's less than a f-stop of difference, on the long end.

 

[alFR]

So "this may be one of those times that the information is solid”, implying that during the last few years, the information you published on the 200-500 f/4 was not solid...

The name of the site is "Canon rumors". People forget that until there's an official statement from a manufacturer, everything written about an upcoming product is speculation...

 

[padam]

The name of the site is "Canon rumors". People forget that until there's an official statement from a manufacturer, everything written about an upcoming product is speculation...

That might be, but rumor sites tend to push towards more sensationist headlines - even if they are aware that those are less founded.

Sony's new zoom lens was always going to be a 28-70/2 based on a patent appearing a few years ago.
And yet it was presented as a 24-70/2 - right to the very end, most likely deliberately just to generate more traffic.

 

[Canon Rumors]

So "this may be one of those times that the information is solid”, implying that during the last few years, the information you published on the 200-500 f/4 was not solid...

When I remember the Canon R1 80 MP info more than three years ago, and all your past contradictions about the 200-500 f/4 (with and without 1.4x, for November 2024, then early 2025, later 30th November, now f/5.6), I am sorry to say that you lost all credibility.

But do not worry, eventually one of your many contradictory predictions will become true and you will be able to write "as I previously said..."

What I wrote required a bit of critical thinking.

You're just one of those folks that has selective memory, and that's cool. The expectation of 100% is a wild one. People have said the same thing for 15 years. Sometimes things are true until they're not, and sometimes things simply aren't true. It's one of the reasons we don't do the rating system anymore. We just try to explain things in the best way we can. We admit when we're surprised, and we admit when we're wrong. We also make fun of ourselves, none of this really matters in the grand scheme of the world. So have a little fun with it.

Thanks for participating though, always appreciated.

That might be, but rumor sites tend to push towards more sensationist headlines - even if they are aware that those are less founded.

Sony's new zoom lens was always going to be a 28-70/2 based on a patent appearing a few years ago.
And yet it was presented as a 24-70/2 - right to the very end, most likely deliberately just to generate more traffic.

I really don't think we do "sensationalism". We keep the headlines pretty simple. Traffic doesn't drive us, just a positive and fun community. There is enough grifting, negativity and whatnot out there. We can also go days without posting anything, I do have an actual doing photography life!

It's one of the reasons we implemented account sign-ups to reduce the annoying (and best paying) ads for participants, we think that was a good idea and shows other things matter way more to us.

 

[Maximilian]

... So have a little fun with it. ...

THIS!

Rumors are about the fun with it.
Someone can take rumors serious and make decisions on them.
I wouldn't. And I wouldn't recommend to do so.

By the way:
It is also quite informative and lot of your rumors are a hit, some are Bullseye.
I wouldn't hide my lamp under a bushel like that. Keep going, guys!

 

[Chris Hart]

The f/5.6 could be an interesting lens as well, specially if made compact, but we're looking at two very different targets here.

Also, unless they gave internal zooming to the f/5.6 possibility, there could be some overlapping with the RF 100-500mm, because it's less than a f-stop of difference, on the long end.

First of all: We have a really perfekt RF 100-300/2.8 Lens - and you can double it with an extender - to a 200-600/5.6 Lens at all ... that's why I name it a stupid idea.

 

[padam]

I really don't think we do "sensationalism". We keep the headlines pretty simple. Traffic doesn't drive us, just a positive and fun community. There is enough grifting, negativity and whatnot out there.

It's one of the reasons we implemented account sign-ups to reduce the annoying (and best paying) ads for participants, we think that was a good idea and shows other things matter way more to us.

Ok, I take back my specific wording, other sites may be much more like it.
But let's move to a different specific example: some of the R1 [CR2] rumors were way off, resulting in some people disappointed.
A well-known camera dealer even posted those incorrect specs on the product page, proving how much grip it's actually got, or it was originated from somewhere else, who can really follow all.
Outsider people simply have no vision whatsoever as to how these decisions come about, but there are more than likely several to choose from.

But: there is at least a small intent to lean towards exciting, rather than realistic and to be fair quite boring ("negative"), which is not what the community likes to be fed with and discuss.

I feel I can draw at least some sort of similarity between the Sony 24-70/2 (which of course is still being fed to search engines) being a 28-70/2
and the Canon 200-500/4 (or 5.6 with an extended, etc.) possibly being a 200-500/5.6

Canon at least does have a patent for a 24-70/2, so it's not impossible that they actually do one.
Or one can dream at least

 

[Richard CN]

So "this may be one of those times that the information is solid”, implying that during the last few years, the information you published on the 200-500 f/4 was not solid...

When I remember the Canon R1 80 MP info more than three years ago, and all your past contradictions about the 200-500 f/4 (with and without 1.4x, for November 2024, then early 2025, later 30th November, now f/5.6), I am sorry to say that you lost all credibility.

But do not worry, eventually one of your many contradictory predictions will become true and you will be able to write "as I previously said..."

in the real world, product schedules get shifted by business decisions, etc.

a lot of times we have received information 18 months in advance of release. anything can happen in that time frame.

This is especially true during and post covid-19 pandemic.

Fun fact, that R1 rumor was from another site, and was reported here with a CR0 rating (aka .. complete Bullshit) but do go on about how we make things up just for kicks and giggles so we can say we are right a year down the road.

 

[AlanF]

Not to me it doesn't. But it seems to be well thought of by a lot of people, including some folks ( @AlanF ) from a thread just the other day. Pricing also matters to many if not most folks. $999 for the Sigma vs $4,000 for the Canon (hypothetically)? Hard pass.

IMO Canon is over-using white bodies with red rings around the front. And 100% of the Canon lenses I own have a red circle.

I wrote just that my copy of the Sigma 150-600 C was excellent, and I have only very limited experience of other Sigma lenses.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Ok, I take back my specific wording, other sites may be much more like it.
But let's move to a different specific example: some of the R1 [CR2] rumors were way off, resulting in some people disappointed.
A well-known camera dealer even posted those incorrect specs on the product page, proving how much grip it's actually got, or it was originated from somewhere else, who can really follow all.
Outsider people simply have no vision whatsoever as to how these decisions come about, but there are more than likely several to choose from.

But: there is at least a small intent to lean towards exciting, rather than realistic and to be fair quite boring ("negative"), which is not what the community likes to be fed with and discuss.

I feel I can draw at least some sort of similarity between the Sony 24-70/2 (which of course is still being fed to search engines) being a 28-70/2
and the Canon 200-500/4 (or 5.6 with an extended, etc.) possibly being a 200-500/5.6

Canon at least does have a patent for a 24-70/2, so it's not impossible that they actually do one.
Or one can dream at least

Yeah, those specs came from Weibo and we never believed them. We reported the 24mp thing first and stuck with it, and all that did was make the internet angry haha! Maybe that increases engagement, but it definitely wasn't an intentional thing.

The rating system was dumb, as the way information comes in has changed a lot over the years, especially recently. A lot of anonymous and very little retail, which leaked like a sieve. We do seem to have one anonymous person that has been bang on, So I do believe the f/2 or a variant of it is coming. Sadly, I ignored/didn't believe one of the lenses the person mentioned and that still bums me out. 8 months before the announcement...

There's also the issue of not being able to show things. We had images of the R5 2 a long while before it's release showing off the vents and cooling system. However, the images were not allowed to be posted. We can't burn those bridge. If we had posted those, the engagement would have been massive!

24mm vs 28mm in a zoom is a massive design difference. Canon would really have to put a 24-70 f/2 on diet and somehow maintain image quality for it to be viable.

 

[padam]

Yeah, those specs came from Weibo and we never believed them. We reported the 24mp thing first and stuck with it, and all that did was make the internet angry haha! Maybe that increases engagement, but it definitely wasn't an intentional thing.

The rating system was dumb, as the way information comes in has changed a lot over the years, especially recently. A lot of anonymous and very little retail, which leaked like a sieve. We do seem to have one anonymous person that has been bang on, So I do believe the f/2 or a variant of it is coming. Sadly, I ignored/didn't believe one of the lenses the person mentioned and that still bums me out. 8 months before the announcement...

There's also the issue of not being able to show things. We had images of the R5 2 a long while before it's release showing off the vents and cooling system. However, the images were not allowed to be posted. We can't burn those bridge. If we had posted those, the engagement would have been massive!

24mm vs 28mm in a zoom is a massive design difference. Canon would really have to put a 24-70 f/2 on diet and somehow maintain image quality for it to be viable.

Thanks for all the information, puts things into perspective.
I'm waiting to see, if the reason why R6 Mark III Log modes aren't up (yet) is to avoid the internet getting a bit down on the absence of C-Log 2
We shall see

 

[Del Paso]

So "this may be one of those times that the information is solid”, implying that during the last few years, the information you published on the 200-500 f/4 was not solid...

When I remember the Canon R1 80 MP info more than three years ago, and all your past contradictions about the 200-500 f/4 (with and without 1.4x, for November 2024, then early 2025, later 30th November, now f/5.6), I am sorry to say that you lost all credibility.

But do not worry, eventually one of your many contradictory predictions will become true and you will be able to write "as I previously said..."

Is the word "rumors" so hard to understand?

 

[Richard CN]

Is the word "rumors" so hard to understand?

Yes.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Thanks for all the information, puts things into perspective.
I'm waiting to see, if the reason why R6 Mark III Log modes aren't up (yet) is to avoid the internet getting a bit down on the absence of C-Log 2
We shall see

Well, the R3 doesn't have 1 or 2.......

 

[JMatt]

Yes.

Perhaps they were looking for canoncorporateleaks dot com? Or canon press releases dot com?

 

[dcweather]

It is hard to see where this would fit in the range, especially at the lower budget end. How many of the above are actual birders - because this is the most common use for these type of lenses in my opinion. Nowadays the predominant age group for this use is "retired". I am one such person. Top end lenses are well catered for and generally not portable or affordable for amateur enthusiasts. We want light so it is walkaround. Most people want lenses under $2000. Reach minimum has crept up to 500mm as more people have gone FF because of better noise levels although this has been compensated by modern AI noise removal software to an extent. Sharp is a personal thing. As an amateur I find with modern software the 600mm F11 (and probably the 800mm) and the 100-400mm RF are sharp enough with a minimum of PP. The 100-500mm RF L is slightly better and definitely good enough for the majority. Of the opposition it got to the stage where the Sigma 150-600mm 'C' lens is too bulky and too heavy to be hand held and carried for long periods, for me anyway and I find my above mentioned lenses slightly sharper and in fact cheaper. For this type of lens it has been accepted as f6.3 in most cases. So that leaves the major flaw at the moment as being between f7.1 and f11 at the top focal length end for each lens. So I think what I am saying might be popular would be a zoom lens, not quite an L, with a minimum top focal length of 500mm or 600mm and an aperture of f5.6 or even f6.3.
In summary would this be possible because this would certainly interest me:- 100 or 150 -500mm. Weight, heavier than the 100-400RF but slightly lighter than the 100-500mm RF L, not an L lens but sharp enough, f5.6 or even f6.3, price around $1200-1800. The problem might be that Canon sees the RF100-500mm to be close enough to this as opposed to my hybridisation of the ridiculously light 100-400mm RF and the 100-500mm RF with a slightly wider aperture which would just split the sales.

 

[Dragon]

At the right size/weight/price, this would be a big hit. Recall the popularity of the EF 500 f/5.6L. It was light, not too expensive, and VERY sharp, particularly for its time. A 200-500 zoom with similar properties and contemporary design and performance would sell very well. With extenders, this results in 700mm f/8 and 1000mm f/11, both quite usable numbers with modern bodies. If the extender performance is comparable to the EF 500 f/5.6 or better, then we have a home run. The lens that would be cannibalized in this case would be the 100-500.

 

[P-visie]

At the right size/weight/price, this would be a big hit. Recall the popularity of the EF 500 f/5.6L. It was light, not too expensive, and VERY sharp, particularly for its time. A 200-500 zoom with similar properties and contemporary design and performance would sell very well. With extenders, this results in 700mm f/8 and 1000mm f/11, both quite usable numbers with modern bodies. If the extender performance is comparable to the EF 500 f/5.6 or better, then we have a home run. The lens that would be cannibalized in this case would be the 100-500.

You probably mean the EF 400mm f5.6L. Canon did not make an EF 500mm f5.6.
See: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/lens.html?s=ef&s2=supertelephoto

 

[padam]

At the right size/weight/price, this would be a big hit. Recall the popularity of the EF 500 f/5.6L. It was light, not too expensive, and VERY sharp, particularly for its time. A 200-500 zoom with similar properties and contemporary design and performance would sell very well. With extenders, this results in 700mm f/8 and 1000mm f/11, both quite usable numbers with modern bodies. If the extender performance is comparable to the EF 500 f/5.6 or better, then we have a home run. The lens that would be cannibalized in this case would be the 100-500.

It's an RF L lens, all of which are very sharp, quick to focus, lightweight, etc. - but also very expensive.
So if it comes out as-is, it will realistically cost more than the Nikon 500/5.6 did in F-mount, that wouild be over 4000$.
So no, it wouldn't cannibalise the 100-500/4.5-7.1, while also keeping distance from the 100-300/2.8.

 

[SvO2]

First of all: We have a really perfekt RF 100-300/2.8 Lens - and you can double it with an extender - to a 200-600/5.6 Lens at all ... that's why I name it a stupid idea.

Except that's a $10k lens.

Sony's 200-600 6.3 and Nikon's 180-600 are both around $2k. Sigma's 500 5.6 is around $3k. Canon would probably charge more, but I could still see them targeting those particular lenses