Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Yep, that is a PF lens. The Canon RF 800 f/11 is as well and also much less expensive than you might expect for its reach and size. The Nikon is 1-2/3 stops faster and has an iris for 5x the price. Seems consistent with what you would expect given the cube law scaling of mass that occurs with increased aperture in telephotos.
Upvote
0
I think someone in this thread mentioned a 200-500mm f/5.6 with a built in 1.4x TC. I have to say that would be attractive depending on size/weight I think. That would give you a 700mm f/6.3 with the TC engaged which would be nice. I think I would buy it in that case, but just a 200-500mm f/5.6 would not interest me too much. Maybe if it was somehow a HUGE step up in quality from the 100-500 but I doubt that would be the case.
Upvote
0
A 200-500mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC engaged would be a 700mm f8, not f6.3. I hope that doesn’t dampen your enthusiasm
.
Upvote
0
It might sound silly, but I know someone who primarily shoots Canon but they did purchase the Z8 and 800 mm f6.3 PF lens. An excellent setup for small birds / mammals.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Several differences here. The EF 400 DO II is all metal and the Nikon 800 PF is largely plastic, but the big difference is the change in DO/PF technology between 2014 and 2022. The RF 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 are very inexpensive and quite good. The much earlier EF 70-300 DO was pretty expensive at introduction and not all that great optically (I have one). The quality got better with the original 400 DO and much better with the 400 DO II, but the cost was still high. The RF 600 and 800 f/11 are minimalist, but optically quite decent. Most importantly, the price is hugely lower. Now if we look at the metal vs plastic issue, the RF 200-800 is a very good lens and by Canon standards quite cheap for what it is, and it is not DO, but the it is made of engineered plastic.
Nikon has pushed the envelope with PF lenses at higher price and performance points, but the trend is still there. If Canon decides to make a higher end DO Telephoto, I suspect it will be quite competitive with what Nikon is offering.
For reference, I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 and it is still hard to beat after more than a decade, but the first real element (behind the protective glass) is a huge chunk of fluorite and that is what made it so expensive.
Upvote
0
At this stage of the RF lens lineup, the only two additional lenses that I am considering are a fast super telephoto zoom (e.g. 200-500 f4) and a DO super telephoto lens that is lightweight (e.g. 400-500 mm DO f4-f5). It will be interesting to see what lenses Canon releases in 2025 and beyond.
Upvote
0
Not silly at all.... if you have the disposable income and can justify (in your own mind) the usefulness of a specific combo in a difference ecosystem then all power to them. At least you wouldn't need to worry about the zoom ring direction as the 800/6.3 PF is a prime.
Similarly, If you are running a business and a combo from another ecosystem covers the cost with sufficient profit from sales then go for it.
Canon doesn't have options for wide/fast primes on FF so not ideal for wide angle astro. The fastest Canon is f2.8 which is reasonable but can't compete with an A7Siii with either 14/1.8 or 14/1.4 from Sigma giving either a 1 1/3 or 2 stop advantage in either acquisition time or ISO reduction.
The best option are the obsolete Siggy EF20/1.4 and/or the venerable Samyang 14/2.8 (or f2.4).
I can't justify the Sony setup for what I do but I am sure that some people would be able to.
Upvote
0
I wish they would make a 100-300 lens that was not as large or as expensive as the one they have now. F4 would work well for it. I may pick up a 1.4 extender and just use my 70-200Z and get the same zoom to see how well it works.
Upvote
0
The 70-200Z looks pretty nice with extenders https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Good enough to make a 100-300 f/4 redundant. Even with 2x extender it is very good.
Upvote
0
What a lame lens this would be, I would suggest the best (and my dream) lens spec for wildlife especially birds would be a 400-800mm f/4-5.6 zoom which would hopefully be not much heavier than the RF 800mm f/5.6 but much more versatile
Upvote
0
might be able to sell 100-300 F4 cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 1.4x extender pair.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I agree, a lightweight, fast super telephoto would be nice - but at what price? By "price" I mean weight and money. I have the 100-500 RF 100-500mm ƒ5.6-7.1 L IS USM (which replaced my old EF 100-400 L) which I think - for me and my purposes - is a good balance between weight, price and speed.
I have three frequent uses, which I suspect are not unique: a) backpacking for wildlife/landscape, b) compromise backpack for travel, and c) car trunk for scenic, event and short walks to objective. For "a", I can't take a behemoth lens along with everything else. For "b", I can't take a behemoth lens along with everything else, either, and for "c", well, weight is no object for a car... So given those "a,b,c" restrictions, "behemoth" often doesn't work (safaris excepted, which is really a combo of "a" and "c".) For travel, due to the very restricted options with air transportation, ground transportation, walking around all day, again, a behemoth lens just won't cut it. I also have the 600 ƒ11 lens, which is great, very light, not big, but very limited for travel (again, safaris notwithstanding.)
Most of the time for "travel" photography, in my personal experience, the mm length of the lens is inversely proportional to how much it can and is used. So, at the end of the day, a nice, sharp versatile lens like the 24-240mm ƒ4-6.3 is my go-to lens for any travel, and then a second lens specific to anticipated needs - and restrictions - of the destination and purpose.
Having said that, what I'd like to see is an "L" version of said lens (for better IQ/weather sealing) and only if it doesn't turn it into a big, expensive lens, perhaps an ƒ-stop faster or fixed - but only if it doesn't turn it into an expensive behemoth. Otherwise, the ƒ4-6.3 is more than workable. Inside those myriad European churches and Asian temples, there are very fast ƒ2.8 16mm and 28mm pancake lenses that take up almost no space, weigh almost nothing, and are great for indoor shots (anybody use a 500mm+ lens indoors???) or absolute ƒ-stop-challenged environments. There's a very small ƒ1.8 50mm lens, I can throw in, as well if necessary. I also have a 70-200 ƒ4 L lens, which is compact, lightweight and has a good IQ, and it theoretically would be the model for a new ƒ24-240, but I have found I almost never use it as the range is kind of "nowhere" for my purposes. It's not wide enough for most shooting (especially indoors), and the "telephoto" end of the range is not long enough for most other outdoor shooting where you want to get up close with a telephoto (sports, animals, etc.)
So my great wish then is a RF 24-240mm L ƒ4 not much bigger or more expensive than the RF 70-200 ƒ4 L. (Santa, you listening? I've been a good boy, like for years...!)
Upvote
0
I’m fairly certain it would be bigger than the 70-200/4. The 24-105/4 is only 12mm shorter than the 70-200/4. A 24-240/4 would probably land in the size/weight vicinity of the 100-500L, just as the EF 28-300 is similar to the EF 100-400 even with a variable aperture and f/5.6 at the long end. There was a very small EF 28-200, but the IQ was nowhere near L quality (even counting the 17-40/4L).
Still, I’d be very happy with a 24-240/4L the size of the 100-500 as a ‘one lens’ travel solution. I have the current 24-240 (bought a few weeks ago), and while it’s a decent lens that will work for me for travel where content outweighs quality, i.e., family memories where I want a step up from the iPhone, for architecture/landscape shots on trips I’ll stick with L lenses.
Upvote
0
The EF 28-300L is a little better at the ends than the RF 24-240, but substantially worse in the middle of the range
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
and also much heavier.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1416&LensComp=295
An L lens with this range would be nice particularly for weather sealing and a bit less aggressive electronic correction at 24mm, but to keep it small and light, It would have to have a similar aperture to the existing 24-240. Given the f/7.1 at the top end of the 100-500L, this is not out of the question from a Canon perspective. I keep the 24-240 on my R5 for opportunity shots and the 200-800 on the R7 for long opportunity shots. That gives me almost continuous coverage from 24-1280 with a small gap between 240 and 320, but given the sensor resolution difference, it is really only a gap from 240-280. Very handy where I live as many of the opportunity shots don't offer the time to change lenses.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
