Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount

[LSXPhotog]

I am eager to see Canon fill out the telephoto end of the RF mount. I've only had the 100-500 for three races and love it...but I would like to see more and faster apertures! Nikon's new 400 with the built in 1.4TC has me very jealous!

 

[StandardLumen]

200-500 f/4? Yes please!

 

[ISO64]

R7 + 150-600 + 1.4x =

 

[CanonGrunt]

There was a previous rumor about an RF 200 - 500 with a built in Tele converter, I imagine we would see that one sooner than later.

The 300 - 800 really intrigues me.

I’m mostly looking forward to the rumored RF 400 f/4 IS DO USM. Need something sharp, long, and portable.

 

[AlanF]

There was a previous rumor about an RF 200 - 500 with a built in Tele converter, I imagine we would see that one sooner than later.

The 300 - 800 really intrigues me.

I’m mostly looking forward to the rumored RF 400 f/4 IS DO USM. Need something sharp, long, and portable.

I miss my EF 400mm DO II, and I think Canon could make an even lighter version that would also work better with a 2x extender.

 

[SonicStudios]

Sooooo, I guess this means the RF 300 IS 2.8 is not ready for prime-time players :-(

 

[Deleted]

An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.

A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.

What is the TC issue you speak of?

while I understand the reach thing, there is very little between 500 and 600. In most cases we just have to work harder to get closer and endure the wrath of the local grumpy birder police.

 

[WildlifeCan-on]

I hope Canon makes a similar lens.
It is not like they can't.

I do think a 400/2,8 with built in TC would be a brilliant lens for Canon to bring out!
Congratulations to all Nikon shooters upon already having this lens!

 

[Bdbtoys]

A minor over-exaggerated defect.

The min @300 w/TC is pretty much the one thing I really dislike about the 100-500 as well. Carrying the lens almost fully extended (which at 300 it almost is) is not the best situation and packing it w/ the TC attached is not really an option. Getting 600-1000 (compared to 200-1000) or 420-700 (compared to 140-700) isn't optimal either. I love the lens... but it is the one thing I wish was different.

 

[snapshot]

i wonder what a 100-400 f/2.8 would be like

 

[neurorx]

• Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L Priced comparable to the Sony 200-600mm would be awesome. I would like the f4 glass but I suspect that will be significantly more expensive.

 

[Deleted]

i wonder what a 100-400 f/2.8 would be like

Big, white and blooming expensive

 

[MiJax]

I can't see the 150-600 6.3 selling very well. They mentioned a 100-500 5.6 was mocked up and created but would have cost $3700, so it was mothballed in favor of the 7.1. A 600 6.3 isn't going to be much smaller, so I could easily see a 150-600 6.3 from Canon at the budget busting $3500-$4000 range. That's 4x the cost of the Contemporary Sigma. I'm sure it will be better but I just think that would be a hard sell.

Personally, I want a RF 500 F4 with a built in TC. I commonly find myself screwed changing the TC's out. There's never a good time to do it, either you are lucky or you're not. I wish all of the super tele's had a built in TC, but something tells me Canon may not like the idea of throwing away the TC revenue (especially after creating two new TCs). But I do think it is necessary, there just isn't enough improvement of these lenses' optical performance to ask people to pay $10,000-$14,000. I understand the slight improvements, or in the case of recent RF super teles, slight steps back with a reasonable weight loss is fine, but the reason to dump $10,000+ dollars is getting thinner and thinner.

 

[degos]

The 300-800 would be an astonishing airshow lens. No need to have two bodies with close and far lenses...

f8 shouldn't be too much of a problem given the usual season for airshows coincides with decent weather.

 

[StephenShreds]

Sigh, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sigh, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.

These are patents, it could be months, years, or an eternity before these become actual products. The 100-500 is an excellent lens.

 

[Kiton]

RF 200-500 f/4L with a built in 1.4 TC and take my money.

Ha! Different strokes for different folks!

I am saying...please, no 1.4 in the 200-500!
i would never need a 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 again.
It would be my dream lens.
I don't need a 500 + 1.4 to shoot NHL, F1, football, soccer etc. not even golf!

 

[Alam]

An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.

A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.

Huh? really? You want to go hiking, wigh 150-600? I own tamron 150-600 G2 and
Trust me, going from 500 to 600 is not that huge, miniscule compared to weight and extra siR you need to carry from 100-500

I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare

 

[Tom W]

I'd gladly save up for a 200-500 f/4.

 

[Bishop80]

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L
Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L

Much as I would love these in EF mount, might as well start setting aside (more) money.