RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM equivalent with internal zoom coming?

[Quack]

I get the impression fro the patents that this is a new lens and not a replacement for the current RF 100-500. The current lens is a perfect set of specifications for a walkabouts / travel lens that is super sharp, great AF and IS, light and convienient. This patent / rumoured new non extending lens is a bit brighter.
From the list of rumoured patents, the 180-600mm f6.3 looks the most interestng to me and wouldn't clash with the current rf 100-500 or RF 200-800 options. It would basically be a L series bigma....with Canon tech and optics.

I agree that this is not a replacement for the RF 100-500. Nor do I think this will be another 100-500, that seems like a move that would be too stupid to make. Since the RF 200-800 is NOT an L lens, I can see Canon adding an L lens that has a longer focal length than the competition's typical 600mm's. So my guess is the 200-700mm is the most likely new lens - although I can easily see none of the lenses on the patent being made, as the current RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 cover most everyone's long telephoto needs.

 

[usern4cr]

As long as you never change the focal length those external zooming lenses are OK in rain as non extending lenses are. If any trouble occurs it is initiated with the lens breathing while it is zoomed.

When I do happen to take photos in the rain (usually with a zoom), I zoom as needed to frame the photo, changing views and re-zooming if needed for additional photos if any. I don't care whether it's a zoom or prime lens. So the fact that the zoom telescopes or not is still irrelevant to how I take photos including in non-ideal conditions. I still prefer a smaller size & weight to a similar internal zoom choice (if another choice is even available). But I am glad that Canon can offer 2 versions for those that prefer internal zooming.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

After shooting at the North Sea for a few days, there appears to be an advantage for internals zooms which I hadn't thought about before: I tried using a rain cover with the RF 100-500mm... works perfectly (not) till you zoom in and out. With an external zoom you place the rain cover, strap it and that's it. Does work for a zoom...

In the end, I didn't take the camera on a walk which included winds at 110 km/h and heavy rain falls. I really wanted to experience the real "North Sea" weather, but I ultimately decided this not the weather to take out expensive gear Furthermore, waiting to take pictures would not have been enjoyable

 

[Billybob]

I agree that this is not a replacement for the RF 100-500. Nor do I think this will be another 100-500, that seems like a move that would be too stupid to make. Since the RF 200-800 is NOT an L lens, I can see Canon adding an L lens that has a longer focal length than the competition's typical 600mm's. So my guess is the 200-700mm is the most likely new lens - although I can easily see none of the lenses on the patent being made, as the current RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 cover most everyone's long telephoto needs.

You're probably right, but the message I'm getting from this thread is that Canon is willing--and big enough--to offer multiple products in the same category to address different needs. The RF200-800 is a lens that addresses the crowd that wants maximum reach in a package that is relatively affordable and not too big even if it sacrifices IQ over a portion of its range. The 100-500L is a great compact workhorse lens that has excellent IQ over its range but sacrifices speed and a little IQ to the exotics. I could see your 200-700mm as a lens that isn't willing to sacrifice as much speed and IQ as the 200-800 but appeals to those who want more reach and speed while accepting a larger package. A max aperture of f/6.3 would be fantastic with IQ similar to or better than the 100-500L. Canon might have to employ DO technology to keep it from being too massive.

I would be wiling to add this lens to my kit rather than replacing my 100-500L with it.

 

[Photomichl]

why not? but I am still waiting for a RF 70-300L, internal Zoom and a little bit faster than the old EF 70-300

 

[Toamelicious]

After shooting at the North Sea for a few days, there appears to be an advantage for internals zooms which I hadn't thought about before: I tried using a rain cover with the RF 100-500mm... works perfectly (not) till you zoom in and out. With an external zoom you place the rain cover, strap it and that's it. Does work for a zoom...

In the end, I didn't take the camera on a walk which included winds at 110 km/h and heavy rain falls. I really wanted to experience the real "North Sea" weather, but I ultimately decided this not the weather to take out expensive gear Furthermore, waiting to take pictures would not have been enjoyable

I am confused. Are there not rain covers for external zooms that just have a flexible part where the extending tube is? Basically stretching that part when zooming in and folding, when zooming out? If not, maybe I should design one. Seems like a pretty easy to make product.

 

[docsmith]

why not? but I am still waiting for a RF 70-300L, internal Zoom and a little bit faster than the old EF 70-300

Whoa, whoa, whoa.....Please do not take my 70-300L and make it longer as an internal zoom likely would.

I am actually hoping for a RF version that gets the treatment the original 70-200's received and is smaller/lighter. A huge selling point of the EF 70-300L for me is that it fits in my pack vertically, taking up the same space as my other wider angle lenses. Length wise, the current 70-300L is ~6" and extends to 8". An internal zooming 70-300 would certainly be ~8" which is similar to the length of the 100-500L when retracted.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.....Please do not take my 70-300L and make it longer as an internal zoom likely would.

I am actually hoping for a RF version that gets the treatment the original 70-200's received and is smaller/lighter. A huge selling point of the EF 70-300L for me is that it fits in my pack vertically, taking up the same space as my other wider angle lenses. Length wise, the current 70-300L is ~6" and extends to 8". An internal zooming 70-300 would certainly be ~8" which is similar to the length of the 100-500L when retracted.

Agreed. I sold my EF 70-300L after getting the compact RF 70-200L and the RF 100-500L, so I'm not sure if I'd purchase an RF 70-300L as an extending zoom. However, I am sure that I would not purchase one that was fixed at full length.

 

[Del Paso]

Same here.
The RF 100-500mm just barely fits in both my backpacks (peakdesign 20 L for city travels - 34 L Rotation for hiking) when not attached to the camera. So, the collapsible design works great for me! I can pack it mounted to the camera as well, but for the PD it needs some rearranging and limits the storage space. For the 34 L rotation, it is just a bit unpleasant to carry when mounted.

Out of curiosity...
Where do you place the 100-500 in the Rotation 34L?
Like I sometimes do into a so-called "Stash Master" placed inside the upper compartment?
I find this a very convenient solution, the smaller lenses in the lower compartment, and the 2 bodies + lens , in Capture Peak clips on the backpack straps.
Quite often, the 100-500 is mounted on a body, hanging from a strap, but not in "risky" path sections.

 

[Del Paso]

As long as you never change the focal length those external zooming lenses are OK in rain as non extending lenses are. If any trouble occurs it is initiated with the lens breathing while it is zoomed.

I've used my extending zoom lenses in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland and Norway.
Wet countries par excellence.
Never one single issue...
PS: I forgot the Bretagne, reputed as France's wettest region.

 

[stillviking]

Yes Yes Yes! Finally my dream lens to replace my old EF 400mm 5.6L!

 

[Ahmed Hindawi]

I personally would love a 100-500mm internal zoom version and would certainly sell my current 100-500mm and get this internal zoom version. I used to the Sony 200-600mm when I had my Sony system and loved it. The experience of using an internal zoom, properly balanced lens is simply a lot nicer than the external zoom experience.

 

[AlanF]

I've used my extending zoom lenses in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland and Norway.
Wet countries par excellence.
Never one single issue...
PS: I forgot the Bretagne, reputed as France's wettest region.

Hey, the average annual rainfall around Cambridge where I live is only 570mm, London has 585mm. Paris has 641mm, and Strasbourg in Alsace, one of the driest regions in France, 610mm.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I am confused. Are there not rain covers for external zooms that just have a flexible part where the extending tube is? Basically stretching that part when zooming in and folding, when zooming out? If not, maybe I should design one. Seems like a pretty easy to make product.

If you know of these kinds of rain covers, please let me know asap. I´d like one for my RF 100-500mm and my RF 70-200mm each.
To this day, I haven't found any, but honestly I haven't been looking that hard.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Out of curiosity...
Where do you place the 100-500 in the Rotation 34L?
Like I sometimes do into a so-called "Stash Master" placed inside the upper compartment?
I find this a very convenient solution, the smaller lenses in the lower compartment, and the 2 bodies + lens , in Capture Peak clips on the backpack straps.
Quite often, the 100-500 is mounted on a body, hanging from a strap, but not in "risky" path sections.

I place the the Rf 100-500mm in my hip belt compartment. When it is not mounted, it just barely fits in vertically placed. There is a small bump when you close the hip belt, but you can still rotate it inside the bag easily. When mounted, I have to place it in the main compartment which I absolutely hate. The hip belt fits a RF 100-500mm, a mounted 35mm F1.8 (with R5) and maybe a third lens depending on its size. Sometimes I take either 14-35mm F4 or 24mm-105mm F4 (funnily, after failing to sell it, I started using it again quite often ) and the RF100-500mm in my rotation.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Assume Canon is thinking about replacing the RF100-500 (list price US$2600 -- recently a $300 cut) . Assume the reason is many serious photographers balk at the price difference between it and the Sony 200-600 (list price $1998 -- and its a third of a stop faster). The best solution is for Canon to cut the list price more, not make a replacement lens. Again, assuming the RF100-500 is selling well, why bring out a RF125-500mm F5-6.3L? If it isn\'t selling well, cut the list price (again). But if it isn\'t selling well and Canon brings out an RF 125-500L that has the same list price as the RF100-500, why bother -- unless its to say \'The new lens is faster/lighter than the 100-500, so that justifies the high price.\'

Comparing RF 100-500mm and Sony 200-600mm is like comparing apples (no, not pears) and mangos... I've stated the case years ago, you can read up about it here:

Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

CANON RF 16MM F/2.8 The question is: will it wobble?

www.canonrumors.com

The only Canon lens you should compare Sonys 200-600mm to is the RF 200-800mm. And imho Canons offering is more intriguing.

 

[AlanF]

Comparing RF 100-500mm and Sony 200-600mm is like comparing apples (no, not pears) and mangos... I've stated the case years ago, you can read up about it here:

Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

CANON RF 16MM F/2.8 The question is: will it wobble?

www.canonrumors.com

The only Canon lens you should compare Sonys 200-600mm to is the RF 200-800mm. And imho Canons offering is more intriguing.

Your analysis of 4 years ago comparing the 100-500 and 200-600 was spot on. I wonder if having an internal zoom would greatly increase the mfd of a new 100-500? If so, that would be a deal breaker for me.

 

[P-visie]

If you know of these kinds of rain covers, please let me know asap. I´d like one for my RF 100-500mm and my RF 70-200mm each.
To this day, I haven't found any, but honestly I haven't been looking that hard.

Not strictly a rain cover: Lenscoat has got an ‘extending’ part in their neoprene lenscoat for the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm. I have the lenscoat for the RF 100-500mm and do not recommend it: the cloth cover to cover the extending part is very hard to fit and does not stay in place: after zooming a few times, it comes lose and will prevent you from zooming to 100mm because the cloth is in the way.
I use a lenscoat raincoat to cover the extending zoom lenses.

Lenscoat: https://www.lenscoat.com/lenscoat�-canon-100500-p-4018.html
Raincoat: https://www.lenscoat.com/raincoats-raincaps-c-34.html

 

[docsmith]

Comparing RF 100-500mm and Sony 200-600mm is like comparing apples (no, not pears) and mangos..

The only Canon lens you should compare Sonys 200-600mm to is the RF 200-800mm. And imho Canons offering is more intriguing.

I know there are a few patents we can look at, but I read this rumor a bit more general than others as, to your point, I even think a 125-500 lens is a bit different than a 100-500 lens.

It sounds like Canon is coming out with an internal zooming telephoto lens generally in the 100-500 focal length range and generally around f/5-6.3.

Even a few small tweaks to the above sentence can greatly alter my interest in such a lens.

As Canon targets markets and has lately been putting a lot of emphasis on hybrid/video lenses (Z and VCM series), I am wondering if this gets the Z treatment and is aimed at wildlife videographers or at least videographers that need a telephoto zoom in this range. That could be again a different beast. One where I will have to see if I am interested in buying. But that is fine. I like options.

 

[Del Paso]

Hey, the average annual rainfall around Cambridge where I live is only 570mm, London has 585mm. Paris has 641mm, and Strasbourg in Alsace, one of the driest regions in France, 610mm.

I might add that, long long time ago, I suffered from extreme drought in England.
But got soaked to the bone in Cambridge one year later.
An irrefutable scientific proof that your data are rigged!