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

[AlanF]

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!

You weren't by any chance standing under my window at the time...

 

[Marphoto]

Sony has an absolutely stellar 200-600 f/6.3 with internal zoom. But, too large and heavy for me. The RF 100-500mm/7.1 is just so light and compact for travel, which is a real plus.

Sure, it's a real plus and the 100-500 is such a killer lens except it doesn't accept a TC well in that it has to be zoomed out and one loses the range (420-700). An internal zoom lens might be the ticket for those who would consider a TC as well. Unfortunately, Canon has been very late to this space and I would hope they would focus on high quality, mid-priced, lighter weight, and more compact DO lenses instead.

 

[AlanF]

Sure, it's a real plus and the 100-500 is such a killer lens except it doesn't accept a TC well in that it has to be zoomed out and one loses the range (420-700). An internal zoom lens might be the ticket for those who would consider a TC as well. Unfortunately, Canon has been very late to this space and I would hope they would focus on high quality, mid-priced, lighter weight, and more compact DO lenses instead.

It you are talking about zooms, as far as I recall, there has only been one DO zoom from all the manufacturers, the Canon 70-300mm DO, which had a poor reputation. If you are talking about primes, it would be nice for those who want them to have the equivalent of the Nikon 600/6.3 PF or 800/6.3. Personally, although the Nikon 500/5.6 PF was once my favourite lens, I then found the versatility of the RF 100-500mm to be far more useful for my purposes. I don't use the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm as the actual increase in resolution is too low - about 15-20% on the R5 - because of image degradation and diffraction with an f/7.1 base aperture. But, it is a design flaw to lose focal range.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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

Thx for sharing and the recommendation. I'll keep looking and if I find something interesting I'll let you know

 

[Quack]

... I don't use the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm as the actual increase in resolution is too low - about 15-20% on the R5 - because of image degradation and diffraction with an f/7.1 base aperture. But, it is a design flaw to lose focal range.

I think a better term would be design decision. When I had the lens and TC, I only used the TC for birding at, or near, the maximum focal range. So, the loss of the wider end did not, in any instance I can remember, matter. But the smaller size and weight due to this decision, was well worth it, in my opinion and experience.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't use the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm as the actual increase in resolution is too low - about 15-20% on the R5 - because of image degradation and diffraction with an f/7.1 base aperture. But, it is a design flaw to lose focal range.

I’d say more of a design choice in favor of a shorter collapsed length. In this case, unlike the EF 70-300L that had the same ‘partial compatibility’ with extenders, Canon decided to provide firmware support for using the extenders.

 

[Del Paso]

Sure, it's a real plus and the 100-500 is such a killer lens except it doesn't accept a TC well in that it has to be zoomed out and one loses the range (420-700). An internal zoom lens might be the ticket for those who would consider a TC as well. Unfortunately, Canon has been very late to this space and I would hope they would focus on high quality, mid-priced, lighter weight, and more compact DO lenses instead.

For me, the answer is quite simple.
The current 100-500 fits into any single backpack I own. It is part of my standard equipment, a kind of a basic lens. Compactness is important for me,
A non-retractable would only fit into my large F-Stop, a bag I rarely need and use.
I wouldn't even consider buying one, even though it would have some obvious advantages.

 

[AlanF]

I think a better term would be design decision. When I had the lens and TC, I only used the TC for birding at, or near, the maximum focal range. So, the loss of the wider end did not, in any instance I can remember, matter. But the smaller size and weight due to this decision, was well worth it, in my opinion and experience.

They could have designed a TC that protruded less into the lens or, as they did for the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-300mm, a lens with the obstructing rear elements further in.

I’d say more of a design choice in favor of a shorter collapsed length. In this case, unlike the EF 70-300L that had the same ‘partial compatibility’ with extenders, Canon decided to provide firmware support for using the extenders.

Did they have a longer collapsed length of the RF 100-300mm than they could have done in order to accommodate the TCs? Perhaps they did this after the complaints about the RF 100-500mm?

 

[neuroanatomist]

They could have designed a TC that protruded less into the lens or, as they did for the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-300mm, a lens with the obstructing rear elements further in.

Did they have a longer collapsed length of the RF 100-300mm than they could have done in order to accommodate the TCs? Perhaps they did this after the complaints about the RF 100-500mm?

I suspect a major design target was keeping the overall length short, as Canon highlighted:


They added 100mm of focal length, but the fully extended length of the 100-500 is only 28mm longer than that of the EF 100-400 II. Thus, the constraint was stronger telephoto design aided by the zooming elements starting further back in the lens.

The 100-300/2.8 does take extenders through the range, as one would expect for a $9500 lens with an f/2.8 aperture. But it’s worth noting that Canon reduced length in a different way, by omitting the drop-in filter slot typically present in that lens class (though the lens does take front filters, there are relatively few options in the 112mm size).

 

[AlanF]

The 100-300/2.8 does take extenders through the range, as one would expect for a $9500 lens with an f/2.8 aperture. But it’s worth noting that Canon reduced length in a different way, by omitting the drop-in filter slot typically present in that lens class (though the lens does take front filters, there are relatively few options in the 112mm size).

Could they have shortened it even more by not having a full zoom range with the TC?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Could they have shortened it even more by not having a full zoom range with the TC?

Possibly, but not with the existing design. The rear elements of the 100-500, 70-200/2.8 and many other extending zooms are part of the zoom mechanism. The rear elements of the 100-300/2.8 are fixed and do not move as the lens is zoomed.

 

[john1970]

Overall, a faster internal zooming 100-500 m lens is an interesting proposition from Canon.

A few questions / comments come to mind:

1) How many stops faster will it be? Maybe f5.6 on the long end?

2) Does it make more sense to make it 200-600 mm instead of 100-500 mm? This would provide a slightly different range than the current lens.

3) If the lens goes out to 600 mm the slowest aperture is likely to be f6.3 to keep the front element size in check to keep cost and weight down.

4) Could DO optics be used? I know Canon once made 70-300 mm DO, which had poor performance, but a lot has changed since then.

If it covers the same range as the current 100-500 mm I would like just keep my current lens. We shall see.

 

[usern4cr]

It you are talking about zooms, as far as I recall, there has only been one DO zoom from all the manufacturers, the Canon 70-300mm DO, which had a poor reputation. If you are talking about primes, it would be nice for those who want them to have the equivalent of the Nikon 600/6.3 PF or 800/6.3. Personally, although the Nikon 500/5.6 PF was once my favourite lens, I then found the versatility of the RF 100-500mm to be far more useful for my purposes. I don't use the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm as the actual increase in resolution is too low - about 15-20% on the R5 - because of image degradation and diffraction with an f/7.1 base aperture. But, it is a design flaw to lose focal range.

I agree with everything you mentioned, but not the "design flaw" part. They designed it intentionally to their new RF limits with rear elements at the newly allowed back positions for max IQ and minimum size & weight (a brilliant design in my opinion). The fact that it could fit a TC if they zoomed out enough is an unexpected benefit in my opinion, but it is indeed a benefit for those that only want the far reaches only (which is probably most of the time or else you wouldn't put the TC on in the first place).

 

[SvO2]

(which is probably most of the time or else you wouldn't put the TC on in the first place).

Problem is lens storage and handling with the teleconverter. It's basically fully extended with the teleconverter mounted (there's minimal difference in length from 300-500), so to pack up the lens, you need to unmount the teleconverter every time. Just becomes cumbersome. I don't know if it's possible, but if they were able to engineer the teles so that they could collapse until you open them up to the usable position (sorta like the new 28-70 lens), that would lessen a lot of the complaints I think.

 

[AlanF]

I agree with everything you mentioned, but not the "design flaw" part. They designed it intentionally to their new RF limits with rear elements at the newly allowed back positions for max IQ and minimum size & weight (a brilliant design in my opinion). The fact that it could fit a TC if they zoomed out enough is an unexpected benefit in my opinion, but it is indeed a benefit for those that only want the far reaches only (which is probably most of the time or else you wouldn't put the TC on in the first place).

Facts: Of the early RF zooms: the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L did not take TCs; and the RF 100-500mm did so but with restricted focal range.

Supposed explanation: "This lens (RF 70-200 f/2.8 L) was designed to be as compact as possible, and that design positioned the RF 70-200's rear lens element shallow when the lens is retracted, leaving little space for an extender to be inserted into the back of the lens."

Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

Facts: The latest incarnation of the 70-200 f/2.8 L the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM Z and all the later long zooms, the RF 100-300mm, RF 100-400mm and RF 200-800mm are fully compatible with TCs. The collapsed RF 100-400mm is 1.22” (28.3mm) shorter than the EF 100-400mm II, despite the even shorter RF flange-sensordistance.

Canon, who reputedly know more than us as individuals about what sells, has now decided that the majority want zooms with full extender compatibility. Those that want the far reaches only would be better served by lightweight primes, but they are so far deprived of them by Canon.

 

[SvO2]

Canon, who reputedly know more than us as individuals about what sells, has now decided that the majority want zooms with full extender compatibility. Those that want the far reaches only would be better served by lightweight primes, but they are so far deprived of them by Canon.

I agree. I suspect their market data showed that people didn't like the teleconverter situation, didn't like extending barrels, and didn't like the narrow apertures (in the case of the 100-500, 200-800). The 70-200Z seems to be the first in a series to 'course correct' there. I'm personally tempted to offload both my 70-200 2.8 and 100-500 and grab the new 70-200 along with a 2x tele.

Also hoping they come out with some low-to-mid 4 figure DO teleprimes, but we'll see.

 

[koenkooi]

For me, the answer is quite simple.
The current 100-500 fits into any single backpack I own. It is part of my standard equipment, a kind of a basic lens. Compactness is important for me, a non-retractable would only fit into my large F-Stop, a bag I rarely need and use. I wouldn't even consider buying one, even though it would have some obvious advantages.

With the hood reversed or off, the lens attached to an R5(II) fits nicely into my shoulderbag, which means it can be taken along almost anywhere without shouting "I AM CAMERA BAG WITH GEAR INSIDE, STEAL ME!" Till I take out, of course
With the hood attached, I can store it upright in my backpack, with the lenscap off. That makes it really easy to take it and start shooting, especially with gloves on.

Which is my I'm skeptical about how much I'd use an RF200-800, it would need a larger backpack, which means it will be left at home for trips where I need to be indoors at the destination, like grocery runs. The weekly grocery run to the local dairy farm is a few kilometers of cycling along a canal through farmland, so lots of herons, egrets, kestrels and buzzards. Which is exactly what I'd need a telezoom for! The size (and weight) of the current 100-500L is very convenient, I personally don't think a non-extending variant is useful for me. I'm saving for a RF long 1:1 macro

 

[AlanF]

Which is my I'm skeptical about how much I'd use an RF200-800, it would need a larger backpack, which means it will be left at home for trips where I need to be indoors at the destination, like grocery runs. The weekly grocery run to the local dairy farm is a few kilometers of cycling along a canal through farmland, so lots of herons, egrets, kestrels and buzzards. Which is exactly what I'd need a telezoom for! The size (and weight) of the current 100-500L is very convenient, I personally don't think a non-extending variant is useful for me. I'm saving for a RF long 1:1 macro

You will see me regularly cycling on my upright Dutch Gazelle bike through the countryside with my RF 200-800mm over my shoulder on a BlackRapid strap at the ready to shoot those birds!

 

[Del Paso]

With the hood reversed or off, the lens attached to an R5(II) fits nicely into my shoulderbag, which means it can be taken along almost anywhere without shouting "I AM CAMERA BAG WITH GEAR INSIDE, STEAL ME!" Till I take out, of course
With the hood attached, I can store it upright in my backpack, with the lenscap off. That makes it really easy to take it and start shooting, especially with gloves on.

Which is my I'm skeptical about how much I'd use an RF200-800, it would need a larger backpack, which means it will be left at home for trips where I need to be indoors at the destination, like grocery runs. The weekly grocery run to the local dairy farm is a few kilometers of cycling along a canal through farmland, so lots of herons, egrets, kestrels and buzzards. Which is exactly what I'd need a telezoom for! The size (and weight) of the current 100-500L is very convenient, I personally don't think a non-extending variant is useful for me. I'm saving for a RF long 1:1 macro

I always had my EF 100-400 L II in a bag, whether visiting a city or hiking in the mountains. The 100-500 is even lighter (I never use the tripod collar) and just as compact.
Next October, the RF will be part of my trip to Japan (individual, since I dislike organised travel). Compact retractable lenses are simply great for hiking or travel, no matter what some say about so-called dust issues.
And I'm still hoping for a corner-sharp 24-70 f/2 or f/2,8. A really corner-sharp one!!!

 

[Del Paso]

You will see me regularly cycling on my upright Dutch Gazelle bike through the countryside with my RF 200-800mm over my shoulder on a BlackRapid strap at the ready to shoot those birds!

Should I ever be back in the Cambridge area, I'll be able to trace you easily...