Will the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II replacement for the RF mount be a zoom?

[Chig]

A 200-500/4 with built-in 1.4x would be a nice upgrade to the EF 200-400/4 + 1.4x. I'm not sure I believe that such a lens would be the size/weight of the EF 500/4 II. The RF 100-300/2.8 is 7.5 cm / 3" longer and 240 g / 0.5 lb heavier than the EF 300/2.8 II, so I really don't see how they could make a 200-500/4 with a built-in TC and end up at the same size as the EF 500/4 II.

Personally, I will stick with the 600/4 over the 500/4 (practically for my typical use, it's really 840/5.6 vs. 700/5.6), though if the R1 comes in with a pixel density high enough to obviate the extra 140mm (which is reasonably likely), I may consider swapping my 600/4 II for this rumored lens if it becomes a product).

The weight comparision appears to be to the mark 1 version of the 500mm f/4: "Size and weight will be similar to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM" this lens is about 3.9kg which is probably a realistic target weight for a 200-500mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender and as the centre of gravity will be a lot closer to the mount end it would be fairly okay for handholding and would be a popular choice for birders like me but of course will be very expensive.
Rather confusing to compare it with a lens that came out back in 1999 though

 

[Ph0t0]

The weight comparision appears to be to the mark 1 version of the 500mm f/4: "Size and weight will be similar to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM" this lens is about 3.9kg which is probably a realistic target weight for a 200-500mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender and as the centre of gravity will be a lot closer to the mount end it would be fairly okay for handholding and would be a popular choice for birders like me but of course will be very expensive.
Rather confusing to compare it with a lens that came out back in 1999 though

I don't think so.
The mark 1 version isn't 1 pound lighter than 200-400mm. Here is the entire quote:

"Size and weight will be similar to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM, which is about a pound lighter than the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x."

 

[koenkooi]

Serious question: What are the parameters we evaluate a lens on: 1. Sharpness (MFT), 2. Focus speed 3. Weight 4. Bokeh and? Will the zoom match the prime in all these (and more)? Perhaps not. But the ability to zoom must surpass any minor differences. Right? At least until the time they launch a new 500mm f4 and it beats the zoom substantially in every department...

For me, it's mostly the magnification ratio since I mainly do macro and larger insects like dragonflies. For general purpose lenses it's mostly the size vs spec ratio. I've been enjoying the RF24-50 STM during this weeks vacation, it's nicely sized for the R8.

 

[Rzrsharp]

RF100-300, RF100-400, RF100-500, now RF200-500.
At the range of 100-500, Canon is running on a road with heavy traffic.

 

[davidespinosa]

Canon should really be trying to match that, by providing a "budget" 200-600mm F5.6-8 or similar.

I think it's reasonable to compare the Canon 100-500 and Sony 200-600:

Canon 100-500:
f/4.5 at 100mm
f/5 at 200mm
f/7.1 at 500mm
77mm filters
$2700 at B&H
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1547011-REG/canon_rf_100_500mm_f_4_6_3l_is.html
Made in Japan

Sony 200-600:
f/5.6 at 200mm
f/6.3 at 500mm
f/6.3 at 600mm
95mm filters
$1900 at B&H
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485540-REG/sony_sel200600g_fe_200_600mm_f_5_6_6_3_g.html
Made in China

 

[Chig]

I don't think so.
The mark 1 version isn't 1 pound lighter than 200-400mm. Here is the entire quote:

"Size and weight will be similar to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM, which is about a pound lighter than the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x."

Well 3.2 kg is the weight of the mark ii version which is more ambitious but perhaps they can achieve this as the RF 600 f/4 is 3.1kg so a non zoom RF 500mm f/4 would possibly be about 2.5-2,7kg and this 200-500mm f/4 might be only 3.2kg which would be awesome

 

[Rzrsharp]

Yes, DO will definitely create a shorter lens with less magnesium, but it will also allow the use of two large plastic lens elements which is significantly lighter than two large glass elements. Unfortunately its not one of the largest two elements so the savings is capped, but a smaller lens construction and lighter elements (potentially the 3rd and 4th largest elements) will be useful. Also note, DO lenses were "supposed" to be cheaper as well, so its possible Canon could finally deliver on that promise, which would be welcome.

Either way, I'm a past DO owner and honestly, wasn't fully satisfied. So, I'm not sure if I'd buy in again. So, I'm hoping for a conventional prime lens with a 1.4x, at 6.5lbs.

DO elements are not plastic, they are glass. Quotes from Canon "It is composed of spherical glass lenses and special plastic diffraction lattices. The diffraction lattices are a few micrometers thick (1 micrometer = 0.001millimeter).".
That lattices are thin plastic layer like coating or glue. Doublet (lens) maybe cemented of two lens with plastic adhesive, for example, epoxy. Normally we don't call them plastic.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Many people have been waiting for Sigma or Tamron to launch an affordable 200-600-ish zoom in RF, but I can't see Canon allowing them to produce one until Canon themselves have covered that niche.

Canon never bothered covering that niche on EF.
I really hope for a first-party lens but I can see Canon just letting Sigma and Tamron handle it.
On the other hand, both Sony and Nikon will have first-party 200-600 lenses.
If it works for them then it should work for Canon.

 

[john1970]

Nor should you, @MiJax is wrong (or maybe he also believes that gold-plated jewelry is ‘made of gold’).

Canon states, “Canon DO lens … is composed of spherical glass lenses and special plastic diffraction lattices. The diffraction lattices are a few micrometers thick (1 micrometer = 0.001millimeter).”

DO lenses are lighter, but that’s in large part due to an optical design requiring fewer large elements toward the front of the lens.

Thank you for the proper information.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon never bothered covering that niche on EF.
I really hope for a first-party lens but I can see Canon just letting Sigma and Tamron handle it.
On the other hand, both Sony and Nikon will have first-party 200-600 lenses.
If it works for them then it should work for Canon.

I do not even think we're speaking of a niche. These lenses sold too well for such a description.
As to Canon, such a lens could "collide" with the RF 100-400 and 100-500. Additionally, there's the RF 600...
So, I doubt we'll ever see a 150-600, at least not very soon. Canon have more urgent priorities.

 

[kaihp]

They didn't offer one during the long EF years, did they? Why now?

Because the AF sensors on DSLRs didn't works at f/11. With mirrorless, they can make it work. Thus, the advent off 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

DO lenses were "supposed" to be cheaper as well, so its possible Canon could finally deliver on that promise

I do not recall Canon promising that but if so the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 delivered.
Nikon definitely takes the cheaper approach with PF lenses.
I kind of hope Canon also takes the approach of making expensive DO lenses that would be impractical to make with conventional lenses like a 500 f/2.8 DO.
I also hope they turn some of their crazy spec autofocus mirror lens patents into real products,
One of those patents is for an 800 f/4 mirror lens.
Here is a 1000 f/5.6 DO patent:

Canon EF 1000mm F5.6 DO lens coming, filed patent suggests [CW3]

Among all the patents filed by Canon, this may be one that actually could hit the market (in my opinion). The patent refers to an EF 1000mm F5.6 DO (Diffractive Optics) lens. Would be perfect for the upcoming Olympic Games :-) Who knows…maybe Canon is already field-testing this lens. Patent...

www.canonwatch.com

 

[entoman]

They didn't offer one during the long EF years, did they? Why now? Alternatively, the 100-400 is the affordable zoom for birding. Not sure how they could go much longer/wider aperture without heading towards the price of the 100-500.

Incidentally I got an RF 100-400 today! I just can't afford the 100-500, even secondhand.

Yes, the RF100-400mm is a great lens, and on a R7 is quite usable for birding. Unfortunately for my friends, on FF, even with the R5, it needs a 1.4x extender to achieve an angle of view comparable to the 600/11 - and with that attached, it becomes an F11 lens at the long end. The combined price of the RF100-400mm and the 1.4x extender is also almost double the cost of the 600/11. In terms of sharpness, the 600/11 might be better, I'm not sure.

What "budget" birders really need, is a zoom that natively goes to about 600/8 at the long end. The Sony zoom goes 2/3rds stop better at the long end (200-600/5.6-6.3) and only costs £1599, so Canon could easily produce a "budget" 200-600/5.6-8 for the same price, *if they chose to,* and it would likely prove extremely popular with birders. To be frank, I think they just don't want to lose face by "copying" what Sony did.

Someone will doubtless be tempted to ask "if your friends want the 200-600 so badly, why don't they switch to Sony?". Well, one of them already has, but the others don't want the cost of switching systems, and don't like Sony ergos.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, the RF100-400mm is a great lens, and on a R7 is quite usable for birding. Unfortunately for my friends, on FF, even with the R5, it needs a 1.4x extender to achieve an angle of view comparable to the 600/11 - and with that attached, it becomes an F11 lens at the long end. The combined price of the RF100-400mm and the 1.4x extender is also almost double the cost of the 600/11. In terms of sharpness, the 600/11 might be better, I'm not sure.

What "budget" birders really need, is a zoom that natively goes to about 600/8 at the long end. The Sony zoom goes 2/3rds stop better at the long end (200-600/5.6-6.3) and only costs £1599, so Canon could easily produce a "budget" 200-600/5.6-8 for the same price, *if they chose to,* and it would likely prove extremely popular with birders. To be frank, I think they just don't want to lose face by "copying" what Sony did.

Someone will doubtless be tempted to ask "if your friends want the 200-600 so badly, why don't they switch to Sony?". Well, one of them already has, but the others don't want the cost of switching systems, and don't like Sony ergos.

A cheap and sharp RF 200-600 f/8 would seriously eat into sales of the 100-500mm.

 

[scyrene]

Because the AF sensors on DSLRs didn't works at f/11. With mirrorless, they can make it work. Thus, the advent off 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11.

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was suggesting that as the "cheap" x-600mm eg f/5.6 zooms were absent from Canon's lineup for the last few decades, they probably never saw them as a goer.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, the RF100-400mm is a great lens, and on a R7 is quite usable for birding. Unfortunately for my friends, on FF, even with the R5, it needs a 1.4x extender to achieve an angle of view comparable to the 600/11 - and with that attached, it becomes an F11 lens at the long end. The combined price of the RF100-400mm and the 1.4x extender is also almost double the cost of the 600/11. In terms of sharpness, the 600/11 might be better, I'm not sure.

What "budget" birders really need, is a zoom that natively goes to about 600/8 at the long end. The Sony zoom goes 2/3rds stop better at the long end (200-600/5.6-6.3) and only costs £1599, so Canon could easily produce a "budget" 200-600/5.6-8 for the same price, *if they chose to,* and it would likely prove extremely popular with birders. To be frank, I think they just don't want to lose face by "copying" what Sony did.

Someone will doubtless be tempted to ask "if your friends want the 200-600 so badly, why don't they switch to Sony?". Well, one of them already has, but the others don't want the cost of switching systems, and don't like Sony ergos.

A minor point that occurred to me yesterday, an advantage the 100-400 + extender has over the f/11 lenses is its much closer MFD. For birds coming closer than 6m the 800 doesn't offer me better IQ than the zoom plus 2x extender because it simply cannot focus that close.

I don't see room in their lineup for the tele zoom you describe. I think Canon likely believes the bases are adequately covered. Besides, would a -600 f/8 zoom be much cheaper than the 100-500? Even if non-L, its front element would be bigger, and it would surely be £1500-£2000 (your price is at the low end, I think that's optimistic). And why not just put a 1.4x on the existing zoom in that case (the limitations notwithstanding)? I think the niche is much smaller than you suggest.

 

[entoman]

A cheap and sharp RF 200-600 f/8 would seriously eat into sales of the 100-500mm.

The 100-500 is currently £2819. I think Canon could sell a budget-range 200-600/5.6-8 (no tripod foot, no case, no hood, etc) for not much more than half that amount.

I don't think it would eat into sales of the RF100-500. Those who can afford it would still choose it, but those who can't afford it (and there are many in that position) would likely jump at the cheaper option. So it would provide additional sales, rather than cannibalise the 100-500.

 

[entoman]

A minor point that occurred to me yesterday, an advantage the 100-400 + extender has over the f/11 lenses is its much closer MFD. For birds coming closer than 6m the 800 doesn't offer me better IQ than the zoom plus 2x extender because it simply cannot focus that close.

I don't see room in their lineup for the tele zoom you describe. I think Canon likely believes the bases are adequately covered. Besides, would a -600 f/8 zoom be much cheaper than the 100-500? Even if non-L, its front element would be bigger, and it would surely be £1500-£2000 (your price is at the low end, I think that's optimistic). And why not just put a 1.4x on the existing zoom in that case (the limitations notwithstanding)? I think the niche is much smaller than you suggest.

Yes, a major disadvantage of the 600/11 and 800/11 enses is the very limited MFD, which prevents me using them for grab shots of dragonflies or butterflies. For birds, I never found it a limiting factor, I've got lots of close-ups of finches, long-tailed tits, robins etc taken at MFD with my (now sold) 800/11.

As for the cost of a 200-600/8 zoom, if Sony can sell thousands of them for £1499, why can't Canon? You say you think the niche is smaller than I suggest, but it's a big enough niche for Sony, and I see lots of their 200-600 in birding hides and on safaris.

 

[entoman]

I do not even think we're speaking of a niche. These lenses sold too well for such a description.

Agreed.

As to Canon, such a lens could "collide" with the RF 100-400 and 100-500. Additionally, there's the RF 600...

See my reply to @AlanF regarding cannibalisation of RF100-500. A budget 200-600/5.6-8 would be twice the price of the 600/11, so the latter would still sell to those on a really tight budget. Those with more to spend would go for the 200-600/5.6-8, and those who need the best image quality, shortest MFD, widest max aperture and greatest durability would still go for the RF100-500. I think there's plenty of room for all three.

I doubt we'll ever see a 150-600, at least not very soon. Canon have more urgent priorities.

Agreed. Canon will give much higher priority to big whites and wide aperture wide-angles. That's fine by me, as I have no plans to buy more glass or more bodies in the foreseeable future, but Canon's lack of interest in catering for budget birders is disappointing to many.

 

[Del Paso]

Agreed.

See my reply to @AlanF regarding cannibalisation of RF100-500. A budget 200-600/5.6-8 would be twice the price of the 600/11, so the latter would still sell to those on a really tight budget. Those with more to spend would go for the 200-600/5.6-8, and those who need the best image quality, shortest MFD, widest max aperture and greatest durability would still go for the RF100-500. I think there's plenty of room for all three.

Agreed. Canon will give much higher priority to big whites and wide aperture wide-angles. That's fine by me, as I have no plans to buy more glass or more bodies in the foreseeable future, but Canon's lack of interest in catering for budget birders is disappointing to many.

I still wonder why Sony don't charge more for their 200-600.
Maybe they'll retain my suggestion?