Close Menu

    5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

    By Updated:94 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    rf100500 - 5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

    There's nothing really new here, but once again we see 5 unreleased lenses show up for certification according to Nokishita. We suspect at least one of them is the RF 100-500 f/4-7.1L IS USM. None of these lens SKUs are for the new RF teleconverters either.

    Unreleased Canon Lens SKUs (One of these SKUs is the RF 100-500):

    • 3986C005
    • 3987C005
    • 4112C005
    • 4113C005
    • 4114C005
    • 4234C005

    I and others expect to see at least 4 lenses announced before August of this year.

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    94 comments

    2. As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?
    3. The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 should be a good prosumer lens for birding, wildlife, outdoor sports, distant landscapes etc. I wonder how short it is when it's stored away (does this telescope out?), and how light they can get it without tripod foot & collar for possible handheld use? Max. magnification at both ends & price would be nice to know. Will really be nice to get actual reviews of the quality of the images.
    5. I mainly shoot wildlife (birds) on my EOS R (and future R5), and I have honestly never been less excited for an L lens than the 100-500 f7.1. It's honestly one of the more disappointing Canon lenses in recent memory, when you can go pick up a sigma 150-600 f6.3 contemporary for $900. There is no way that the IQ will make up for almost a full stop slower and very likely 3x the price of the sigma. To quote Gordon Ramsay - "Damn. What a shame."
    6. I mainly shoot wildlife (birds) on my EOS R (and future R5), and I have honestly never been less excited for an L lens than the 100-500 f7.1. It's honestly one of the more disappointing Canon lenses in recent memory, when you can go pick up a sigma 150-600 f6.3 contemporary for $900. There is no way that the IQ will make up for almost a full stop slower and very likely 3x the price of the sigma. To quote Gordon Ramsay - "Damn. What a shame."
      Compared to the Canon 100-400mm(on which the 100-500mm will almost certainly be based) the Sigma is heavier, longer, less durable, doesn't go nearly as wide and most importantly has a minimum focusing distance of 2.8m compared to 0.9m for the Canon. This makes it completely useless for any macro/close up work. I really dont get why people are so upset about this being 7.1 at 500mm. Limiting everything to f5.6 made sense in 2006 but sensors and AF systems have moved on since then.
    8. Compared to the Canon 100-400mm(on which the 100-500mm will almost certainly be based) the Sigma is heavier, longer, less durable, doesn't go nearly as wide and most importantly has a minimum focusing distance of 2.8m compared to 0.9m for the Canon. This makes it completely useless for any macro/close up work. I really dont get why people are so upset about this being 7.1 at 500mm. Limiting everything to f5.6 made sense in 2006 but sensors and AF systems have moved on since then.
      To the same tune:
      Canon 100-400 is no near as long as Sigma 600
      Are you saying that Canon 100-500 will be F5.6 @400mm ? I highly doubt it. My estimation is: F6.3 @400mm, it is going to be a relatively slow focusing lens.
      let’s see who was right.
    10. I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
      An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today
      How would you feel If the following is true:
      • Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
      • Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
      • f5.6 @ 400mm
      • 500mm @ f7.1 vs 560mm @ f8 using 100-400 II + TC
      I have the 200-400 f4 L IS w/ integrated 1.4x. I love the quality & versatility of this lens, but it is heavy and expensive. Even though it gives me 560mm @ f5.6, I love the idea of a lightweight lens that provides 500mm. with a 45mp sensor to crop, I should be able to get a high quality crop equal to 600mm. Naturally, I would have preferred 5.6 or 6.3, but that would have been a heavier, more expensive lens.
    11. almost a full stop slower

      If you are comparing f/6.3 with f/7.1 here, it is more like 1/3rd stop slower.
      But I don't know what the Sigma is on 500mm if that is what you are comparing with?
    12. The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 should be a good prosumer lens for birding, wildlife, outdoor sports, distant landscapes etc. I wonder how short it is when it's stored away (does this telescope out?), and how light they can get it without tripod foot & collar for possible handheld use? Max. magnification at both ends & price would be nice to know. Will really be nice to get actual reviews of the quality of the images.



      Yes it is external zooming, it is probably a little lighter than the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 II and about the same size if you add the EF mount converter to the latter.
    13. How would you feel If the following is true:
      • Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
      • Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
      • f5.6 @ 400mm
      • 500mm @ f7.1 vs 560mm @ f8 using 100-400 II + TC
      I have the 200-400 f4 L IS w/ integrated 1.4x. I love the quality & versatility of this lens, but it is heavy and expensive. Even though it gives me 560mm @ f5.6, I love the idea of a lightweight lens that provides 500mm. with a 45mp sensor to crop, I should be able to get a high quality crop equal to 600mm. Naturally, I would have preferred 5.6 or 6.3, but that would have been a heavier, more expensive lens.

      this is a good one. I shoot a 500 II, and although that lens is superior in terms of sharpness and 'look', I never ever go on a trip without the 100-400, due to the lightweight nature of the lens. It can be swung around very quickly, whereas bigger, heavier lenses take more time to react to action (and wildlife can be very unpredictable).

      I know for low light it's certainly not the best, but with focal lengths of 500mm, I usually shoot stopped down anyway. Sometimes even f/11, also on the 500mm prime.

      If this 100-500 can deliver more sharpness, improved AF (although the 100-400 is already very good) and maybe even a tad bit lighter, I'd consider it a very acceptable upgrade. For the real low light stuff and IQ, I''ll keep my 500 for now and see what super tele primes in RF will come.
    14. To the same tune:
      Canon 100-400 is no near as long as Sigma 600
      Are you saying that Canon 100-500 will be F5.6 @400mm ? I highly doubt it. My estimation is: F6.3 @400mm, it is going to be a relatively slow focusing lens.
      let’s see who was right.
      I highly doubt focus speed will be slow. Aperture is not the limiting factor for AF on Canon's new Mirrorless cameras. And as it doesn't have a particularly bright aperture, the amount of glass to move shouldn't be a problem either.

      Once this lens is out, we will hopefully see some comparisons with the 100-400 mm II and Sigma 150-600 mm and 60-600 mm. I would not be surprised if it turns out that it strikes a good balance between these. Not strictly an upgrade to the 100-400 mm but with additional reach and likewise better AF at alower cost and weight that is more competitive with the third party alternatives.

      But they need to get this into the hands of lots of people to take pictures and comparisons, because the numbers sure don't look enticing.
    16. I highly doubt focus speed will be slow. Aperture is not the limiting factor for AF on Canon's new Mirrorless cameras. And as it doesn't have a particularly bright aperture, the amount of glass to move shouldn't be a problem either.

      Once this lens is out, we will hopefully see some comparisons with the 100-400 mm II and Sigma 150-600 mm and 60-600 mm. I would not be surprised if it turns out that it strikes a good balance between these. Not strictly an upgrade to the 100-400 mm but with additional reach and likewise better AF at alower cost and weight that is more competitive with the third party alternatives.

      But they need to get this into the hands of lots of people to take pictures and comparisons, because the numbers sure don't look enticing.
      All good thoughts. I have an observation:
      At least on EF Mount, with 1.4x attached, 100-400 AF slows down. Not by much but still. Thats what, F5.6 vs F8.0? Will see how we go anyway.
    17. My lens hope:

      1. A small, lightweight 50mm f/1.4 IS
      2. A lightweight 16-35 f/4L IS or a 20 to 24 f/2.8 IS prime

      But I doubt these will be included in this round. And Canon has had a hate on against producing a new 50 f/1.4 for decades now.
    18. If you are comparing f/6.3 with f/7.1 here, it is more like 1/3rd stop slower.
      But I don't know what the Sigma is on 500mm if that is what you are comparing with?
      f/7.1 is 1/2.899th of a stop slower than f/6.3, so "1/3rd" is indeed correct enough, while "1 stop slower" needs to use a calculator again.
    19. How would you feel If the following is true:
      • Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
      • Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
      • f5.6 @ 400mm
      • 500mm @ f7.1 vs 560mm @ f8 using 100-400 II + TC
      I have the 200-400 f4 L IS w/ integrated 1.4x. I love the quality & versatility of this lens, but it is heavy and expensive. Even though it gives me 560mm @ f5.6, I love the idea of a lightweight lens that provides 500mm. with a 45mp sensor to crop, I should be able to get a high quality crop equal to 600mm. Naturally, I would have preferred 5.6 or 6.3, but that would have been a heavier, more expensive lens.
      Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment