5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

Any guesses on price for the RF 100-500?

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?

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.

biznatch said:

Any guesses on price for the RF 100-500?

Click to expand...

I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.

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."

3serious said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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

Doug7131 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:

RF 70-135/2
RF 35/1.2
+
2 slow, cheap primes that I don't care about

carlosalberto said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

3serious said:

almost a full stop slower

Click to expand...

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?

usern4cr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Danglin52 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SecureGSM said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I'd definitely rent it for a trip to give it a go, mind you .

Still hoping we might see a 500 F/4 DO or something similar as well.

Joules said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Stig Nygaard said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Danglin52 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.