Close Menu

    An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]

    By Updated:131 Comments1 Min Read Canon Business General
    canon100400png 728x462 - An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]

    We have been told that Canon is working on an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM equivalent for the RF mount, though the lens may not have a matching focal length range.

    We have been told on more than one occasion that Canon is working on an RF 200-500mm L zoom and that we could see it in late 2020.

    The same source says that the long-rumoured EF supertelephoto zoom development was killed off “quite some time ago” as focus on new lens designs moves to the RF mount.

    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

    131 comments


    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 504

    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 505
    2. Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).
    3. A RF 200-500 would have me sold as all my wildlife photos from rabbits, foxes to bears and eagles all start at least 200mm and then go into the 300 and 300 cropped by 50%. f/5.6 in the £4000 range would be a good lens I could take everywhere. Or another f/4.0 monster with a teleconverter built in like the 200-400 in the stupid money range is fine too.
    4. Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).

      your comment is extremely confusing, the 100-400 is not in the same category as a 70-200. Thats a different lens and purpose all together. Every person that owns the current 100-400 ii is itching for a longer focal length and I highly doubt it will be a push pull like the mk1, not sure why you say that.

      If they go to 500 5.6 then many will be happy, including me!
    8. Hopefully, a sports and wildlife mirrorless is coming soon.

      Yes please, but I don't think that is realistic at the moment. First the 1DX mk III im 2020 and then maybe 2 years later a mirrorless version of the 1DX. By that time there should be some long, fast glass available for sportshooters.
    9. I care more about getting the RF 100-400 than I do getting a high-res/pro R body. Glad to finally hear it mentioned.

      Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).

      100-400 II is not push-pull, that was the first version. But I agree, not having 100-200 would be a big loss for us non-wildlife shooters.
    10. Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D
      Yeah! You're right. We've waited so long for the EF100-400 II. The RF fraction should wait much longer :p


      Now back on topic:
      Will be interesting, what Canon R&D can deliver here...
    11. Yeah I’d be happy with a 100-500 but a 200-500 would be a far more wildlife focussed lens than a 100-400. I use my 100-400 at the short end of the zoom a lot for mountain landscapes and it pairs really well with a 24-70 for a two lens kit. If it was an RF 200-500 I’d feel like I have to carry the 70-200 as well to fill in that gap.

      I guess I can still use the Ef 100-400, I know that, but hey if you’re going to pick a side in the mirrorless wars then you want to be able to use the new lenses. After all, the lens designs that are possible with the new mount are the best reason for moving to mirrorless as far as I can see.

      Btw, where is the rf 1.4x extender rumour? There must be one in the pipeline for the 70-200, no?
    14. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great

      How would they shorten it like the 70-200 when the 100-400 is already ... a collapsing telescopic zoom?
    15. Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.
    16. Nikon has a 200-500, a 500 f5.6, and an excellent 300 f4. I bought a Canon 300 f4 last year, it is excellent, but old design and IS could be improved. Nikon is a small company, Canon is large. I am sure there are reasons I am unaware of, but dont understand why Canon let Nikon have the market for advanced amateurs with no response to updated equipment, maybe with the exception of the excellent 100-400. I’ve never had any focus issues and will not buy a third party lens because of all the focus issues I hear about. Canon equipment is very good, but could be so much better. When I got back into photography and wanted digital, Canon was far advanced over Nikon. Canon has the idea “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I better like the idea “if it ain’t broke, improve it”. Rant over.
    17. The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.
    19. Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D

      2020? Canon is too slow.

      People will be using the EF big whites for at least the next decade, the end of next year is fast enough.

      Plus, if it was released now people would just complain that the bodies aren't good enough to use it on (Like they have with the 28-70 f2, the 50 f1.2, the 85 f1.2, and nearly every other lens that's come out).

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment