Canon continues to wind down the production of the EF lens line up, this time the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x has received the axe. There are only a couple of other EF super telephoto lenses still listed as current products.

Various subsidiaries around the globe have stopped importing EF lenses, most notably Canon Australia.

We expect all EF lenses to wind down by the end of 2024. Though there should still be inventory of EF lenses for quite a while. There is also no need to worry about servicing EF lenses, that should go on for at least a decade.

Canon will soon announce the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM, likely by the end of 2023. How many they'll be able to produce will be the big question, as we've seen production issues with the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM.

We have been told numerous times that the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x RF replacement won't be equipped with a built-in teleconverter, which has ruffled a few feathers. However, we personally feel that most photographers will be happier with a 500mm f/4 long end over a 560 f/5.6. Throw in the obvious weight reduction and better balance from a completely new optical design, and Canon will have a winner for the shooters that need such a lens.

Go to discussion...

110 comments

  1. I see absolutely no reason to buy new RF lenses at this time for me. Peoples drive for 'newness' is clearly wasted with Canon as their innovation seems stifled compared to Sony and Nikon.
    • 0
  2. The EF 200-400mm does not show up on Canon's official list of discontinued lenses, and it's in stock at major retailers in the US. It can also still be purchased on canon.jp (though a long lead time is listed).
    • 0
  3. The EF 200-400mm does not show up on Canon's official list of discontinued lenses, and it's in stock at major retailers in the US. It can also still be purchased on canon.jp (though a long lead time is listed).

    It's no longer on the standard order sheets for two major retailers, it's done. Official discontinuation always happens later.
    • 0
  4. I see absolutely no reason to buy new RF lenses at this time for me. Peoples drive for 'newness' is clearly wasted with Canon as their innovation seems stifled compared to Sony and Nikon.

    This again?

    Fine.


    Canon is (dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed)^3
    • 0
  5. I see absolutely no reason to buy new RF lenses at this time for me. Peoples drive for 'newness' is clearly wasted with Canon as their innovation seems stifled compared to Sony and Nikon.
    Hmmm... The 100-300, 1200 f/8, 5.2 VR, 28-70, 600/800 f/11s, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 aren't innovative? Nevermind the top shelf optical performance of most of the RF lineup.

    There's missing lenses in the lineup for sure, but niether Sony or Nikon make better lenses. Nikon has even been going the rebranding route.
    • 0
  6. The EF 200-400mm does not show up on Canon's official list of discontinued lenses, and it's in stock at major retailers in the US. It can also still be purchased on canon.jp (though a long lead time is listed).
    It was never a particularly "loved" lens. The Nikon versions were way cheaper and not a lot different in terms of image quality. It was cheaper to buy a pro Nikon camera body and a mint used Nikkor 200-400mm and still save a lot over the Canon version. The Canon version has it's fans, but they are few and far between.
    I think Canon is wise to consolidate two EF lens into one RF lens, the mighty EF 500mm f4 L IS II prime (which curiously never got a mk III version) and the 200-400mm f4 L IS. The only problem that this will could have it's it's weight. The mkII prime is a great ratio between focal length, aperture and weight. It's very popular as the easily transprtable great white.
    I wonder if Canon will continue with the RF 400mm, 600mm, 800mm primes or consolidate into zooms or internal active teleconverters. A 400 f2.8 / 600 f4 / 800 f5.6 makes a lot of sense, utilising a native prime, 1.5x and 2x active TC.
    • 0
  7. Hmmm... The 100-300, 1200 f/8, 5.2 VR, 28-70, 600/800 f/11s, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 aren't innovative? Nevermind the top shelf optical performance of most of the RF lineup.
    Honestly, IMO for several of these the answer is no they aren't. Nikon came out with a 120-300/2.8 a few years ago, Sigma has had one for almost 20 years, and an extra 20mm on the wide end isn't much of an innovation. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are mainly just the EF MkIII versions with an adapter bolted on, and the RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are those same lenses with a bespoke 2x TC added in along with the bolted-on adapter. Not a whole lot of innovation there, either.

    The 28-70/2 is certainly innovative. The 5.2mm VR is innovative, albeit for a niche market. Most of the RF L-series lenses are modest improvements on already excellent lenses. An extra 1-2mm on the wide end of UWA zooms. IS added to the 24-70/2.8 (where IBIS is present on most bodies). 70-200 zooms with extending designs and materials making them smaller and lighter. 25% more focal length on the 100-500, but the same physical aperture as its 100-400 predecessor.

    Personally, I think the most significant RF lens innovations are in the consumer range, particularly in designs that can keep the costs of those lenses low. The 600/11 and 800/11 are innovative, as are the RF 100-400, 15-30, and 16/2.8...in all cases bringing those focal lengths for FF bodies well down into the affordable range while maintaining really good IQ.
    • 0
  8. I am pretty much interested in dimensions and weight of this lens.
    I am surely not interested in the price, knowing that it is far from any budget justifiable for me ;)
    • 0
  9. I see absolutely no reason to buy new RF lenses at this time for me.
    That's a really good and reasonable argument, and I am proud of you that you can control your GAS. ;)
    OTOH...
    Peoples drive for 'newness' is clearly wasted with Canon as their innovation seems stifled compared to Sony and Nikon.
    ... this sounds very much like trolling, because the highlighted argumentation seem pretty much false, as others like @Canon Rumors Guy already did prove the opposite.
    And if you think Sony and Nikon do better, feel free to vote with your purse.
    Actual overall sales numbers seem to tell, that others have a different opinion.
    • 0
  10. Hmmm... The 100-300, 1200 f/8, 5.2 VR, 28-70, 600/800 f/11s, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 aren't innovative? Nevermind the top shelf optical performance of most of the RF lineup.

    There's missing lenses in the lineup for sure, but niether Sony or Nikon make better lenses. Nikon has even been going the rebranding route.

    The 100-300, 28-70, or the F11 lenses are pretty innovative but the 1200 is just an EF 600 F4 with permanently added 2x TC with RF mount. The RF 600 F4 and 400mm 2.8 lenses are really just the latest EF versions with an updated mount and tweaked AF mechanism but exactly the same "old" optics. This is not a bad thing because the EF lenses are still great and relatively new, but I would not call them innovative.

    The Nikon 600 + 1.4TC, 400 2.8 + 1.4 TC, or 800mm 6.3 are much more innovative, for example. Or even the new Canon 28mm pancake with the crazy aspherical molded lenses.
    • 0
  11. 25% more focal length on the 100-500, but the same physical aperture as its 100-400 predecessor.
    500 f/4 vs 400 f/4 means the aperture is 25% larger at the long end, doesn't it?
    • 0
  12. Personally, I think the most significant RF lens innovations are in the consumer range, particularly in designs that can keep the costs of those lenses low. The 600/11 and 800/11 are innovative, as are the RF 100-400, 15-30, and 16/2.8...in all cases bringing those focal lengths for FF bodies well down into the affordable range while maintaining really good IQ.
    Absolutely yes. If you haven't tried them, you might not realise how good they are as well as being small and light. I strongly suspect that with continued developments in computing and technology, big lenses will become obsolete.
    • 0
  13. 25% more focal length on the 100-500, but the same physical aperture as its 100-400 predecessor.
    500 f/4 vs 400 f/4 means the aperture is 25% larger at the long end, doesn't it?
    100-500 vs. its 100-400 predecessor. As in RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM vs. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II. The former is 500/7.1 at the long end, the latter is 400/5.6 at the long end. 70.4mm vs. 71.4mm iris diaphragm diameters, respectively (and with rounding they're probably not even that different).
    • 0
  14. Hmmm... The 100-300, 1200 f/8, 5.2 VR, 28-70, 600/800 f/11s, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 aren't innovative? Nevermind the top shelf optical performance of most of the RF lineup.

    There's missing lenses in the lineup for sure, but niether Sony or Nikon make better lenses. Nikon has even been going the rebranding route.
    The grass is greener...
    • 0
  15. I see absolutely no reason to buy new RF lenses at this time for me. Peoples drive for 'newness' is clearly wasted with Canon as their innovation seems stifled compared to Sony and Nikon.
    Why do we need know this information?
    • 0
  16. There are some really good posts in this thread...why I read CR.

    ...no doubt in my mind that moves in the direction of light-and-small are the future (the present?!) for even high-end photo gear.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment