svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ2MicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and EF 500mm f/4L IS II to receive updates in mid to late 2019 [CR2]

    EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and EF 500mm f/4L IS II to receive updates in mid to late 2019 [CR2]

    By 35 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors

    Canon recently announced the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 600mm f/4L IS III, two super telephoto lenses that they shaved a lot of weight off of when compared to the predecessors, with weight savings at more than 25% and 20% respectively.

    We're told that the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and EF 500mm f/4L IS II will get a similar weight savings treatment in mid to late 2019. Do not expect the same level of weight reduction, as those two lenses are significantly lighter than their 400mm and 600mm counterparts.

    Rumors of a new EF 200mm f/2L IS and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS have been quiet for a long time, and there's nothing pointing to a replacement for either of these lenses in the next 12 months.

    Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM IS $11,999 & Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM $12,999

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    35 comments

    1. I just bought the 300 f/2.8L II second-hand and have no regrets; I am loving it! I'm sure the new lens will be amazing, though - especially if they can get the weight down even further! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from the updates.

      I wonder if newer telephoto converts will be developed too?
    2. I just bought the 300 f/2.8L II second-hand and have no regrets; I am loving it! I'm sure the new lens will be amazing, though - especially if they can get the weight down even further! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from the updates.

      I wonder if newer telephoto converts will be developed too?
      It's a super sharp and responsive lens and relatively light so no regrets!
    4. Why can not hear anything about replacing the Canon EF 200 f2.0
      This excellent lens deserves an update of not less than 300 or 400mm.
      It may be good, but not such a wonderful 70-200 can not replace it
    5. I guess Canon wants all the big whites updated in regard of compatibility with the EOS R (Dual-sensing IS) and further EOS R models in the future. Maybe there won't be any RF super teles in the foreseable future. With such long lenses they can't gain any weight or size advantage on the RF Mount. The RF lenses control ring sits at the front of the lenses. This would be very akward to control on these long lenses so this is better served with the EF-RF Adapter with control ring near the body.
    7. The RF lenses control ring sits at the front of the lenses. This would be very akward to control on these long lenses so this is better served with the EF-RF Adapter with control ring near the body.

      The use of the control ring supposes that you are using a lens that is light enough to support, along with the camera, with one hand - the hand that isn't operating the control ring. Even if the control ring is hard up by the body, few people would try to use it while hand holding one of the big whites over 400mm. It would take some pretty strong risks to keep the lens pointed outward with one hand on the grip.

      My attempts at swatting mosquitos while holding the 500mm have proven that at least *I* wouldn't be capable of such operation.
    10. It would be nice if the new versions of these lenses were designed so they can be converted to Native R mount in the future. If I were investing that kind of money on a big heavy EF lens today I'd prefer a bolt on conversion to R mount vs. an adapter that may create alignment issues. No AFMA will certainly be welcome though. They could also have internal support for the new communications protocols they would be activated when the mount was converted.
    12. I'm trying to find the article I read a few weeks ago about some of the older Big Whites not being able to take full advantage of RF mounts with tele-extenders. Anybody? Clearly the latest updates will include everything necessary.
    13. Of course, the weight reduction of the new Superteles will be welcome. Question is for which price? The obvious price increase is the first unwelcomed part. Further ist must be seen how the image Quality will be, there were argumentations that their design would be more prone for abberations, because they have more small elements further away from the front element.
    14. Alas the version III lenses are focus by wire... although I use AF most of the time and apparently the new implementation is much better than older versions, I just don't like the idea of it. So I'll stick with mark II for the foreseeable future...
    15. 600 f/4 III makes the 500 f/4 II obsolete. This will kill off sales of the 500 even if it is dearer. I know which lens I'd buy now, and 600III has better balance with improved CoM than the 500 II, well worth the extra coin. The 500 III should have been announced at the same time, even if to just tell us the new weight. If it's only going to be the same weight as the 400 f/2.8, then 600 II is still worth it, but if it's say 2.5kg, that's a lot more tempting. So without knowing the 500 III weight I won't buy anything.
    16. 600 f/4 III makes the 500 f/4 II obsolete. This will kill off sales of the 500 even if it is dearer.

      Lol, you think? There's a £4400 price difference between the two in the UK at present. I chose the 500 II over the 600 II because for the 100mm difference I could get a good camera body - I can't be the only one who considers that price difference relevant in deciding!
    18. 600 f/4 III makes the 500 f/4 II obsolete. This will kill off sales of the 500 even if it is dearer. I know which lens I'd buy now, and 600III has better balance with improved CoM than the 500 II, well worth the extra coin. The 500 III should have been announced at the same time, even if to just tell us the new weight. If it's only going to be the same weight as the 400 f/2.8, then 600 II is still worth it, but if it's say 2.5kg, that's a lot more tempting. So without knowing the 500 III weight I won't buy anything.

      There are more considerations than just the weight which will not make a 500II obsolete....for starters the price difference is not insignificant, especial when you can buy mint used copies of the 500II for around the $6.5K USD mark now and used 600III copies will be a long ways off and not discounted much if someone does have buyer's remorse in the first few months of getting one. That is half the price of a 600III. I would not invest in a brand new 500II at this point though...that is for sure....so I guess in that respect the 500II sales may die off. The next big consideration is that the size of the lens for agility handholding and packing and shooting from a blind/car is significantly better with the 500 size vs the 600 size. I own the Canon 600II and the Nikon 500E FL and there is a big difference in the size if we ignore the weight.
    19. WOnder when Canon will update the 200-400 and if they do, will they change it

      I do think that if they could do some major weight savings and move the TC switch to the other side (like Nikon's version) that could be a worthwhile update. I owned the 200-400 for many years and to be honest never really thought about which side the TC switch should be on but after seeing Nikon's implementation and thinking about it, I agree that having the switch on the right side is better for ergonomics especially while handholding but even on support as you can always keep your left hand out on the lens for stability and support. I'd also love to see dual 1.4TCs built in for the full on 1.4 or 2.0 (via 2x1.4) but not if that kept the weight up...would rather have a big weight reduction, move the switch and otherwise keep it the same.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment