Latest activity

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
https://www.canon.ca/en/product?name=EF_400mm_f/5.6L_USM&category=

https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/00035/Canon-EF-400mm-f5.6L-USM-price.html?streetprice

Canon says if you still have one in stock then sell it at $1,599 CAD. In 2026. I didn't make the numbers up.

Totally fair! And I trust your opinion on lens quality comparisons for things like birds, etc.

I do think that the zoom + prime combo at either tier for likely pricing ranges would be solid. I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied. I agree that zooms are the ultimate in convenience when subjects move much closer or further, but when the situation permits I prefer to reach for a prime instead. Extra nice is that my better half and I can split the set and she can carry the zoom while I futz with the prime.

There is a complete difference between comparing a 24mm zoom with a 500mm zoom when it comes to distortion. There is minimal inherent distortion from 500mm lens as the inherent curvature from a 500mm radius over a 36mm frame is tiny compared with that from a 24mm radius over 36mm, which requires massive optical and digital correction.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

AlanF said:
The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective.

Canon says if you still have one in stock then sell it at $1,599 CAD. In 2026. I didn't make the numbers up.

AlanF said:
It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

Totally fair! And I trust your opinion on lens quality comparisons for things like birds, etc.

I do think that the zoom + prime combo at either tier for likely pricing ranges would be solid. I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied. I agree that zooms are the ultimate in convenience when subjects move much closer or further, but when the situation permits I prefer to reach for a prime instead. Extra nice is that my better half and I can split the set and she can carry the zoom while I futz with the prime.

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)

Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799

Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999

Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)

Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective. It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

Dragon · Apr 21, 2026

ISv said:
Back to DxO PL. Long story -short: more than an year my PL8 stopped working, I upgraded to PL9 and it was the same - they didn't recognize my credentials (!?). It was with my old computer (Windows 10). My new computer is Windows 11 and voila - at once I'm a legitimate owner. The problem is that I can download only PL9 - the previous editions are not available in DxO store for downloading (I like the simplicity of PL6 and PL8 since I don't always need all of the new features of PL9)! Anyway: the noise reduction and the control of the colors are day and night in comparison with the Windows Photos program (not a surprise!). Today it was good day to take photos in low light (overcast and windy and most importantly - finally no rain!!!) and to see what the last edition of PL9 can do! I missed the fraction of second when the Japanese White-eye landed on the flowers of the Jade vine - it could be a nice photo...

View attachment 228972 View attachment 228973 View attachment 228974 View attachment 228976 View attachment 228977 View attachment 228978

The latest version of PL9 (just this week) finally uses Nvidia GPU well. Much faster processing times than in the past. Looks like they finally moved to Cuda.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

AlanF said:
The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)
Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999
Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)
Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

Del Paso · Apr 21, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Wow!

I'm impressed on your lens ID's - my Leitz enlarger and slide projector lenses.

Had (have) exactly the same...

Dragon · Apr 21, 2026

This is a big-glass-forward design much like the EF 500 f/4 II

. That was one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever made even with extenders, so we can only hope.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 21, 2026

Del Paso said:
I see a Focotar and a Colorplan...very good choices!
The funny bayonet was the only reason why I chose the Minolta SRT 101 over Canon's FTb Ql.
While dreaming, still a poor student, of a Leicaflex SL and a Nikon F2. Which I both bought a few years later.

Wow!

I'm impressed on your lens ID's - my Leitz enlarger and slide projector lenses.

Del Paso · Apr 21, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
View attachment 229029

I see a Focotar and a Colorplan...very good choices!

The funny bayonet was the only reason why I chose the Minolta SRT 101 over Canon's FTb Ql.
While dreaming, still a poor student, of a Leicaflex SL and a Nikon F2. Which I both bought a few years later.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 21, 2026

Baywoof said:
To me, a "retro" camera is one you put on the shelf, and stays there except when you want to show it off to a relative.

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

stillviking said:
I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

clarus · Apr 21, 2026

Marc73 said:
what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

It may not sound much, but to me it would. Given the lens is of decent optical quality and in combination with a TC it translates into an additional 140/200mm.

dwkdnvr · Apr 21, 2026

roby17269 said:
Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

The Astro-Cam market is also illustrative. Astro-Cams (from ZWO and QHY among others) are pretty close to 'sensor in a box' designs where most of the complexity is offloaded to a universal driver. They have many designs where they offer a color and mono version of the same camera differing only in which version of the sensor they use. Even here, the mono versions are always more expensive.

mimbu · Apr 21, 2026

This is the patent for the Sigma 500/5.6 that already exists, priced at $3300 on B&H or $2270 here in Japan. The Sigma is about 43.5mm shorter than the proposed Canon and with a tad more focal length. It's an absolute marvel of a lens. I wonder how much Canon will charge for their version of this lens while refusing to let Sigma onto RF?

Also interesting is that together with the 500/5.6, Sigma patented a 400/5 and a 700/8 that haven't yet made it to market:

Focal length: 400.00
F-value: 5.06
Angle of view: 6.14
Image height: 21.63
Overall length: 233.14

and

Focal length: 700.00
F-value: 7.97
Angle of view: 3.52
Image height: 21.63
Total length: 318.72

Would love to see both these come out too.

Click · Apr 21, 2026

Well done, Maximilian. I especially like the first one.

FabFR · Apr 21, 2026

People who bought Nikon ZR cameras seem to really love its giant screen, I hope Canon will do so with the R6V !

IBIS or not IBIS ? Some want it, some don't... In a cinema approach, there often are more cons than pros for IBIS, I think, considering the use of tripods, gimbals, steadycam, etc.
Alas, I suppose Canon would not put an IBIS firstly because of heat dissipation, wich is easier with a sensor screwed on a metal plate with dissipator, instead of a floating plate that cannot passively convey heat outside the body. If they keep IBIS, I think they'll need a fan for extreme long video shots.
But CR says there will be no fan, only vents for a passive heat circulation.

If we add the problem of body thickness when there are IBIS + vents, it's likely there will be no IBIS to keep the body thin enough. But will it be really thin ? CR doesn't clearly answer !!

However, for a video/cine camera, I don't believe Canon can (today, after the R5 story) heavily reduce the recording time at max resolution because of overheating ! So, we have 2 options : IBIS+fan or no IBIS+vents ! My 2 cents...

roby17269 · Apr 21, 2026

David - Sydney said:
Physical cooling is the main difference similar to what is being rumoured with the V version but takes out IBIS which offsets the passive cooling. We don’t know what the relative cost difference is.
The R5c has not only longer run times but also 8k60 vs 8k39 on the R5.
Adding the cinema menus but only via restart makes it a video SW version but looks to be shoe horned in vs a redeveloped integrated SW release.

my point was: the R5 and R5C are different beasts and extrapolating from them that a no video version would cost less would be incorrect in my opinion

David - Sydney said:
I can’t comment on colour vs monochrome as canon hasn’t done that before and Leica charge what the market will bare.
Canon has released 2 Astro sensor bodies with the IR filter removed and charged more but that was a long time ago

Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

riker · Apr 21, 2026

Since I would use it mostly for photo, I'd like to see IBIS stay.

Btw I don't think the logic is spot on - I'm not sure it's "how much you need to take out to keep price down". Prices are not only defined by the cost. It's part of marketing strategy, profit maximalization, etc. And of course real value and useability.
A compact camera always needs to be cheaper, even if internals were the same. It's primary goal in not professional work, it's in no way a replacement/alternative option for the R6 line.
It's a backup body, a street/travel cam, a vlogger cam. Even if it had the internals of the R6m3, it would need to be way cheaper.
Btw beyond the lack of EVF, it obviously won't have dual card slot, battery life, vertical grip option, the AF or FPS performance of the R6 and who knows what else. UTP/GPS option? All the stuff that is intended for higher segment.

candyman · Apr 21, 2026

riker said:
I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

There is an RF 600 f/11 and it is relatively cheap. An RF 500 f/5.6 will not be cheap.

riker · Apr 21, 2026

I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Maximilian said:
Interesting.
Did you do a comparison about the differences in contrast and flare between those two hoods?

Not a formal test, no, but in practice I don't have any problems at all. The vast majority of wildlife shots are taken with the light behind the shooter of course.

Canon used to sell a half-length hood for the 600; not sure if they still do. It was a crazy price of course.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I use tupperware lids for a lens cap. $4 You look weird in a store trying them on. I should just fumble around in blender and print a hood for $10, I haven't looked to see if anyone has already designed them. It would be nice to collapse them from the side .

I first came across this idea many years ago, but never met anybody who actually uses a Tupperware-style lens cap! I did use a £5 cheapo lens cap on my OM 150-400 for a while, before succumbing to another Zemlin cap.

Zemlin's hoods and caps are 3D printed, but I don't know how easy it would be make your own to the necessary standard. I don't have a printer but one really good application could tip me over the edge! And if somebody can come up with a way to make it collapsible widthways, yet still fit around the lens so it doesn't actually need more space in the bag...

blackcoffee17 · Apr 21, 2026

I used to have the 400 5.6 prime on APS-C. Was amazing but for full frame i would prefer at least a 600 5.6 or 6.3. I would not choose a 500 5.6 over the 100-500, unless it's really sharp or tiny.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Length yes, but it does fit in some "small" backpacks that make good use of space (Shimoda, Gura Gear). I find it's the lens hoods that cause the space issues. They're quite annoying. I'd like to see an evolution of the 2 piece Nikon hoods. I didn't love how they fit together. I haven't found any third-party hoods that I like.

Aha - I bought Karl Zemlin's half-length hood so long ago that I didn't even think about the Canon original which is enormous. However you do still need the full diameter in the bag, it's only when in use that the shorter hood is a benefit. I also have Zemlin's lens cap which I 100% recommend.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Canon's RF line-up is missing the 500mm f/4 lens from the EF days. With how much weight Canon has shaved off of the 600mm F4 L IS USM over the years, I don't think there's a need for a 500mm F4 in the line-up.

I have an EF 600/4L Mark III, which I bought to upgrade my previous 500/4L II. The problem isn't weight, it's bulk. The 600 is awesome for working from a hide or another fixed position with reasonably nearby parking, but it's too big to fit in a conventional backpack along with the other things you need for a wildlife day away from the car. It's the only real mistake I made in many years of buying Canon gear, but I was never quite unhappy enough to take the financial hit and switch back.

If the RF 500/5.6L is for real, it could potentially be a better choice than my 100-500 in some situations, especially if it plays well with the 1.4x or even the 2x.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics