I've used this setting for volleyball matches, never thought of trying it during snowfall. I was in Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, and Rocky Mountain National Parks the entire month of February, shooting lots of wildlife through the snow. This info hit the forum a few weeks too late!

Honestly, if the 300-600 f/5.6 L is either never happening or $12,000 USD, I would be happy to have this lens instead. Does anyone have an expected price? I'd imagine at least $5-6k, but that's a lot more forgiving than $11k+

DocInfoSci said:

But all that stated, my general photography tends to capture people, large animals, and still life anyhow so I haven't been too eager to drop real money on the extra reach with other life interests at hand. Yet. The itch is growing.

Click to expand...

It's a slippery slope. This was my first DSLR bird picture, with a T1i and EF 100/2.8L Macro, after looking up while walking around shooting flowers.



Clearly not enough focal length, but then I came across a used EF 300/4L IS for sale and bought that.



I sold the 300/4L IS (for a bit more than I paid) after getting the EF 100-400L, then I upgraded the T1i to the 7D and that was my birding combo for several years.



But then I bought the 1D X and needed more reach, so I got the just-released EF 600/4L IS II and the MkIII TCs to go with it. Full circle on the red tail.

neuroanatomist said:

Many years ago, I met Lillian Stokes on top of a mountain in southern New Hampshire (well, what they call a mountain here in New England…I grew up in California so I’d call it a hill). It was during the fall hawk migration – hundreds of kettling hawks is a cool sight.

She and her husband author a popular series of birding guides, and she told me that her usual setup was the EF 300/4L IS with the 2x TC, mounted on whatever the current 1D was (IIRC, it was the 1DIV at that time). She said most on the images in the Guides were taken with that setup. Clearly, it’s capable of producing excellent images.

Click to expand...

Very cool.

I'd love a 500 5.6 and a TC for similar, although I'm more about deer, bears, and standing herons where I am:

With my 300 + 2x combo for birds, it's pretty good for casual shots of kingfishers, sparrows, junkos, etc. as those you can get close enough to when they're sitting on posts or fiddling about in the grass. All very printable. Alas, my R6 blackout in the EVF sucks for rapid bird movement tracking with this lens and tc combo. It's funny, because it felt great years ago before mirrorless.

But all that stated, my general photography tends to capture people, large animals, and still life anyhow so I haven't been too eager to drop real money on the extra reach with other life interests at hand. Yet. The itch is growing.

I'm hoping a 500 5.6 at a price competitive with the industry (e.g., Sigma's edition) would give me the excuse — I might even plan a trip around it. IQ's never an issue for me when I do things right, but I find the 300 + 1.4 is solid for animals in terms of servo drive, etc whereas the 2x on a gripped R6 lags a little more than I'd like (blackout, lack of power for the lens drive, etc.). I know I could flip to an R3 or R1 and get way better lens drive (tested with a friend) but I'd rather spend on glass as in most respects the R6 still serves me well.

In the modern sense I find little issue with the IQ of the combinations — it's more lens performance around AF, weather sealing (no mount gasket), and the like. Of course, newer lenses at the same or better tiers have that much better IQ — and I'll take better over good — but for relative prices the options don't seem so much better that IQ's the only thing needed to drive my justification. And since I like using primes more than zooms, I've held off on the EF 100-400 II and RF 100-500.

For now, I'll live vicariously through you guys while waiting.

I thought it was funny But changing a setting seems easier than changing camera

Kjsheldo said:

It has to have CFExpress B to do any of the 7K and raw codecs, but perhaps just a single slot.

If this camera doesn’t have IBIS, I think it will struggle. I use my R6 III way more than my C50 for video because it has IBIS (I like fast, manual focus primes). A big reason for the FX3, S1 II, and ZR success is that you can keep them small and handheld because of the IBIS. Plenty of ways to differentiate the R6V from the C50 (handle, XLR, timecode, cooling) and R6 III (EVF, mechanical shutter) and still have IBIS.

Not to sound dramatic, but I used the ZR and was blown away. The 4" screen should be mandatory for any video-focused camera going forward (nice work, Kinefinity Vista).

Click to expand...

I also use fast manual primes; and shoot a lot of film professionally - but grew up obviously in a different era as a camera sits on a steady support (panning film head), a slider or a gimbal if I need to move. I actively would not want IBIS. And I don’t know any filmmaker that works alongside me using a film camera with IBIS. Perhaps thats why professional cams from Canon have not up to this point included it. We don't use it…but that’s not to say things will change and peoples approach will change. Too much youtube people crying on about IBIS I reckon.

DocInfoSci said:

I own the 300mm f/4 IS and both the 1.4 II and 2.0 II extenders. … I can state plainly that the performance of both combinations is perfectly fine for detailed viewing and printing when shooting close to the subject and avoiding many atmospheric issues.

Click to expand...

Many years ago, I met Lillian Stokes on top of a mountain in southern New Hampshire (well, what they call a mountain here in New England…I grew up in California so I’d call it a hill). It was during the fall hawk migration – hundreds of kettling hawks is a cool sight.

She and her husband author a popular series of birding guides, and she told me that her usual setup was the EF 300/4L IS with the 2x TC, mounted on whatever the current 1D was (IIRC, it was the 1DIV at that time). She said most on the images in the Guides were taken with that setup. Clearly, it’s capable of producing excellent images.

Interesting patent. If this were a 600 mm f6.3 I would be more enticed to purchase (or a 500 mm f4.5 with 1.4x TC built-in). Even a 400 mm f4 DO with built in 1.4x TC would get my interests. A straight 500 mm f5.6 not so much.

scottburgess said:

The lens released in the 1990s as the other half of the choice set with the 400 f/5.6 was the 300mm f/4. Both lenses were amateur-oriented products. Both were designed without solid compatibility to 1.4x and 2x teleconverters [...]

Click to expand...

I own the 300mm f/4 IS and both the 1.4 II and 2.0 II extenders. I use them on my R6, and my kid uses them on her 80D. I can state plainly that the performance of both combinations is perfectly fine for detailed viewing and printing when shooting close to the subject and avoiding many atmospheric issues. Add in DLO and the performance is practically modern in terms of image.

I can't speak for the original 300 f/4.

For those who don't own copies, but are interested in a comparison by someone who dealt with both:

justaCanonuser said:

In fact, I'd appreciate if Canon would bring a light RF 500mm f/5.6 out, an RF 600mm f/6.3 would be even more smart, to compete directly with the old rival Nikon.

Click to expand...

I'd consider one of those too. But if you're looking for several framing options then a 500 5.6 and a 700 8 aren't a terrible combo for daylight shooting.

neuroanatomist said:

It’s important to have an understanding of the applicability of your own experience. If you had experience piloting a Piper, then that would likely enable you to make a judgment call if you were to pilot a Cessna. I don’t believe that experience would enable you to make good judgement calls about piloting an Airbus A380 or an F-35 fighter jet.

Click to expand...

True. I see your point. But it's what I had in my back pocket. Thanks for clarifying.

neuroanatomist said:

We know better because of an understanding of optics, in addition to having similar lenses. Distortion simply isn’t a significant issue at longer focal lengths.

Click to expand...

And yet I have been surprised in the real world before. Not arguing, just acknowledging that on-paper has not always translated to real world effect in my experience. And Canon is starting to do, ahem, interesting things with exit lenses and distortion handling on purpose. Whether that might impact a telephoto lens design? You say not really, but I point at the VCM primes and Canon interviews and go, well, weirder things in the name of good have happened. And since I don't own a 200-800... and since the 500 is a prime... maybe. Just maybe.

neuroanatomist said:

Buying both a 300-600/5.6 and a 500/5.6 would likely be a very expensive path to a zen-like experience. But I’ve heard that privation can be a zen-like experience.

Click to expand...

Haha. Yeah. Choices, choices.

@Canon Rumors whats the current prediction for the R7ii release? There’s so many predictions in so many threads… I can’t keep up. Knowing what you *now* know about the certification of the LP-E6P camera(s), is the R7ii still likely before June 16th? Thanks.

justaCanonuser said:

Well, I carry my EF 600/4 III in a backpack (Lowepro 600 AW III) with two additional quivers for additional gear, and I shoot it mostly hand-held. But my back is well trained, but I do understand well that this isn't a solution for everybody. But you're right, if you need to carry an additional tent, sleeping bag etc., this is really too much for one person. You'd need an artificial exoskeleton and always very solid ground in rugged terrain

Click to expand...

I 'd need you to be my Sherpa!

In fact, I'd appreciate if Canon would bring a light RF 500mm f/5.6 out, an RF 600mm f/6.3 would be even more smart, to compete directly with the old rival Nikon.

Steve Balcombe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I carry my EF 600/4 III in a backpack (Lowepro 600 AW III) with two additional quivers for additional gear, and I shoot it mostly hand-held. But my back is well trained, but I do understand well that this isn't a solution for everybody. But you're right, if you need to carry an additional tent, sleeping bag etc., this is really too much for one person. You'd need an artificial exoskeleton and always very solid ground in rugged terrain

DocInfoSci said:

If you're telling me I shouldn't use my experience with what I have to make a judgement call then we are disagreed.

Click to expand...

It’s important to have an understanding of the applicability of your own experience. If you had experience piloting a Piper, then that would likely enable you to make a judgment call if you were to pilot a Cessna. I don’t believe that experience would enable you to make good judgement calls about piloting an Airbus A380 or an F-35 fighter jet.

DocInfoSci said:

• I was using my experience of like to like at the 24 range, and then extrapolating that relationship to a posited 500 to 500-zoomed relationship for something I don't have.
• I was not looking at 200 vs 24 (etc.) and going... oh yeah, those totally have different distortion patterns.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and it wasn’t a valid extrapolation. The point of the 24 vs. 200 comparison was that the distortion of a supertelephoto lens is minimal compared to a wide angle lens, prime or zoom.

DocInfoSci said:

If you're telling me you both happen to know better because you have the lenses and it's going to be OK, then I appreciate the insight! It wasn't clear to me that's what was happening.

Click to expand...

We know better because of an understanding of optics, in addition to having similar lenses. Distortion simply isn’t a significant issue at longer focal lengths.

DocInfoSci said:

I'd still buy both: the zoom for tricky situations where lens changes are foolish or impractical yet necessary, and the prime for a more zen like experience to my taste.

Click to expand...

Buying both a 300-600/5.6 and a 500/5.6 would likely be a very expensive path to a zen-like experience. But I’ve heard that privation can be a zen-like experience.

"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.
Going with a 500mm f/5.6 prime would cover both of those lenses from the EF days."

This is an incorrect pairing. The lens released in the 1990s as the other half of the choice set with the 400 f/5.6 was the 300mm f/4. Both lenses were amateur-oriented products. Both were designed without solid compatibility to 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to reduce development costs, keeping the price point lower. They were similar in price, designed for film cameras, allowed screw-on filters that amateurs used, but their entrance allowed the buyer to choose between slightly greater focal length or slightly higher aperture. Both sold very well for over ten years as Canon sales swelled between the mid-90s and the mid-00s.

The 500 f/4 was a professional lens for those who shot large mammals at closer range, auto races, and the like. It was a weight tradeoff with the 600 f/4, had similarly high weather sealing and drop-in filters, and it was designed for teleconverter use. It seemed to me like the press corps in particular liked to rent the shorter lens on an as-needed basis.

The proposed lens design is likely to be an amateur-focused design like the old 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 were. But a lot has changed since then. Older amateurs have more money and are pickier about lens quality, in line with other aspects of the large Boomer-ish demographic (I think the 800mm f/11 was a flop with them). Amateurs today seem to think more about lens weight than in the past. The costs to design a lens compatible with teleconverters have dropped as computers do the heavy lifting. I'm guessing this is a pure cost and weight play relative to the higher-end pro lenses, and that there is only enough amateur market today for one such lens. If the 400mm focal length is chosen over the 300mm length, it suggests than Canon's market research arm concluded that people today preferred reach over an f-stop.

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).

Click to expand...

EF 5.6 400 is a great lens except
→ missing IS
→ 3m close focus limitation
→ relatively large size

But it excels in clarity, weight and good diameter for firm grip. Clarity presumably is a consequence of low lens/group count!

I would be so into a 300-600 5.6 that would hopefully be a decent weight.

neuroanatomist said:

No, it's not. That was the point...you stated that you would rather have a supertelephoto prime than a zoom, and indicated that the distortion correction required for your wide angle lenses was one reason. The point was that what you see in terms of distortion at 24mm is not relevant for 500mm prime vs. a zoom lens covering that range (e.g. 300-600mm).

Click to expand...

If you're telling me I shouldn't use my experience with what I have to make a judgement call then we are disagreed.

• I was using my experience of like to like at the 24 range, and then extrapolating that relationship to a posited 500 to 500-zoomed relationship for something I don't have.
• I was not looking at 200 vs 24 (etc.) and going... oh yeah, those totally have different distortion patterns.

If you're telling me you both happen to know better because you have the lenses and it's going to be OK, then I appreciate the insight! It wasn't clear to me that's what was happening.

I'd still buy both: the zoom for tricky situations where lens changes are foolish or impractical yet necessary, and the prime for a more zen like experience to my taste.

DocInfoSci said:

Not so sure this is a valid comparison. 200mm to 24mm?

Click to expand...

No, it's not. That was the point...you stated that you would rather have a supertelephoto prime than a zoom, and indicated that the distortion correction required for your wide angle lenses was one reason. The point was that what you see in terms of distortion at 24mm is not relevant for 500mm prime vs. a zoom lens covering that range (e.g. 300-600mm).

neuroanatomist said:

Just to drive Alan's point home, compare the distortion of the RF 200-800 to that of the EF 24/1.4L II prime that you prefer for its 'lower distortion'.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=1677&Camera=1508&LensComp=823

Click to expand...

Not so sure this is a valid comparison. 200mm to 24mm?

OK, quick switch in the tool for an apples to apples comparison... and the tool doesn't really tell me the end effect, however. I expect distortion, and if you compare the lenses I mentioned (24 1.4 ii vs 24-70 4) then both look distorted in the tool and yet in the real world the difference is so huge after correction I thought I had my zoom set to the wrong length the first time I stared at the test shots side by side (I was using the zoom to quickly decide the desired framing in an unfamiliar room arrangement for a portrait later in the day, and later slapped on the prime for the wider aperture).

I would be very interested in comparing real world tripod-anchored shots of the 200-800 set to 500 and an actual 500. I cannot reproduce that at home.

Regardless, my point good fellows was this: in the lenses I have — of which just one example is the 24 vis-a-vis the 24-70 — this "crop" is noticeable. It remains noticeable for my 24, 40, 50, and 100 primes vs my zooms in controlled situations. I agree that the effect is less for longer lengths. Maybe, but I don't know, moot by the time 500 rolls around. You say moot, I say I have to trust you but cannot know for myself in advance.

Which leads to my second point: I have a personal preference arising from situations like this (and combined with vignetting, etc.) for primes over zooms at the same or similar lengths. I just like primes. You guys like zooms. I'd still hang out with you in the Rockies despite your preference.

It's not like the effect is world changing — running around with a prime and a zoom covering the same range taking pictures of dogs, horses, and people will not be noticeable. It's just noticeable if I have a vision and plunk down in a location for a specific framing and spatial relationship. I suspect the more pragmatic differences are things like f/5.6 at 500 vs 7.1 for the 200-800 @ 500, etc.

I hope it has the R6 III / C50 sensor. Also, one point of potential confusion in the future, after Canon releases the R6 IV probably in late 2027 would then come the R6… V (5) correct? So how would Canon differentiate these two cameras?

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.

Click to expand...

There have been many many fantastic photos made from retro cameras. Your comment does not make much sense, sir.

AlanF said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good to know. I don't have a 500mm or 600mm zoom to compare with at this time, just Canon and Nikon primes in those ranges. I had assumed similar issues, however.