Canon Shows off RF 500mm F5.6 L IS in Latest Patent

[Canon Rumors]

Something will be happening with Canon's super telephoto lineup at some point this year, with some expecting Canon to show off new “Big White” lenses ahead of the World Cup in June. Canon has generally shown off things prior to the summer Olympics, but the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world […]

See full article...

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Yet another surprise. I thought I read the RF 500mm F5.6 won't happen because it isn't needed anymore and a 400mm plus a 1.4 TC is basically the same thing.

“There is a need to provide an optical system that is small, lightweight, and has good correction of various aberrations.”

Maybe Canon found a way to make it very lightweight and therefore it could make sense.

 

[Marc73]

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.

 

[stillviking]

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).

 

[@adhagglund]

Interesting. It could be a nice combo with the expected R7II

 

[DocInfoSci]

Finally! If priced competitively with industry peers this would be my first RF lens. And 1.4x extender. Sans 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 this is a huge hole in the lineup, imo. Fingers crossed!

In Canada the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 goes for $4,400 on their site so would be looking for something similar. Or, if a silver ring edition then closer to $3,500 to be priced in line with the 200-800 zoom assuming a similar build but better optical quality due to, say, a larger optical exit lens. The zoom goes for ~ $2,800.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

 

[Canon Rumors]

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.

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.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

 

[Canon Rumors]

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.

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 .

Old photo, but still the same today.

 

[Maximilian]

An RF 500 f/5.6? I do think that would do well.

TBH, I would guess that that'll be the next pink unicorn.

But I really hope for it to come, if it was a "real" L lens in IQ and built and for a reasonable price.
Seeing what Canon did to the weight of tele lenses, and at which FL I use my 100-500 most (make a guess ), I'd be VERY interested in such a lens.

 

[Maximilian]

Aha - I bought Karl Zemlin's half-length hood so long ago that I didn't even think about the Canon original ...

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

 

[Canon Rumors]

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

As long as the internal part of the hood has a non reflective material, there's no issues with shorter hoods. If it's plastic, then there is the odd situation you may have an issue, but those are rare with Big Whites.

 

[blackcoffee17]

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]

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...

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

 

[riker]

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?

 

[Canon Rumors]

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...

I have a "high-end" consumer printer, I can print with anything. The key is probably getting the infill right. It needs to be able to take a hit and at the same time keep it as light as possible. Well the functionality would be a challenge too.

I'm still doing my Blender courses, maybe I'll force the instructor to teach me how to make a lens hood.

 

[candyman]

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.

 

[mimbu]

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.