New Big White Lenses from Canon are Coming in Late Q4 and Possibly a 500mm Prime

[Canon Rumors]

This article has been rewritten due to technical issues with a backup service. I guess we need to back up the backups. We have been told by a couple of good sources that the plan is to announce replacements for the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM in late Q4, […]

See full article...

 

[noname]

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

 

[john1970]

Might have an interests in a 500 mm f5.6, but not sure of the new 400 mm f2.8. I currently own the RF 400 mm f2.8 lens and not sure built-in TC is with the upgrade cost. From a portability perspective a 400 mm f4 DO with a built-in TC would have been ideal.

 

[Celts88]

I'd never be able to afford one but if these new Big Whites do come with both the 1.4 & 2.0 TC's built-in then they'd be essentially zoom lenses (to an extent). Even if they only came with the built-in 1.4TC that's still be good to see.

400mm f2.8 / 560mm f4 / 800 f5.6
600mm f4 / 840mm f5.6 / 1200mm f8

Lovely Jubbly

 

[DocInfoSci]

Personally, I enjoy the snark. There’s usually a good point to yours. Thanks for all of the rumours!

 

[John D P]

I'm renting an RF 400mm 2.8 for my up coming brown bear trip in July. I know there will be alot of good used RF 400mm 2.8 lenses hit the market as people upgrade. I debating how much I really want the built in teleconverter or how much I'm willing to pay for it. Truth is I really do want it! I would prefer a simple reliable 1.4 switchable teleconverter versus a complex 1.4 & 2.0 setup. Will have to see what they release.

The price is going to be interesting. The current Canon RF 400mm 2.8 is $13,400 new. The Sony 400mm 2.8 is $13,000. The Nikon 400mm with a built in teleconverter was $14,700, but is now $12,700 (B&H prices). I would be really annoyed if I bought the Nikon lens for $14,700 and it just devalued $2,000.

I prefer zooms for wildlife, but 400mm at the wider apertures is really nice for low light and bokeh. I was seriously considering the 300-600mm f4-5.6, but I'm not interested in a fixed 5.6 for the projected price. The original article mentioned that the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter didn't sell well. That surprised me for 2013. I considered this lens, but not in love with the 8lb wt for the price. Maybe Canon is having second thoughts about the 300-600mm. I have the 100-500mm f4.5-7; it's actually a great lens. But not in love with the teleconverter situation, external zoom, or 7.1`on the long end. An updated f4.0-5.6 100-500mm or a 180/200-600mm would probably sell better then a 300-600mm.

I'm sure a 500mm 5.6 prime for $4000, similar to Nikon's small affordable prime lens, would make a lot of people happy. A 700mm f6.3 would also be great.

 

[Mogster]

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

Longish macro zoom… 200mm range?

The never before seen macro lens rumoured last year hasn’t appeared yet.

 

[EricN]

“new and unseen technology”

To be announced less than 6 months after the ufo "Disclosure" movie?

 

[Del Paso]

Longish macro zoom… 200mm range?

The never before seen macro lens rumoured last year hasn’t appeared yet.

Are you sure the RF 100 macro with SAC and X 1,4 wasn't the "never seen before macro lens"?

 

[EricN]

Are you sure the RF 100 macro with SAC and X 1,4 wasn't the "never seen before macro lens"?

That was another "never sean before macro lens"
I think first one was a 1/2 macro for hair from the late 60s

 

[john1970]

I'm renting an RF 400mm 2.8 for my up coming brown bear trip in July. I know there will be alot of good used RF 400mm 2.8 lenses hit the market as people upgrade. I debating how much I really want the built in teleconverter or how much I'm willing to pay for it. Truth is I really do want it! I would prefer a simple reliable 1.4 switchable teleconverter versus a complex 1.4 & 2.0 setup. Will have to see what they release.

The price is going to be interesting. The current Canon RF 400mm 2.8 is $13,400 new. The Sony 400mm 2.8 is $13,000. The Nikon 400mm with a built in teleconverter was $14,700, but is now $12,700 (B&H prices). I would be really annoyed if I bought the Nikon lens for $14,700 and it just devalued $2,000.

I prefer zooms for wildlife, but 400mm at the wider apertures is really nice for low light and bokeh. I was seriously considering the 300-600mm f4-5.6, but I'm not interested in a fixed 5.6 for the projected price. The original article mentioned that the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter didn't sell well. That surprised me for 2013. I considered this lens, but not in love with the 8lb wt for the price. Maybe Canon is having second thoughts about the 300-600mm. I have the 100-500mm f4.5-7; it's actually a great lens. But not in love with the teleconverter situation, external zoom, or 7.1`on the long end. An updated f4.0-5.6 100-500mm or a 180/200-600mm would probably sell better then a 300-600mm.

I'm sure a 500mm 5.6 prime for $4000, similar to Nikon's small affordable prime lens, would make a lot of people happy. A 700mm f6.3 would also be great.

In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

 

[foda]

Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

 

[patal05]

Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

I 100% agree with you. Yes, it’s heavy and cumbersome. But I find the image quality absolutely fantastic, it adapts amazingly well, and I will keep using it until it breaks I think. There doesn’t seem to be any rumors of a similar replacement lens.

 

[Ian K]

In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

That’s good to read. I have one to collect in the next week or so. I think I’m doing a Namibia trip later this year (other factors allowing). That will be my wildlife lens of choice. I have the 2x and 1.4x so there’s lots of options. The only downside will be the inability to swap on the move.

I’ll be using an R7, but also have the R5 Mark II.

Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

I took the 200-400 1.4x to Namibia the last time I went and it was excellent. I used it on a 7D mark II, giving a range of 320 - 896 pov equivalent. I always used it on a monopod so weight wasn’t much of an issue. It produced excellent results.

 

[John D P]

In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

Thanks for your input. I'm going to Lake Clark. I'm taking two R5m2 cameras, 400 f2.8, 100-500 4.5-7.1, 70-200mm Z, and a 1.4 teleconverter. I haven't done this trip before. I have been researching on the internet, so I have some idea. I was thinking of doing the low light times with the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 Z ( possibly with the 1.4 giving me 96-280 f4 ). Then switching the 70-200 for the 100-500 when I have good light. I do prefer the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I want to use a prime. I've thought about the 100-300; how do you like it?

 

[Canon Rumors]

Personally, I enjoy the snark. There’s usually a good point to yours. Thanks for all of the rumours!

That's good to hear! I don't think there's enough of it out there and I have been accused of being opinioniated, which is a hard accusation for me to deny.

 

[DocInfoSci]

That's good to hear! I don't think there's enough of it out there and I have been accused of being opinioniated, which is a hard accusation for me to deny.

Ha! I think there’s many here who are opinionated — and I am among them! But at least most people have some experience, and better still not necessarily the same experience. Pool it all together and after the yelling dies down we all get to be a little wiser. And maybe a tad more humble. Or not. Either way, it’s generally fun.

 

[AlanF]

Ha! I think there’s many here who are opinionated — and I am among them! But at least most people have some experience, and better still not necessarily the same experience. Pool it all together and after the yelling dies down we all get to be a little wiser. And maybe a tad more humble. Or not. Either way, it’s generally fun.

If that's your opinion, you can get this from Amazon and put it on your Big White to remind you.

 

[juststeve]

A 500/4 lens with DO could be mighty attractive. Heck, spice it up a bit more with a 1.4x. As much as I weighed getting that Nikon 600/4 1.4x a year ago, a 500/4 DO lens would get my money so fast my credit card would ignite.

Years ago when I bought my 500/4 L ii the reason I went for it was it was enough more compact than the 600 and a bit lighter. But it was the more compact nature which attracted me. I photograph mainly in MT and WY. Often windy places. I found the 600/4, even at plus 13 pounds, bounced around in the wind, even with a heavy duty tripod and a high quality video head. The 400/2.8 L IS which followed, short, fat and heavy at 12 plus pounds, was better in the wind. Much later there was a time when the 500/4 L ii was at an especially good price and weighed 5 1/2 pounds less than the 400/2.8. Not having the backbone to resist the temptation I got the 500. It turned out to be a great choice for my use, light and agile enough to swing on birds, and still long enough to deal with critters large, fury and toothsome. Oh, and extremely sharp.

So as much as I like that lens and the 100-500 RF lens I nearly always carry, a 500/4 or 4.5 DO lens would be special for me. An instant purchase.

 

[john1970]

Thanks for your input. I'm going to Lake Clark. I'm taking two R5m2 cameras, 400 f2.8, 100-500 4.5-7.1, 70-200mm Z, and a 1.4 teleconverter. I haven't done this trip before. I have been researching on the internet, so I have some idea. I was thinking of doing the low light times with the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 Z ( possibly with the 1.4 giving me 96-280 f4 ). Then switching the 70-200 for the 100-500 when I have good light. I do prefer the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I want to use a prime. I've thought about the 100-300; how do you like it?

I like the 100-300 mm f2.8, but once you add the lens hood, lens coat, 2x TC it tips the scale at almost 7 lbs which get a bit heavy. With the 2x TC the 100-300 mm f2.8 is only a bit lighter than the 400 f2.8 with 1.4x TC. Go figure.