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

[john1970]

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.

If Canon released a 500 mm f4 DO I would likely trade-in the 400 mm f2.8 for it.

 

[Rceres]

Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

 

[scyrene]

I seem to be the only person who chose the 500 over the 600 because of the price difference rather than size/weight. I was able to get the former and a 5D3 for the same outlay as just the 600 (back in 2012 when they were all pretty new). I would have preferred the longer lens but I just couldn't stretch my budget that far.

 

[DocInfoSci]

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


View attachment 230024

Haha, awesome. Although, honestly, I think sometimes the discussions here devolve into...

 

[DocInfoSci]

Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

I use extenders regularly, but none built-in. The primary benefit, in my opinion, is for when the environment makes taking the lens off dangerous to the gear — such as salt spray, blowing grit, sitting in a kayak, etc.; and yet, the benefits of the prime for its typical scenario (probably low light capability) makes it an overwhelming solution to beat out a zoom in the same range.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

Built-in teleconverters are most likely always better than lens + TC from image quality perspective because they are optimized to a single lens. Then add the convenience of instant switch when needed and the option to add another external TC. By the time you unmount the lens, add the TC and mount the lens again, the subject might be long gone.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Then add the convenience of instant switch when needed and the option to add another external TC. By the time you unmount the lens, add the TC and mount the lens again, the subject might be long gone.

In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.

 

[AlanF]

In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.

I have missed more shots by having 1.4x too long a focal length than spoiling a shot by not having 40% more focal length.

 

[jeff89]

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.

The 8 lbs is a bear, the Pangolin boat had seat-mounted gimbal heads which handled it well, but with another 2 lbs with the R1 or R3, I can’t imagine shooting it handheld for any period of time, it’s the elephant in the room. That being said, I loved the pictures it took, and being able to flip the 1.4x into place quickly is awesome.

 

[john1970]

I seem to be the only person who chose the 500 over the 600 because of the price difference rather than size/weight. I was able to get the former and a 5D3 for the same outlay as just the 600 (back in 2012 when they were all pretty new). I would have preferred the longer lens but I just couldn't stretch my budget that far.

Nothing wrong for choosing a lens at a lower price point. I used to use the 500 mm f4 over the 600 mm f4 due to cost, size and weight. My fingers are crossed that Canon eventually release a 500 mm f4 (f4.5) DO lens (ideally with a built-in TC). I would likely trade in my 400 mm f2.8 lens towards the purchase.

 

[John D P]

The 8 lbs is a bear, the Pangolin boat had seat-mounted gimbal heads which handled it well, but with another 2 lbs with the R1 or R3, I can’t imagine shooting it handheld for any period of time, it’s the elephant in the room. That being said, I loved the pictures it took, and being able to flip the 1.4x into place quickly is awesome.

I did a Pangolin safari in June 2025; highly recommend. Due to a childhood accident, I have limited strength in my left arm. So, I use a monopod a lot. I also use it sitting in safari vehicles, which really works well. I have a RRS monopod for heavy loads and a lighter 3 legged thing monopod. I have used the Wimberley mh-100 monopod head, but have switched to the ProMediaGear tomahawk.