Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

[Deleted member 381342]

Where RF f/4L lens? Waiting.

I am with you there, for my lesser used focal lengths I would like f/4 versions. 16-35 f/4 and 24/70 f/4 (macro).

 

[SteB1]

What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.

 

[AlanF]

What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.

A Nikon FX->R adapter would be nice.

 

[sanj]

I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.

Cost. Size. Cameras with better high ISO. Shrinking sizes of final output - small sizes do not show noise (grain) so much so higher ISO's are not an issue.

 

[Optics Patent]

So, let's speculate about future lenses.

I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500.

Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?

Think in terms of filter sizes. I'll bet the machinery takes a step up for each size.

• 77mm gets you the 100-400(500), the 70-200, etc. In the $2000 range for top quality. And the Nikon 300 f4 PF (754g) for that price and the Canon 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 for much less.
• 82mm is found on the new RF wide and mid zooms for $2000+
• 95mm filter gets you a Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF/DO for ~$3600 (at 1463 g, 46% of the weight of the canon f4, and 40% of the cost), and the RF 28-70 f2 for $3000. Also Questar 3.5" telescopes and the 700mm f8 mirror lens(!)
• Not filter size, but ~110-120mm is 300 f2.8, 400 f4, for $6000-7000.
• ~150mm for the 400 f2.8, 600 f4 for $8000-13000.

I think that 95mm size might be a sweet spot Canon could exploit. How about a 200-500mm DO f4-5.6 zoom? 300 f3.5 DO? (I'm making up rough numbers not doing calculations.

There is a traditional pricing chasm between the 77mm filter pro-sumer telephoto lenses that top out at about $2000, and the big ones that start at about $6000. Pros spend 1-2x the cost of a new body for a tele. Enthusiasts buying $2000-3000 bodies have essentially no options in that range.

Maybe Canon's question should be: "For the buyer for whom the R5 is the do-anything no-brainer, can we make a do-everything telephoto for $3500-5000?"

My answer (at least for my own wishes) is:

1. a long zoom
2. pairs well with the RF70-200 to extend the trinity to a quaternity.
3. takes teleconverters,
4. uses DO technology to keep the weight down to <2kg, and
5. 95mm filters to provide reasonable speed (better than the 100-400/500) at a reasonable price (starts with a 3 or 4) without cannibalizing the big whites.

How about an L version of the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (2kg, $1257 too low of a bar to aim for?)

 

[Kit.]

And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc,

Oh, I've always wanted to talk about focus shift as a desired property of a portrait lens!

Let's start?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.

A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.

 

[Act444]

Let’s wait until the official announcement [of the 100-500] and see how it performs...

Yeah, that’s kinda where I’m at now.

As I said in a previous post - if this is accompanied by another L tele zoom that is less slow, I think this lens could fill an interesting niche in the lineup. Price too - it would be received much better as a $1500 lens than as a $2500 one, for instance.

 

[Optics Patent]

A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.

Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.

I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."

Other lenses taking 95mm filters:
Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3
Sigma APO 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3

 

[AlanF]

Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.

I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."

Canon is not likely to market both a 100-500mm L and a 200-500mm L, and they have already decided upon a100-500mm. And, as I have written in a thread, 200-600mm f/6.3 is advantageous over a 200-500 f/5.6, both having a 95mm filter mount. A 200-600mm is more likely to be on the cards.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.

I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."

Yip the 200-500 and a d500 are about the same cost as a RF 70-200 at the moment, and it keeps whispering dark secrets to my credit card.

 

[Ozarker]

A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.

And the Nikon weighs 5 lbs.

 

[Optics Patent]

Canon is not likely to market both a 100-500mm L and a 200-500mm L, and they have already decided upon a100-500mm. And, as I have written in a thread, 200-600mm f/6.3 is advantageous over a 200-500 f/5.6, both having a 95mm filter mount. A 200-600mm is more likely to be on the cards.

That certainly meets my criterion of: "Give me the best tele you can with 95mm of glass"!

And the Nikon weighs 5 lbs.

For reference, less than a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II. Amazingly, the Nikon 500 5.6 weighs ~3 pounds - less than the 100-400 IS II.

I'll look forward to see what the creators of the light RF70-200 can do with the weight on a long tele zoom. Keep it short at the close end, close to the 7.5" of the 100-400?

 

[AlanF]

Yip the 200-500 and a d500 are about the same cost as a RF 70-200 at the moment, and it keeps whispering dark secrets to my credit card.

It's a very difficult time to know what to buy at present as the future is so uncertain. But, I've decided to live in the present and I bought used copies of the 500mm f/5.6 PF and D500, which won't lose me much if I offload. I'm really hoping that Canon will deliver the goods on an R5 and 100-500mm as I am firmly in Canon with the rest of my gear.

 

[Optics Patent]

It's a very difficult time to know what to buy at present as the future is so uncertain. But, I've decided to live in the present and I bought used copies of the 500mm f/5.6 PF and D500, which won't lose me much if I offload. I'm really hoping that Canon will deliver the goods on an R5 and 100-500mm as I am firmly in Canon with the rest of my gear.

I was going to have CPS send a 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 DO (I see both in your collection) to try on the possibility of making a used decision between them, but when I'm honest with myself I know I'll just neglect or sell it once I get the RF tele I really want (which might be the 100-500, but probably isn't).

 

[AEWest]

I am with you there, for my lesser used focal lengths I would like f/4 versions. 16-35 f/4 and 24/70 f/4 (macro).

Hey Canon,
F/4 Holy Trinity please and thank you.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

The announced teleconverters don’t have anything viable to attach to yet. I suspect we’re getting a fast tele photo along with the lightweight one.

It’s posible that an RF tele with a RF/EF converter will out perform an RF/EF with and EF tele. Don’t know why but I suppose there could be a reason.
it will also make it easier to stack Tele’ s and allow teleconverters on a couple EF lenses that can’t accept them now.

 

[AlanF]

I was going to have CPS send a 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 DO (I see both in your collection) to try on the possibility of making a used decision between them, but when I'm honest with myself I know I'll just neglect or sell it once I get the RF tele I really want (which might be the 100-500, but probably isn't).

My advice for what it is worth is to wait. I have had fantastic use from both of those great lenses. I bought the 300/2.8 when it was the only way to get to high quality 420 and 600mm at a lightish weight and with top grade optics. But, that was changed with the 100-400mm II and the 400mm DO II. The latter lens is now very good value used. But, it's so nice for me to have even lighter lenses. If you are really serious, then maybe a 500 or 600mm is better.

 

[joestopper]

I expect this year canon will release low-end to mid-range kind of lenses. Not something ground breaking similar to 28-70 f2. Hopefuly canon will make another f/1.2 primes soon

There are still some unknown slots.
I hope for a 14-28 f/2 to continue the f/2 trinity of zooms ...

 

[Billybob]

Think in terms of filter sizes. I'll bet the machinery takes a step up for each size.

• 77mm gets you the 100-400(500), the 70-200, etc. In the $2000 range for top quality. And the Nikon 300 f4 PF (754g) for that price and the Canon 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 for much less.
• 82mm is found on the new RF wide and mid zooms for $2000+
• 95mm filter gets you a Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF/DO for ~$3600 (at 1463 g, 46% of the weight of the canon f4, and 40% of the cost), and the RF 28-70 f2 for $3000. Also Questar 3.5" telescopes and the 700mm f8 mirror lens(!)
• Not filter size, but ~110-120mm is 300 f2.8, 400 f4, for $6000-7000.
• ~150mm for the 400 f2.8, 600 f4 for $8000-13000.

I think that 95mm size might be a sweet spot Canon could exploit. How about a 200-500mm DO f4-5.6 zoom? 300 f3.5 DO? (I'm making up rough numbers not doing calculations.

There is a traditional pricing chasm between the 77mm filter pro-sumer telephoto lenses that top out at about $2000, and the big ones that start at about $6000. Pros spend 1-2x the cost of a new body for a tele. Enthusiasts buying $2000-3000 bodies have essentially no options in that range.

Maybe Canon's question should be: "For the buyer for whom the R5 is the do-anything no-brainer, can we make a do-everything telephoto for $3500-5000?"

My answer (at least for my own wishes) is:

1. a long zoom
2. pairs well with the RF70-200 to extend the trinity to a quaternity.
3. takes teleconverters,
4. uses DO technology to keep the weight down to <2kg, and
5. 95mm filters to provide reasonable speed (better than the 100-400/500) at a reasonable price (starts with a 3 or 4) without cannibalizing the big whites.

How about an L version of the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (2kg, $1257 too low of a bar to aim for?)

I believe a 600mm f/5.6 DO would require the same filter size as the 300 f/2.8, so 110-120mm. This would be a high quality lens, perhaps 5lbs for $6k-$7k. It would be a reach for me, but it would get me to fork out for an R5. Right now, a lot of Canon nature shooters have bought the Nikon 500mm pf version along with a used Nikon body. I'm in that camp, but I would definitely move back to Canon for the right lens option. I guess Canon could do a "me too" 500mm DO f/5.6 but where's the excitement in that? Canon would definitely sell a lot more lenses in the sub-$4000 range, but they would get converts with a $6500 600mm DO lens.