Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

[Aussie shooter]

Will be watch ing this very closely. I need a wide FF lens for Aurora photography but cannot justify the 3.5k price tag of the 15-35. This could be perfect.

 

[Czardoom]

$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?

F/6.3 is 1/3rd of a stop faster than f/7.1. Not 1 stop. Their 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is also much heavier than Canon's RF 100-500mm.

So, it all depends on your priorities. I would consider Canon's lens, but would never consider a lens over 2,000 grams.

 

[chasingrealness]

Hoping the 16mm/2.8 is a full frame lens with low coma and sharp wide open as this would be a great astro lens to take hiking. If so, I'd get one.

100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.

 

[David - Sydney]

$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?

The RF100-500mm is expensive but also more recent that the Sony 200-600mm. That said, I got mine at 20% off local recommended retail price on sale which was nice.
Not 1 stop difference.
Sony have some advantages but you should consider the following before you make blanket statements like you have....
- The Sony lens/A9ii is ~50% heavier than R5/100-500mm although you should take a spare Canon battery to compare completely (not in your hand of course).
- Sony is longer for storage and usage vs the very convenient collapsed design of the Canon
- Sony has greater focus breathing when changing focal length
- Sony has double the minimum focal distance

 

[Pixel]

If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?

 

[unfocused]

I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.

 

[quiquae]

The answer to that is, if a 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 is what you want, you buy the EF version, which is still in the catalogue and works great on RF bodies. Canon is designing the new RF lenses to serve needs that couldn't be met with EF.

 

[Countess Schlick]

This announcement is perfect for me. I've been eyeing the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8, wanting a nice, cheap, wide-angle lens, but I've heard some horror stories about outdated firmware that doesn't work with an R6. I was almost considering getting the RF 14-35mm f/4 L, but I really just wanted a fast prime at the short end. The RF 16mm f/2.8 sounds perfect. I need to give Canon my money ASAP.

Also, I've been waiting for a cheap RF telephoto-zoom lens for years and years. I've been so close to buying the RF 100-500mm so many times, but I just cannot justify paying 3700 CAD on a lens when I am just an enthusiast. I've been even closer to buying the new EF 70-300mm USM, but I really didn't want to invest in an EF lens that I was sure Canon would replace with an RF equivalent eventually. The RF 70-400mm sounds great. I'm hoping the aperture will start at f/4 at 70mm like the EF 70-300mm does, but 5.6 isn't a dealbreaker for me at all. I own an RF 600mm, and the extra 100mm helps close the gap at the long end of the lenses I own.

I really cannot overstate how excited I am. I'm going to lose it when we finally get images of these lenses.

 

[Loswr]

I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.

Is that Canon or the global supply chain issues? Office chairs I had ordered are delayed weeks because the manufacturer can’t get the metal needed for them. A bed we ordered was supposed to have been delivered already, but that was pushed to August.

Regardless of the reason, it’s annoying. I likely won’t use an RF 100-500 in earnest until I have an R3 in my hands, but I do have an EOS R and I am somewhat tempted to just buy the 100-500 sooner than later (they pop up on Amazon occasionally).

 

[dcm]

The RF70-400 may be an upgrade to the $549 Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens in much the same way the RF 100-500 is an upgrade to the EF 100-400L II. It could maintain similar characteristics for the 70-300 range, and add another 100mm that goes to f/7.1. This would be useful since it probably won't accept an extender. I used the EF version on my M5 and 6D for a while before loaning it to a budding photographer along with the 6D. Then you have a zoom to 400, 600, and 800 for the non-L crowd.

 

[Maximilian]

The 14-35 will surely be the star of the show.
But finally some more non-L stuff. It will be interesting to see how big/small the 16 mm will be.
It could be a great travel companion for travel, if it is small. I don't expect a pancake but could it be as small as the 35/1.8?
For the tele will be interesting, how well it performs alongside the 100-500 in IQ per price ratio .

 

[FrenchFry]

If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?

Could mean the R3 announcement will also be soon if these are announced together.
Personally I hope they announce some good action-oriented fast primes with the R3, but if these are in addition to those, the more the merrier!

 

[FrenchFry]

I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.

What’s the harm in releasing more lenses? Canon's supply chain issues are caused by a global pandemic's effect on raw materials, labor, and shipping, not because the company is producing too many models of RF lenses.
If anything, announcements keep people talking about Canon and give us something to look forward to as we wait for stock to reach the shelves. It reminds us that Canon has more exciting products on the way!
I would much rather know the confirmed lens roadmap and approximate release dates long in advance (years even!) than wait for products to be announced only right before they hit the shelves. It would be so helpful to know which lenses to get now and which ones to wait for instead, based on personal shooting style. Consumers may purchase more EF lenses in some cases if they know that the RF replacement is ages away. Some might conversely decide that they prefer to wait for the RF version of the lens for a few weeks/months if they know it is coming soon and they prefer not to use the adapter. Alerting customers to upcoming releases so they can make informed decisions should help foster customer loyalty. Having more official lens announcements could even help consumers deciding between RF lenses (do some people who just bought the RF 15-35 wish they had waited for the smaller/lighter/cheaper 14-35 now that's it's on the cusp of being announced)? Annouments can also help people budget in advance so they buy more products.
I personally would like to see more announcements and an official Canon Roadmap, rather than wondering what comes next.

 

[FrenchFry]

For the tele will be interesting, how well it performs alongside the 100-500 in IQ per price ratio .

I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance. Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. Like the cost of a big white prime vs. the cost of the excellent 100-500. Are the big whites really 4-5x better?

 

[FrenchFry]

100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.

That would be really nice, but the article mentions non-L several times, so advanced weather sealing is a lot less likely.

 

[Maximilian]

I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance.

Let's hope, you are right.
When you compare (TdP) the EF70-300II non-L to the EF100-400LII there is more than just 15 % gain in IQ (IMO, let alone the 100 mm additional FL).

Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. ...

The prices are really painful, true.
But I wouldn't call it irrational.
It is the same with other extreme technology (High End PCs, HiFi, cars, bikes, watches etc.):
In the beginning, let's call it consumer or mainstream level you have an almost linear rise in performance per price.
And you have high sales numbers, so R&D costs and costs for the production lines and production process are proportioned between much lesser item numbers.
And because of this you get an asymptotic behavior to a horizontal line in performance per price.
The efforts get much, much higher per 1% performance gain.

The only question is, how much performance do you - really - need. Not how much you want

 

[jolyonralph]

The 70-400 is probably going to cost somewhere in the $600-$800 range.

 

[Joules]

but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.

The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 replaces the EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 II in the sense that it offers comparable or slightly better IQ with a bit more reach and covering all the focal lengths of the EF version. It also is lighter and fully compatible with IBIS. If that isn't a replacement, what is?

Just to remind folks: If you crop a 400 5.6 image to the same field of view of a 500 7.1 image, both images will look virtually identical - unless your sensor is so low resolution that you can't crop this much, in which case the 500 7.1 image looks better.

A 100-500 mm 5.6 would be a new line, not a replacement. 400 5.6 and 500 7.1 are just 70 mm openings, while 500 5.6 would be 89. Much larger and heavier and unlike the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 II and 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 which are extremely similar in terms of their use case, a lens with a wider opening will be better suited to even more distant subjects.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

70-400 would be great. It could replace my 70-200 and my 200-500 if the additional sharpness at 400mm makes up for the missing 100mm. In practice I left the 200-500 at home host of the time, because there is a limit to the number of lenses I can carry around all day.

The big plus of the 100-500 is the very low minimum focussing distance. You can focus on your own feet even at 500mm. I hope that the 70-400 will also have that advantage. I do expect it to cost close to $2,000 though. The old 70-300 f/4-5.6 L already costs 1359 Euros in Germany.

 

[dilbert]

If the 70-400 is to replace the 70-300, how will the size compare? And yes, when it comes to lenses, size is a thing 'cause we all got bags to fit these things in ...