Big brother for the RF 100-500mm

[t kermi]

I would really like Canon to make a big brother for the RF 100-500mm. By using the "same" design with 105mm filter / glass size they could probably make the following:
120-600mm f/4 - f/6,3 (actually ~f/6,1 which they could for marketing purposes call f/5,6 when using 1/2 stop increments)

f/4,0 _ 120 - 186mm
f/4,5 _ 187 - 314mm
f/5,0 _ 315 - 449mm
f/5,6 _ 450 - 584mm
f/6,3 _ 585 - 600mm

This would probably weigh about 2200-2300g (+tripod collar ~200g) so still not overly heavy for being really close focusing (~144cm / 56,7" at 600mm) and brightest in its class.

For me all of those focal length / aperture combinations would be very usable (to get nice DoF for varying situations).

Also, would be nice to have an option to buy it with a factory selected (individually fitted) 1,4x TC, resulting ~840mm f/8,5.

What do you think? Would any of you find this kind of a RF lens useful?

 

[Random Orbits]

I would really like Canon to make a big brother for the RF 100-500mm. By using the "same" design with 105mm filter / glass size they could probably make the following:
120-600mm f/4 - f/6,3 (actually ~f/6,1 which they could for marketing purposes call f/5,6 when using 1/2 stop increments)

f/4,0 _ 120 - 186mm
f/4,5 _ 187 - 314mm
f/5,0 _ 315 - 449mm
f/5,6 _ 450 - 584mm
f/6,3 _ 585 - 600mm

This would probably weigh about 2200-2300g (+tripod collar ~200g) so still not overly heavy for being really close focusing (~144cm / 56,7" at 600mm) and brightest in its class.

For me all of those focal length / aperture combinations would be very usable (to get nice DoF for varying situations).

Also, would be nice to have an option to buy it with a factory selected (individually fitted) 1,4x TC, resulting ~840mm f/8,5.

What do you think? Would any of you find this kind of a RF lens useful?

It'd be an L lens, and it would cost more than the 200-400 f/4 with integrated 1.4x.

 

[AlanF]

No way with a 105mm front filter - too heavy and would cost a fortune. A 600mm 95mm front element f/6.3 is far more likely.

 

[Joules]

No way with a 105mm front filter - too heavy and would cost a fortune. A 600mm 95mm front element f/6.3 is far more likely.

I would wonder though what route Canon would take with such a design.

On the one hand, it would be a competitor to Sigma and Tamrons budget telephoto options in terms of specs - and on the other, it would beat the RF 100-500 in terms of specs. So it would be a weird option if they made the same quality compromises found jn the 3rd party offerings to compete in terms of cost, and it would also be a weird offering if they offered the specs of said alternatives at a price above the RF 100-500.

Now, if they could offer specs better than the RF 100-500 for the same or lower price, that would of course be a welcome surprise

 

[Czardoom]

Hmmm...your adding 100mm and making it a faster lens - from 7.1 to 6.3 - compared to the 100-500mm. So, nowhere near the same design. Bigger, heavier, and probably much more expensive.

The difference between 500 and 600 is minimal and certainly not worth the additional weight, size and cost that would occur. If I had to choose, I would get the 100-500 without a doubt.

 

[t kermi]

It'd be an L lens, and it would cost more than the 200-400 f/4 with integrated 1.4x.

But I think the rumoured RF 200-500 f/4 would take that place. I was thinking this one to be cheaper in ~$4,5-5k price range.

 

[t kermi]

No way with a 105mm front filter - too heavy and would cost a fortune. A 600mm 95mm front element f/6.3 is far more likely.

It wouldn't necessarily need to be heavy or super expensive (I think ~$4,5-5k might be possible). Just a better version from Sigma 150-600 F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport.

 

[t kermi]

I would wonder though what route Canon would take with such a design.

On the one hand, it would be a competitor to Sigma and Tamrons budget telephoto options in terms of specs - and on the other, it would beat the RF 100-500 in terms of specs. So it would be a weird option if they made the same quality compromises found jn the 3rd party offerings to compete in terms of cost, and it would also be a weird offering if they offered the specs of said alternatives at a price above the RF 100-500.

Now, if they could offer specs better than the RF 100-500 for the same or lower price, that would of course be a welcome surprise

Yes, a lot of quality thinking and questions ! I was thinking that if Canon would make this lens it wouldn't be targeted for large user group.

It would be in ~$4,5-5k price range offering higher quality than Sigma and Tamron alternatives. But not quite the same quality than than old Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x or its rumoured RF 200-500 f/4 successor (in ~$11k price).

The special value would come from large focal length range with close focusing capability, reasonable weight and large maximum aperture (~98mm). In good light this would also still work well with 1,4x TC (~f/8,6 840mm).

 

[t kermi]

Hmmm...your adding 100mm and making it a faster lens - from 7.1 to 6.3 - compared to the 100-500mm. So, nowhere near the same design. Bigger, heavier, and probably much more expensive.

The difference between 500 and 600 is minimal and certainly not worth the additional weight, size and cost that would occur. If I had to choose, I would get the 100-500 without a doubt.

Well, you are right that when only scaling up dimensions of the RF 100-500mm one would get for example 140-700mm f/4,5-7,1.

But my suggestion is quite close, keeping the same 5x range, minimum focusing distance (scaled) and maximum aperture diameter (~98mm). Only difference is moving the aperture 1/3 stop faster while reducing the maximum focal length. But of course this will require changes in the optical path (all components needs to be recalculated, but that's something needed to be done anyways).

It's not just the change from 500mm to 600mm I'm after here. It's the maximum aperture size. With my suggestion that's ~98mm and with current RF 100-500mm it's ~70mm. That's a huge difference resulting much faster lens with better subject separation possibilities (with all focal lengths) as well as better suitability for 1,4x TC use.

Of course it's heavier and more expensive than RF 100-500mm. It's much more capable lens (though not if you need easy to hold/lightweight lens).

 

[t kermi]

Btw. If Canon ends up bringing the RF 200-800mm f/6-8,5 (which they have filed a patent for) to production I don't think they would make any other pro-level super-tele zooms for a while.

Having:
100-500 f/4,5-7,1
200-500 f/4
and
200-800 f/6-8,5
would already be quite a lot.

 

[john1970]

But I think the rumoured RF 200-500 f/4 would take that place. I was thinking this one to be cheaper in ~$4,5-5k price range.

IMO the price of a 200-500 mm f4 would be much greater than $4-5K. A 500 mm f4 sells for $9K new so I would expect a zoom to be in the $12K price range.

 

[AlanF]

IMO the price of a 200-500 mm f4 would be much greater than $4-5K. A 500 mm f4 sells for $9K new so I would expect a zoom to be in the $12K price range.

A Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 is only £15,000. Who wants an f/4 when there is an f/2.8?

 

[unfocused]

So Canon makes a 600mm f6.3 zoom that essentially mirrors three already available third party lenses. The most expensive of the third party lenses sells for under $2,000. Canon's 100-500 sells for $2,700 ("sells" might be a misnomer, since you can't buy it anywhere.) If it's an "L" lens, Canon would offer the faster, longer zoom at a higher price than the 100-500 ($3,200??) Might be a tough sell.

 

[t kermi]

IMO the price of a 200-500 mm f4 would be much greater than $4-5K. A 500 mm f4 sells for $9K new so I would expect a zoom to be in the $12K price range.

Yes, that was what I meant. This lens I was hoping (RF 120-600 ~f/4-6,1, 105mm filter / 98mm max. aperture) could be in that $4,5k-5k range while the 200-500 f/4 would be in that ~$11k-12k range.

This my suggestion would make a nice medium aperture size option:
100-500 f/4,5-7,1: ~70mm
120-600 ~f/4-6,1: ~98mm
200-500 f/4: ~125mm
Big primes: ~150mm

 

[t kermi]

A Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 is only £15,000. Who wants an f/4 when there is an f/2.8?

But that Sigma isn't portable - it weigh 15,7kg. And I have heard that it's not that sharp either. That's why something like Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x is much more popular (in ~$11k price).

 

[t kermi]

So Canon makes a 600mm f6.3 zoom that essentially mirrors three already available third party lenses. The most expensive of the third party lenses sells for under $2,000. Canon's 100-500 sells for $2,700 ("sells" might be a misnomer, since you can't buy it anywhere.) If it's an "L" lens, Canon would offer the faster, longer zoom at a higher price than the 100-500 ($3,200??) Might be a tough sell.

Yes, valid points! Like I wrote I would estimate the price to be in $4,5k-5k range. So it wouldn't really be for masses / people who are considering those 3rd party options.

It would be a high quality "flexible" lens option for photographers who might also have the big whites. Compared to those primes and EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x that under $5k price would be very affordable.