Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[Deleted member 381342]

For the kind attention of CANON:-
I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
3. RF 100-500 mm F4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard instead of current 100-500 mm zoom.
This will be a Canon Trinity of my dreams.
Opinions Welcome.

If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.

 

[nickstan]

Who else is wondering when more L series prime lenses will be coming, still waiting on a 35mm

 

[AlanF]

If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.

Sadly, I wouldn't be able to carry a zoom of that size.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Sadly, I wouldn't be able to carry a zoom of that size.

Just get a golf caddy to carry it to the hide for you and shove it on a gimbal headed tripod. It'll certainly be easier to carry a 200-500 f/4.0 than a 100-500 f/4.0. There isn't anything to suggest it would be markably heavier than say a 600mm f/4.0 or 400mm f/2.8.

 

[tooyoung225]

Well there is the one that Red announced today.

RED has got you covered.

RED Announces the New V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 Cinema Camera; Watch the RED livestream Find More Info at B&H

/PRNewswire/ -- B&H is excited to announce the new RED V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 cinema camera with a new 8K VV sensor that moves the RED family of cameras into a...

www.prnewswire.com

For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.

Its not 45-50MP so it's a total flop.

 

[Billybob]

If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.

Given the current EF 500mm III f/4 is around 7lbs, the RF600 is only slightly less, and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 is 7.4lbs, I'd expect your 200-500 to be, optimistically, closer to 8lbs. You might be able to carry it, but I'd rather not.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Given the current EF 500mm III f/4 is around 7lbs, the RF600 is only slightly less, and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 is 7.4lbs, I'd expect your 200-500 to be, optimistically, closer to 8lbs. You might be able to carry it, but I'd rather not.

It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500g.

Edit: We also have 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses now instead of 300 primes because it is now light enough and more marketable. My old 300 f/2.8 was way more effort than the 120-300 f/2.8 I tried. 2855g for the prime vs 3250g for the zoom, yet it felt more balanced..

 

[FrenchFry]

It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500Kg.

I think you mean 3500g, not 3500kg. Unless you are exceptionally strong.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I think you mean 3500g, not 3500kg. Unless you are exceptionally strong.

Already corrected.

 

[Billybob]

It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500g.

Edit: We also have 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses now instead of 300 primes because it is now light enough and more marketable. My old 300 f/2.8 was way more effort than the 120-300 f/2.8 I tried. 2855g for the prime vs 3250g for the zoom, yet it felt more balanced..

Agreed about the 100-500 f/4, but 200-500 is no picnic either. I wish I'd grown up learning grams, but alas, I was born on the left side of the Atlantic, and we're a little backwards in those matters. So, 8lbs, is about 3628g. Yes, there are those who would cart such a beast around, but, my personal limit is around 6lbs/2700g. I dislike using tripods, so getting there is half the battle. Lifting the beast to the sky isn't something I want to do.

 

[FrenchFry]

Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.

I think that most people who have been on a wildlife photography trip with supertelephoto primes in areas that are extremely humid or dusty would agree that a built in teleconverter adds tremendous value. Taking a teleconverter on and off dozens of times per day is not fun and puts the equipment at increased risk from the elements. It can also result in missed shots. A built-in teleconverter is extremely valuable on these lenses. Hopefully Canon will incorporate more of them in their supertelephoto lenses built for RF.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Agreed about the 100-500 f/4, but 200-500 is no picnic either. I wish I'd grown up learning grams, but alas, I was born on the left side of the Atlantic, and we're a little backwards in those matters. So, 8lbs, is about 3628g. Yes, there are those who would cart such a beast around, but, my personal limit is around 6lbs/2700g. I dislike using tripods, so getting there is half the battle. Lifting the beast to the sky isn't something I want to do.

You tend not to lift the big boys to the sky. At least I don't. I shove the 500mm f/5.6 PF on a light body (equivalent to a 100-500 f/7.1 and a R6/R5) and then put the big lens on a tripod and it doesn't leave the tripod. Carrying a big lens is actually easier however, if it isn't in the dedicate backpack you have actual lens strap lungs on it unlike a smaller lens which make it much easier to carry. 3500g on the lens plus a gripped body is what I am accustomed too and can hike all day with. But most of the time it'll be in a pack until I find a stop to 'camp' or it'll be supported by the strap or tripod on my back.

edit: A 200-500 means one less lens in your bag too. With a 200-400 TC you often need a 600 with you too I have found and that is way more on the back than just one heavier lens.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I think that most people who have been on a wildlife photography trip with supertelephoto primes in areas that are extremely humid or dusty would agree that a built in teleconverter adds tremendous value. Taking a teleconverter on and off dozens of times per day is not fun and puts the equipment at increased risk from the elements. It can also result in missed shots. A built-in teleconverter is extremely valuable on these lenses. Hopefully Canon will incorporate more of them in their supertelephoto lenses built for RF.

Been there, it gets to the point where you don't want to put it on or take it off. During a shoot you can't in realtime while tracking a fox that is running towards you, switch out the TC, but you can stop AF for a moment and flick a switch.

 

[FrenchFry]

Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.

I wouldn't underestimate Canon's ability to innovate for new telephoto RF lenses.
So far we have the excellent 100-500, which goes 100mm further than its 100-400 predecessor in a smaller/lighter package, the 70-200 which is significantly smaller/lighter than its predecessor, and the 600/800mm F11 lenses which were, to say the least, unexpected. They have their limitations but reviews are overall positive and the reach per gram on these lenses is incredible.
So, it's quite possible that Canon has some interesting ideas in the pipeline for future telephoto RF primes that we don't expect. There are rumors here for a 500mm prime that is extremely light weight, for example.
The new mount's additional pins may also enable faster and/or more accurate AF, we will have to wait and see.
It may not be that the new mount directly benefits these designs, but that Canon is taking advantage of the new mount to offer more "revolutionary" designs to its customers.

 

[Hector1970]

I wouldn't underestimate Canon's ability to innovate for new telephoto RF lenses.
So far we have the excellent 100-500, which goes 100mm further than its 100-400 predecessor in a smaller/lighter package, the 70-200 which is significantly smaller/lighter than its predecessor, and the 600/800mm F11 lenses which were, to say the least, unexpected. They have their limitations but reviews are overall positive and the reach per gram on these lenses is incredible.
So, it's quite possible that Canon has some interesting ideas in the pipeline for future telephoto RF primes that we don't expect. There are rumors here for a 500mm prime that is extremely light weight, for example.
The new mount's additional pins may also enable faster and/or more accurate AF, we will have to wait and see.
It may not be that the new mount directly benefits these designs, but that Canon is taking advantage of the new mount to offer more "revolutionary" designs to its customers.

If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.

 

[Billybob]

You tend not to lift the big boys to the sky. At least I don't. I shove the 500mm f/5.6 PF on a light body (equivalent to a 100-500 f/7.1 and a R6/R5) and then put the big lens on a tripod and it doesn't leave the tripod. Carrying a big lens is actually easier however, if it isn't in the dedicate backpack you have actual lens strap lungs on it unlike a smaller lens which make it much easier to carry. 3500g on the lens plus a gripped body is what I am accustomed too and can hike all day with. But most of the time it'll be in a pack until I find a stop to 'camp' or it'll be supported by the strap or tripod on my back.

edit: A 200-500 means one less lens in your bag too. With a 200-400 TC you often need a 600 with you too I have found and that is way more on the back than just one heavier lens.

Yes, it's a matter of personal preference. I don't have an exotic prime yet (I have one on my wish list), but with the 100-500L and 500pf (they handle similarly) I have never used them with a tripod. Perhaps I'll reconsider if I do pick up an exotic, but for now--and until my strength starts to fade--the tripod stays at home.

 

[AlanF]

Just get a golf caddy to carry it to the hide for you and shove it on a gimbal headed tripod. It'll certainly be easier to carry a 200-500 f/4.0 than a 100-500 f/4.0. There isn't anything to suggest it would be markably heavier than say a 600mm f/4.0 or 400mm f/2.8.

If my style was to go to a hide and sit there for several hours, it would be a solution. But, my m.o. is to walk around with a camera and take opportunistic shots of interesting birds etc. I do visit hides a lot, but only as a part of the general walkabout. Try taking a cart by boat to the Farne Isles and trundling up a narrow path with steps - it's just not possible. I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.

 

[FrenchFry]

If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.

I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day?
I would love to take those on safari.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day?
I would love to take those on safari.

Someone with more knowledge can go into the why, but yes a less complicated zoom like a 300-500 would be potentially better than a 200-500. We can see the 24-70s are always better then the 24-105 of the same generation. I think after a point it gets very hard to make it a constant aperture. As for a 1.4 + 2.x tc, both have to sit in the same place so that mechanism would be very complex. Just trying to design it makes my head spin.