Here is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

[Czardoom]

I honestly feel like Canon is doing an excellent job making APS-C basically irrelevant for the RF mount. I get the sense Canon looked at APS-C, asked themselves, "what are people getting out of these crop lenses?" and is building that out in a full frame format for the low end RF mount.

When cheap focus systems could only focus to F/5.6, they had way more limits on lens design. But now that any DPAF sensor can easily focus at F/16 or even higher, they've totally taken away that limit on lens design, so instead of compromising on the sensor, you're compromising on the aperture.

It honestly makes for a far better upgrading experience, because instead of compromising on the sensor quality and needing to upgrade the body, you can upgrade the lens and get the full experience of full frame.

It almost feels like Canon is setting themselves up to be to full frame what Fuji is to APS-C. If they can release a $800 full frame that someone can grab used in two/three years for $500, I think a lot of entry level people will end up grabbing a Canon as their first camera because they're all told "full frame is better."

This may indeed be what Canon is thinking, but I believe that they would be wrong in doing so. When I check Amazon, it appears that entry level folks are buying the cheapest APS-C cameras for around $400. Those are always the best selling ILCs. Entry level buyers are not reading Canon Rumors (thank goodness) and probably don't know or care about what size the sensor is.

I know this is argued ad infinitum on these forums, but clearly some folks (myself included) find that crop cameras work best for at least a substantial amount of their shooting. Whether it is cost effective for Canon to go there, I have no idea, but since they haven't gone there with a system larger and more complete than their M system, I (and I'm sure others) have had to look elsewhere when it comes to getting more reach, whether for wildlife or other types of shooting.

 

[tigers media]

Continue reading...

Even better news for me then the 16mm ! Thank you Canon this is a definite buy for me as i was in process of buying a 100-400 ef thsi will be perfect for me preorder for this at $881 aussie dollars a bargain very happy photographer

 

[David - Sydney]

Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.

This type of comment attracts a lot of push back and for good reason. EF lenses won't work as well on Sony or Fuji but will work better on RF bodies than EF bodies.
You could see that EF lens range eventually reduce but the second hand market and repairibility to be onging for a decade (or more). RF lenses will reduce somewhat over time and the second hand market will be more reasonable once production can resume full capacity.

Can you give us your reasoning on why you would switch? It is interesting for most posters to understand your rationale.

 

[David - Sydney]

1.4x T.C works great on my EF100-400ii with my 7Dii
Also it works over the whole zoom range not like the crippled RF100-500 + T.Cs set up!
2x works as well but only manual focus on my 7Dii , apparently works pretty ok on mirrorless and matches the 800mm f/11 of the RF800
I would just keep my EF zoom if I go mirrorless rather than buy this new RF one.

Isn't it great that Canon has given us the ability to use both RF and EF lenses? Best of both worlds
You just need to select a RF mount body

 

[David - Sydney]

Great observation. And there are 3rd parties as well. Why would Canon be obligated to plug all the holes.

Let's say that there aren't great 3rd party RF options available. With both Sigma and Tamron silent, there are options in the cheaper end but not much in the mid range eg Sigma Art type quality/pricing.
No issues for mid range with adapted Canon EF lenses especially EF "L" lens below the RF "L" lens pricing.

 

[gbc]

I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.

I'm having similar dilemmas with the RF lenses. I bought two (well, the 28-70 2.0 is still on backorder), and the one i use is, surprisingly, the 24-240. As long as it's daytime, I've found that to be a really capable lens. But i hate that the 70-200 isn't compatible with the TC. I use the EF 70-200 with the 2x TC all the time, and would loved to have one less adapter when I use a TC on my R bodies. If the RF 70-200 were compatible I would've bought it months ago. But so far, most of these lenses don't inspire me to replace any of my EF lenses.

 

[navastronia]

As I said, some of Samyang's lenses are temporarily on hold as they have ongoing distribution problems around covid. (Source: spoke to two Samyang reps directly.) Samyang's distribution normally covers the largest area and most countries of the three brands the lenses are produced for, so their distribution is much more complex and, unsurprisingly, much more affected and disrupted by the pandemic. Production of all electrical goods is also reduced right now due to both covid and the semiconduct or shortage, so for now the Samyang brand has scaled back to only its most sure-fire top-selling lenses (i.e. the most standard focal lengths in E-mount). Like I said, the Rokinon and Bower brands (same lens, different names for different countries) which operate in more limited areas and aren't having to ship around as many units anyway have kept producing the RF lenses. The Samyang-branded ones will be back.

The idea that they abandoned RF due to IBIS not working fully with them is an incorrect assumption a few kneejerk YouTubers made based on a brief problem with how Canon implemented IBIS, which was in fact fixed with a firmware update almost right away. (Note the same lenses have been released on Sony E and never had a problem with IBIS there; the problems were entirely due to Canon, not Samyang, and are now fixed.) It's just unlucky timing that the release of the R5 and R6 came at the same time Samyang started to have their distribution problems, and people who are more interested in clicks than facts put the two together in all-caps headlines with lots of derpy faces and red arrows in the thumbnails.

TL;DR: Both the 14mm and 85mm work perfectly with all RF cameras, assuming you are up to date with the latest firmware. The Samyang brand has covid-related problems, but that is not permanent, and the 'sister' brands are carrying on with no change.

Latest lens firmware, or latest camera firmware? I own both lenses and have been reluctant to keep them due to issues with newer RF bodies.

 

[SteveC]

I know you're joking but, I was kind of surprised to see that there were so many comments asking for a mid-range zoom when we already have the 100-500mm. A zoom that is between $700 and $2800 might be between the quality of the RF 100-400 and the 100-500, but I thought the 100-500 was the "mid-range" option given the aperture at 500mm.

I believe your impression is wrong.

It's every bit as good as the 100-400 II L, plus you can extend it to 500mm, albeit not at f/5.6 But let's see, 500mm at f/7.0 is superior to no 500mm at all.

There are two worse things about the lens compared with the old EF 100-400 II L: Apparently you can't use extenders at low zoom, and you can't adapt it to work on an M-series camera. To most people those are minor negatives.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Interesting lens. Lots of thoughts about this one.

Personally, most of my tele shooting is done outdoors so f/8 isn't a problem for me. Especially with an R sensor that can AF to f/22 and has good noise performance at moderate ISO. Now I only hope Canon doesn't "dumb down" the noise performance too much when they release the economical body to match.

Many folks are saying (hoping) that it's like the EF 70-300 (the non-L version). I certainly hope it compares well with that lens, and that it doesn't end up looking more like the EF 75-300.

Some posts have also likened it to the EF-S 55-250 STM but for full frame. Again, I hope that's a favorable comparison. The EF-S 55-250 STM is an amazing value, proof that Canon can make a great performer at an economical price.

At $649 US, I'm eager to see how the IQ and AF compare against the Sigma and Tamron EF 100-400's. Those are in the same price class, and both compare favorably with the Canon EF 100-400L II. This lens has the advantage of smaller size and lighter weight, and, of course, a native RF mount.

One person's "cheap and plasticky" is another person's "lightweight and portable". I doubt you'll see any pros shooting with this on the sideline of next year's Superbowl, but if the IQ is decent, it could make a great hiking/biking lens.

Unlike the RF 600 and 800 f/11, this seems like a lens that will see regular use by a lot of people. IMO, the 600/800 f/11's are one trick ponies. Good and useful lenses, to be sure, but I believe a big part of the reason Canon made them at all was so they could attach an RF 2X extender and show the world that the R5 and R6 really can AF at f/22.

I totally agree with @aceflibble that the zoom ring should be the farthest from the mount for stability in handling. That was my biggest gripe with the EF 70-200 f/4L, and yes, it was the IS version.

 

[Jethro]

It's an attractive price (and the close focusing characteristic is useful). I won't pre-order, but if the reviews are good, it will definitely be on my medium-term list.

 

[drhuffman87]

This lens is definitely interesting to me. For several years, I have been contemplating picking up an EF 400mm f/5.6L at a comparable price to this (used obviously). This RF offering would be a stop darker, but also be more compact/lighter, and include image stabilization. I've always been a fan of prime lenses, as I feel the "limitations" assist my creativity. I'll be reading and watching reviews to learn more once it is released.

 

[slclick]

Meanwhile Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k, and it's phenomenal. Internally zooming too!

Canon has absolutely nothing even close to that.

Why do we need another junky slow novelty lens? Where are all the innovative lenses Canon promised when they switched to RF mount?

Other than the 28-70 none of the RF lenses are unique.

Email them and make your demands known!

 

[JMV Portraits]

The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.

When pressed for their market research, the answer is always, “Well of course I don’t have any. Where’s yours?” The point is that none of us individuals have it…but Canon does. So if there was as much demand for Product X as forum dwellers claim, Canon would know it.

As usual, it boils down to a forum dweller wanting Product X, and baselessly claiming ‘everyone wants it’ because they do (and maybe the two other people of whom they asked a leading question).

You don't even have to get as far as market research to see that these kinds of demands shouldn't guide product development.

Yes, people whine that the 85 f/2 extends as it focuses and isn't weather-sealed, but how many people whining about that kind of thing have bought something else because of that? Yeah, some people whine that the 85 f/2 is too slow and the 85 f/1.2 is too expensive, but how many of these people have bought (or stuck with) any of the several options in between those two because of it? It's probably not zero, but the alternatives they would supposedly prefer don't seem to be selling at numbers that suggest it would be beneficial to Canon to further split their market to satisfy that gap, especially this early in the system's life.

 

[Minh Nguyen]

Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.

Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?

Don't worry, I'm with you. I think if/when Sigma comes in there will be a nice option that's more middle of the road. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a Sigma RF 150-600. You're right the market does say so. In fact, Sigma coming in with mid-price, high end glass is what saved Sony's Alpha.

 

[dcm]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine someone who buys a lens for $650 feeling that a TC is a good "value" at $500 (1.4x) or $600 (2x).

That may be true in some cases, but not all. I already have the RF 800. I added the RF 1.4x to get 1120 at f/16 and it works quite well. I also have the RF24-240 and the RF 50 f/1.8. I figured I was done for a while since I have existing EOS M6 kit and EOS 1DxII kit with several L lenses.

There are some times when I want to fill the gap between 240 and 800. The RF 100-400 will do nicely for the price and pair well with the RF 800. Using the extender would be a bonus. The 24-240 probably pairs better withthe RF 600. I'd still like a cheap wide zoom to go with the 800/100-400 combo if I was to go that route. The f/8 aperture is not really an issue for me now that I've been using f/11 on the RF 800.

The 16 would be an intriguing addition as well - the 35 just didn't seem wide enough for my purposes. No rush to do this, but if I didn't have the other kits this I'd seriously consider these new lenses. I have time to see what else develops.

 

[hendrik-sg]

From the optical limits, its quite similar like a 55-250 5.6 for crop format. Seems FF sensors are not so expensive anymore, so the system size and price can be kept down in different way now, using a slower lens with longer reach for a bigger sensor, at the same size. How much was a 18-55 & 55-250 kit with a entry level DSLR? Still some margin remaining for FF prestige when i combine this to a RP with 24-105 & 100 400 kit.

Recently i bougt a phone for 400$ for my child, it has surprisingly well cameras, i wish i had bought it for myself

 

[degos]

The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.

The market says that Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have done very well over the years producing midrange lenses that Canon's 'market data' says don't need to exist...

No company is omniscient.

 

[Daner]

You don't even have to get as far as market research to see that these kinds of demands shouldn't guide product development.

Yes, people whine that the 85 f/2 extends as it focuses and isn't weather-sealed, but how many people whining about that kind of thing have bought something else because of that? Yeah, some people whine that the 85 f/2 is too slow and the 85 f/1.2 is too expensive, but how many of these people have bought (or stuck with) any of the several options in between those two because of it? It's probably not zero, but the alternatives they would supposedly prefer don't seem to be selling at numbers that suggest it would be beneficial to Canon to further split their market to satisfy that gap, especially this early in the system's life.

I have those gripes about my RF 85 f/2, but it is still a step up from my EF 85 f/1.8 as a portrait lens, and the half-macro function makes it good fun in the forest. My likely upgrade path will be to sell it to get a used EF 85 f/1.4L, and add a used EF 100 macro to scratch that itch until I can afford the RF 100 macro. Plenty of options.

 

[Viggo]

$650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…

 

[AlanF]

$650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…

in that case, why are there so many happy users who don’t live in California? It seems to boil down to those who actually use the lens and appreciate it, and those who have not used it and look for reasons for panning it.