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

[H. Jones]

Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400 , this was lined up with my left eye and worked great but my EF100-400ii zoom is easy to use without this.
I also mounted one on my old EF300 f/2.8 using an adapter on the mounting point of the tripod foot but then I couldn't use the tripod mount and I had to use it without the hood as this blocked the sightline
This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes. I would use my left eye to track the bird and then look through my viewfinder with my right eye which worked great.

Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?

 

[Chig]

Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?

Yes , but it wouldn't work as well (plus very expensive and quite fragile) as you'd need to move your eye from the sight to the viewfinder (and you'll probably lose track of the bird) whereas my system you don't move and just shut your right eye until your left eye has framed the bird then open your right eye and shut the left , it's super easy ! These gun sights are really cheap but fabricating a mounting point was quite a challenge.

 

[SteveC]

Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?

The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.

These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.

While there will likely be more in-between options years down the road as the system fills out, it will likely continue to follow the pattern that Canon has with their EF, EF-S, and EF-M lines. Most lenses will tend to cater either to high volume budget options, or to low-volume high-markup options. Sticking to the 85mm as an example- Canon did eventually introduce and 85mm f/1.4 IS for the EF in between the 85 1.2 and 85 1.8, but still squarely in the high end of the range. It's interesting that the RF 85 f/2 that people are complaining about is, in terms of price point, features, and practical optical measures, very much between between the old EF 85mm 1.8 and the EF 85mm 1.4.

Never mind the fact that we do not know if Canon is planning to not serve the mid market (which I herein define as "below L but not basic.") Just that they haven't done so yet.

 

[esglord]

I think it's two things:
1) To a small extent, in the music world more of us just want to hear a nice tune and we respect that many people are trying to put out their own voice, however it is they may get there, while with photography there is a higher percentage of people who are just really, really into pushing buttons and don't see cameras as anything other than new toys to show off.
2) Mostly you're looking in the wrong places.

(Everybody else should skip this anecdote)
I used to do some studio tech work, I've been a guitar and bass tech, a session musician, and I've made a few amps, guitars and basses here and there. In my time in the music industry I met many people and communities cared much more about the equipment than the music they might play on it. People will pay a huge premium for an instrument made with a high-grade piece of a specific wood species, or seek out boutique pedals and amplifiers with very specific high-priced components just so they can say they have it. A few times when I was playing regularly I had some local engineers and randoms come up to me and say they liked my playing but why on earth was I using [brand] guitar/amp? It's especially the case in blues, rock and metal with valves vs solid state, analogue vs digital, Gibson vs Fender, etc.
There was one time that really stands out to me. I was at Gibson's London offices to back a solo singer on some ballad. I was just going to play some simple bits in the background with clean tones. We get to the recording area and one of the guys hands me an ES, I forget the model number, with P-90s. I asked for a solid Les Paul instead and he looked at me like I'd slapped him with a dead fish. He couldn't get his head around the idea of someone wanting a solid body with humbuckers for clean tones instead of a hollow body with P-90s. Then he had a total meltdown when I asked for the single channel Marshall Plexi reissue and V30 4x12 he'd set up ahead to be swapped for a multi-channel JVM and T75 2x12. At first he actually refused. For a solid three or four minutes he ranted at me about how this Plexi head had been modded with whatever special pots and resistors and they'd used cyrogenically treated valves and it was the best clean Brit tone ever and how the JVM was only some stock POS and the T75s were "sterile" and all this garbage.
Eventually the guy in charge told him to just do what I asked, we got the amp swapped over, we got the recording done and everyone said it went great. Everyone except that one studio tech. He insisted that my guitar and amp choice had been totally wrong and ruined the whole thing. The recording went up online and... no problems. Nobody cared but that one tech. But he did really, really care. I later learned I'd been dropped from Gibson's books, right after that guy had taken over as the head producer of their live sessions. He'd not complained about my playing; my choice of equipment was the deal-breaker for him.
(Done.)

This site is for product rumours and info. The people who you see on here are mostly here because they care primarily about the next product coming out. They want to know what buttons they'll get to push next. They want to know what the next focus algorithm is. They want to see test charts showing X camera has a fifth of a stop more highlight detail than Y camera. This audience is the equivalent of that irate Gibson studio tech.

If you want photographers who talk more about the photos than the equipment, you need to stop coming to websites which are focused on the equipment. Try Flickr groups; they're all about the photos, since the basic posting mechanic of that whole site revolves around photos being posted. Dive deeper into Instagram maybe. Give 500px a shot. Or try Fujifilm cameras, as that audience is in general more about the outcome than the method. But if you come to a website which only reports on Canon equipment, don't be confused as to why the comments are all about what Canon equipment should be used and how. These people do exist, everywhere, in all hobbies and industries, and that audience is what this site caters to.

I do agree that if someone isn't convinced by a particular product or product line they should simply leave it alone, and too many people do seem to think it's somehow reasonable to demand every single product is tailored to their specific requirements. (I'm looking at you, DPReview.) However, this is a gear website and people are going to talk about that gear, both what they like and what they don't like, and that is not exclusive to photography nor should be unexpected.

As I'm also a guitar guy, I'd have to say that crowd is at least as bad on internet forums regarding gear with many people acting like you need to a $150 cable into an amp or your tone will be terrible. Most of the good guitarists I know and good photographers I know all have their preferred gear but aren't phased if they to the job done with most anything decent at hand. Since I'm mediocre at both endeavors, I need the good gear so I have no one to blame but myself, haha. Long live the rare vintage germanium transistors that Jimi Hendrix stood next to once and the zeiss 40mm f/0.33!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400

This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes.

Below are some shots taken with my phone of how it works

I used a TruGlo red dot sight for a while when I first got my 600/4 II (when it launched in 2012).

Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?

I don’t recall an integrated product like that, but it’s a big world. Since sights use a Weaver mount (apparently that’s the equivalent of Arca-Swiss for the other type of shooting), I mounted it using a Firefield Weaver Camera Adapter. Unfortunately for anyone wanting to go that route, it looks like they’re no longer available, but it was an <$20 widget with a Weaver plate on top and a universal hotshoe mount on the bottom.

I used it for a while as a training tool, but soon learned to find subjects without it. It’s packed away somewhere in one of my four plastic storage bins of photography accessories.

 

[slclick]

As I'm also a guitar guy, I'd have to say that crowd is at least as bad on internet forums regarding gear with many people acting like you need to a $150 cable into an amp or your tone will be terrible. Most of the good guitarists I know and good photographers I know all have their preferred gear but aren't phased if they to the job done with most anything decent at hand. Since I'm mediocre at both endeavors, I need the good gear so I have no one to blame but myself, haha. Long live the rare vintage germanium transistors that Jimi Hendrix stood next to once and the zeiss 40mm f/0.33!

Funny, as a drummer I find those forums and chat rooms to be incredibly supportive no matter the level, style, gear used and years played. Good folks almost always....On the other hand I spend much more time on cycling sites and it is far more cut throat, divisive and childish than even here as there is a serious noob with a credit card momentum with roadies in the past few years and mentorship and the progression of skills seems to be a lost art....My analogy is using the R6 (occasionally berated and looked down upon here and on other Canon sites) with great results to riding a 20 lb steel bike with greater aplomb than the new guy on his 15 lb $12k carbon sled. Same with my PDP drums which I know how to tune and play with various sticks (like lenses) for the appropriate volume, tone and venue.

G.A.S. doesn't make you better just gives more debt.

 

[esglord]

Funny, as a drummer I find those forums and chat rooms to be incredibly supportive no matter the level, style, gear used and years played. Good folks almost always....On the other hand I spend much more time on cycling sites and it is far more cut throat, divisive and childish than even here as there is a serious noob with a credit card momentum with roadies in the past few years and mentorship and the progression of skills seems to be a lost art....My analogy is using the R6 (occasionally berated and looked down upon here and on other Canon sites) with great results to riding a 20 lb steel bike with greater aplomb than the new guy on his 15 lb $12k carbon sled. Same with my PDP drums which I know how to tune and play with various sticks (like lenses) for the appropriate volume, tone and venue.

G.A.S. doesn't make you better just gives more debt.

I can already tell you are a good drummer based on the use of the words “appropriate volume”. I’m going to buy an R6 eventually when prices fall because that camera is amazing. A new bike is not going to help me come close to keeping up with my father in-law who rides 100 miles every Saturday, so I’m going to make due with the heavy commuter bike. So many fun things to do, never enough time.

 

[drhuffman87]

Well for a wildlife / birding lens 1 stop of light makes a huge difference. I'd rather carry the barely noticeable 1.25kg weight of the EF400mm f/5.6 and have twice the light.
I used to own this prime and it's a fantastic lens and I only sold it after I bought my EF100-400mm ii which is more versatile but also a lot heavier and not any better image quality.
Personally for my birding I often find f/5.6 too dark and f/8 would be hopeless.
Perhaps you will use this only in very bright sunlight in which case it'll be fine.

Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate it!

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.

Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.

f/8 or no, I highly doubt this lens will be a good action/sports/wildlife/BIF lens. I expect it will be a competent general purpose tele-zoom for casual use at outdoor kids sports, family vacations, and trips to the zoo. Think of it more like an RF version of the EF 70-300 II or the EF-S 55-250 STM, rather than a $649 version of the EF 100-400L II. If your needs are more specialized, there are better tools in Canon's lineup. Despite the overlap in focal length, the roughly 4x price difference (US) between this and either the EF 100-400L II or the RF 100-500L should provide some indication of their respective capabilities.

 

[drhuffman87]

I would not expect this lens to come anywhere close to the 400 f/5.6 in image quality, focus speed, or build quality. That EF lens has been a top-seller and 'the' defacto wildlife lens for decades for good reason. The only Canon-mount zooms which match its image quality (they do not exceed it) are the Canon 100-400 mk II, 200-400 f/4L, and now the RF 100-500; all L lenses, all much more expensive and heavier. No other Canon zooms can match it and no Sigma or Tamron zooms have matched it, either. Importantly, its focus is much faster than all the zooms and its build quality is superb; though it does lack full weather sealing, I used mine in heavy downpours and it didn't have a problem, and you don't have to look far to find many other people with the same sort of experiences. The phrase "built like a tank" gets thrown around too often these days and now usually only means "has some metal in it", but the EF 400mm f/5.6L genuinely is a tank of a lens.
The reality of using these long focal lengths is that zoom range and IS are very rarely of any use; what are you photographing at 400mm that you can use a shutter below 1/500th with, and when are you not going to want the maximum focal length? And if you're photographing anything which might move (which is 99% of super-tele use) then your panning can screw up stabilisation systems anyway, even in the panning modes, hence why you'll find many pros just keep the IS off entirely.
A lot of people buy a 100-400 then only use the lens at 400mm with shutters upwards of 1/1000th, rendering the zoom design and stabilisation pointless. The 400mm f/5.6L has remained the standard by which all others are judged because for the purposes these sorts of lenses are most commonly used for, it offers the best-possible optics for the price range, the best-possible focus for the price range, and build quality which is only bettered by a small handful of lenses. (Which this RF 100-400 f/8 certainly will not be part of.)

This new lens does interest me greatly and as long as the first full reviews give it an even just mediocre pass, I'll probably buy one. But I'll be doing that as someone who has moved up through the whole super-tele ecosystem, from the lamest kit zooms to the 400mm f/5.6 to the 100-400s and 150-600s, then on to the really big whites, and now I do want something as light as possible to carry on my evening strolls. If I were in the position where I was contemplating buying the EF 400mm f/5.6 used—so I'm assuming you don't have any other, bigger, higher-end lenses—I would not consider this sort of zoom lens as an alternative. The chances of it matching the optical performance are essentially zero; the 100-500 ''only'' matches the old prime, and there's no way Canon are going to produce a much cheaper, smaller lens like this which equals their premium lens in optical quality. It's very unlikely to match the old lens in focus, too; it's much easier for the larger full USM motor to move a primes' optics around than it is for the 'nano USM' motor to move around a zoom. And we know there's no way it'll match the build quality; it's a plastic, extending zoom that doesn't even have a hood included.

I have my fingers crossed this new lens is good and like I said, there's a high probability I'll buy one myself, but it is extremely difficult to recommend any lens over the old 400 5.6, at least within this price bracket, if someone doesn't already have a really high-quality optic to pair the lighter, weaker lens. The quality of that 400 all-round is superb, on par or better than anything else under the two grand mark, and the fact you can now buy one second hand so cheap and easily resell it for the same price also makes it the lowest-risk lens of its type. When you want quality, portability, a relatively low cost and you only want/can only have one lens, the 400mm f/5.6 has been the king for nearly three decades and probably will not be beaten until an RF 400mm 5/6.L is made.

Buy the old 400 used as you planned, and at worst if you don't like it you can sell it for what you paid and get this new zoom which by that point should have actually been out and been reviewed thoroughly.

Thank you very much for your extremely thorough response and feedback about your experience with the EF 400mm 5.6L! Your reply has definitely helped steer me back towards purchasing that lens. The price is right, and I've repeatedly read that the build and image quality are nearly unparalleled. In response to your comment regarding only needing the longest focal length on the zoom; I currently always carry an EF 200mm 2.8 USM L II prime with me for that very reason. You've helped reinforce my original plan, and that will be the next lens I purchase.

 

[David - Sydney]

$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…

I don't live in California and am happy with my RF100-500mm. I don't understand the negativity around f7.1 it is the same as EF100-400mm + 1.4xTC. No one has ever complained that there is a built-in 1.4x TC in the EF200-400mm f4 except for the overall weight.

 

[David - Sydney]

Seeing the 100-400 II next to the 100-500 reminds me of buying 'white' paint for the walls...

View attachment 200103

At least the RF100-500mm shouldn't get any white paint chips around the mount.

 

[dcm]

I can already tell you are a good drummer based on the use of the words “appropriate volume”. I’m going to buy an R6 eventually when prices fall because that camera is amazing. A new bike is not going to help me come close to keeping up with my father in-law who rides 100 miles every Saturday, so I’m going to make due with the heavy commuter bike. So many fun things to do, never enough time.

Still riding my old commuter bike. The extra weight just adds to the exercise factor. I have no need to go fast or keep up with the pack on my daily commute. A lighter bike won't shave that much time off my commute. I might change my mind if I did a century ride on the weekends, but think I'd still commute on my existing commuter.

 

[Chig]

Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate it!

No problem , you won't regret it if you buy the EF400 f/5.6 and even if you do you can always sell it for about the same price.
Just make sure it has no fungal growth inside before you buy

 

[JohnOnTheNet]

F8 will ensure some excellent forum comment sections!

Yes, but f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped. I'd rather have full frame at f8 and a lighter lens than go cropped.

 

[JohnOnTheNet]

You don't say why it's "unusable in most situations", so your comment isn't very helpful.

I love my 800 f11. Sometimes the limitations are frustrating, but it does things that no other lens I can afford or can carry will do.

 

[JohnOnTheNet]

People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.

Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.

People who already have a teleconverter but want a lighter lens might use it. 100-400mm + 800mm + 1.4 TC might make a good light weight outfit for older birders.

 

[aceflibble]

Have you used any RF extension tubes ? Were any worth recommending?
Do any of them preserve autofocus capabilities?

I've got a set of Meike and a set of JJC ones. They're the same tubes, just different brandings. The Meikes were the first to market so I bought them first; one of them mounted a little bit loose so when the JJC-branded version came out a fraction cheaper, I bought that set and they've been totally fine. If JJC hadn't put out their one cheaper I'd have happily just bought another Meike set. I've had enough tubes for all mounts you can name, going back to the 1960s Canon R & FL mount up through every decade since, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, you name it, and the looseness I found in the first Meike set is totally typical of common copy variation. I don't believe either brand actually has a better or worse chance of being loose than the other, it's just luck.
Yes, they keep autofocus, and all other electronic operation. I've not seen an extension tube made in the last twenty years which doesn't retain autofocus, other than ones made for lenses made pre-autofocus, of course.

I own the RF 100-500mm, the RF 800mm f/11 and the RF 1.4x and 2x, and have posted a comparative thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
I found on the R5 the 100-500mm + RF 2x at 1000mm, f/14 outresolves the bare RF 800mm f/11, and I had to put the 1.4x on the 800mm to give 1120mm f/16 for it catch up. The TCs might not be as good on the new 100-400 f/8, but we don't know yet other than diffraction will be worse. On the 100-500, they are incredibly good.

Fair enough then, but given my experience with the 100-500 on TCs being weaker than the 800 f11, I'm going to put this down to copy variation and say you can't gurantee results. It could be that you got an unusually good 100-500 or TC, or an unusually poor 800, or I hand my hands on an unusually good 800 or an unusually bad 100-500. Unless someone can test a sample group of at least ten copies of both lenses and TCs, we can't chalk this up as any kind of consistent trend.

The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much.

This is an erroneous point because Canon's 'imaging division' includes much more than just the consumer photographic products. That US$10b includes printers, scanners, medical tools, security cameras, military tools, binoculars, scopes, industrial sensors and processors that they sell to other companies, and even paper.

Right now, according to Canon's 2020 financials, the imaging division has taken a hit of more than 90%, with the overall company losing a bit over US$80m last year and the imaging division in total only generated around US$28m in operating profit.
Now, every company had a weak 2020 due to covid and the semiconductor shortage totally destroying most industrial sales, so I don't expect Tamron made much more than that either (I haven't looked at Tamron's latest financial reports), but the fact remains that Canon absolutely are not currently raking in US$10b, the consumer products we're talking about here never got them to that figure in the first place, and no matter which way you slice it, Tamron's lenses are and have been the best-selling lenses in the world for the last couple of years by a big margin, and not only does it mean Tamron's lenses have shifted units but it also demonstrates the market share that Sony now has.

Basically, if you're going to bring up the financials, you really need to learn what they really mean and you need to stick to the most recent ones. Every major manufacturer publishes their financial reports publicly and they're usually just a short Google away. Everything you wrote is basically meaningless and inaccurate because you didn't check what "imaging division" means in Canon speak.

Thank you very much for your extremely thorough response and feedback about your experience with the EF 400mm 5.6L! Your reply has definitely helped steer me back towards purchasing that lens. The price is right, and I've repeatedly read that the build and image quality are nearly unparalleled. In response to your comment regarding only needing the longest focal length on the zoom; I currently always carry an EF 200mm 2.8 USM L II prime with me for that very reason. You've helped reinforce my original plan, and that will be the next lens I purchase.

No problem, and yeah, I used to opt for the 200mm prime over a 70-200, too. (These days I just don't have a use for that focal length so have neither, but when I did I loved that lens.)
There definitely are good reasons for this cheaper 100-400 to exist, but yeah, the old 400 is such a complete package, at such a crazy price now, that it's very hard to imagine you'll be disappointed. There are a lot of great EF mount lenses out there now which are essentially risk-free if you buy and sell used, and I think many people should reconsider their rush to swap everything for new RFs; newer does not always mean better, especially when comparing EF L to RF non-L.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Yes, but f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped.

No, that's not how it works.

The *total* light, integrated across the area of the FF sensor at f/8, is indeed greater than the crop sensor at f/5.6. But in terms of exposure, f/8 is still f/8. If you shoot the same scene at the same time and the same ISO with both cameras set to f/8, they will both require the same shutter speed.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying "The sun is brighter at my neighbor's house because he has a bigger yard."

 

[Kim Bentsen]

f/8 is beyond the diffraction limit for a 45MP sensor!