Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount

[shire_guy]

The 200mm-500mm f/4L and 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L both sound real interesting. Able to take TC's would be a must.
But if they came out with a lighter 500mm f/4L able to take TC's that would be perfect.

 

[risto0]

I would like to see a zoom of 400-600 f4 or 500-600 f4, with built-in 1.4x.

 

[koenkooi]

I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L. A lot more speed (nearly two stops), and a decently wide zoom range. But the 100-500 is still appealing to carry along and handhold.
Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L. Like with a TC plus some speed.

The real answer for one with a 100-500 seeling real differentiations: a 400 f2.8 for serious speed (or 600 f4 if length is preferred).

For me, the minimum focus distance and magnification were the main reasons to like the EF100-400II L and RF100-500L, I bet the lenses in this patent are all worse in that regard.

 

[degos]

I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare

Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...

Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.

 

[Deleted]

Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...

Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.

Doesn’t that depend on the air show? Bournemouth vs Farnborough springs to mind.

 

[AlanF]

Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...

Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.

Yes, I wince every time some wise guy tells you to get closer as a), it's not always possible and b) you get a larger image if you get just as close with a longer lens as a shorter one.

 

[Alam]

Well, it's your money

Just imagine, does going from 35mm to 28mm really matter? Especially with today's dense sensor

That's how much you get going 500 to 600, practically nothing

Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...

Sometimes there's no substitute for reach

 

[bbasiaga]

I'm really curious to know what's going on with that 150-600. How could they sell that for $4-5k USD, vs a smaller and lighter 100-500 that people like, but which they are already worried about the price point over? You also have the Sigma sport and Tamron lenses there in the $1500-2k range. I know the rumor and patent implies L series, but I wonder if they are possibly going to go mid-scale with this? Probably not, but one can hope.

I always lusted after the EF 200-400 f4. But none of the $10k plus lenses are realistic for me. If money were no object, that 200-500 would look pretty sweet on the sidelines of my daughter's soccer games!

Brian

 

[koenkooi]

I'm really curious to know what's going on with that 150-600. How could they sell that for $4-5k USD, vs a smaller and lighter 100-500 that people like, but which they are already worried about the price point over? [..]

Canon marketing: "Hey, a lot of internet commenters are very upset about f/7.1, I wonder how much they'll pay extra for f/6.3, $2000?"

 

[Antono Refa]

Both Tamron and Sigma make 150mm-600mm lenses, I bet Canon wants a piece of the cake.

An RF 300-800mm f/8L? That would be an impressive lens, but it would be about as expensive as the EF 800mm f/5.6

 

[tron]

Huh? really? You want to go hiking, wigh 150-600? I own tamron 150-600 G2 and
Trust me, going from 500 to 600 is not that huge, miniscule compared to weight and extra siR you need to carry from 100-500

I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare

600/500 does not work.

The magnification is (600/500)^2 = 1.2^2 = 1.44 Which means 44% more. It may or may not be significant depending on distance and bird size.

Sometimes for static birds when I use a car I bring my 500mm and put 2X to make a 1000mm f/8 lens. Fortunately 500mm 4L IS II behaves very well with the EF2XIII. It works well with 5DsR and R5 with adapter.

 

[tron]

A would rather have a DO 600mm f/6.3 lens but no luck

Fortunately there is Nikon's 500mm 5.6 PF

Canon's 100-500 seems to me a more general purpose versatile lens for birds, flowers, small mammals, bees, etc...

 

[goldenhusky]

I would love to see Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L at a price somewhere around $2500 USD mark but given Canon' price history lately they will abuse their market leader position and charge well north of $3000 USD.

 

[bbasiaga]

I would love to see Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L at a price somewhere around $2500 USD mark but given Canon' price history lately they will abuse their market leader position and charge well north of $3000 USD.

With the 100-500 already at $2900 US, and this lens being longer and faster, I think the floor is $4k if it is an L series lens.

Here's a nice conspiracy theory for everyone - what if that lens is a collaboration lens with Sigma? Maybe we haven't seen anything from Sigma on the RF mount yet because they are going to release them under Canon's name, like some of the recent Tamron designs that are Nikon or Sony badged....

Brian

 

[Hector1970]

Looks like some good options. Probably from expensive to eye-watering expensive.
Personally I'd like a 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 L Lens.
100-400 is a little short at times and I don't use it too often at the 100mm end.
I'd prefer a longer option.
I have 600mm F4 II and while its a wonderful lens it's difficult to move around and not very flexible.
It's hard to get a single solution for all needs.
While I love the 600mm F4 II I don't think I'd recommend it. The weight, the solid tripod it requires, Wimberly Gimbal.
The weight all adds up. By the time you can afford one you are too old to use it.
200-600mm would be a sweet point for me.
I'm sure some day it will appear. Sigma will do it if Canon don't.

​

 

[Chig]

How about just a competitor with the Nikkor 500 pf in size, price and performance?

Yep , RF 500mm DO f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x T.C

 

[Jasonmc89]

Just give me a 500mm f5.6 prime please, Canon.

 

[AlanF]

How about just a competitor with the Nikkor 500 pf in size, price and performance?

I used to think that until I got the RF 100-500mm and found it was hardly less sharp than my 500PF, and had all the advantage of a zoom with much closer focussing at the cost of only 2/3rds stop.

 

[Copland]

I have the EF 200-400/4, nice lens.
But the lens of my dreams would be a RF 400/2.8 with 1.4x or better a 300-400/2.8 with 1.4x

 

[Bdbtoys]

Sigh, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.

It performs great and you will have it now/soon. These are just patents... they may never come out.