Will the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II replacement for the RF mount be a zoom?

[tron]

100-500 is overpriced but not many lenses especially zooms behave so well with teleconverters.

 

[davidespinosa]

Made in Japan can't compete in price with Made in China.

 

[Sdentrem]

I thought I was waiting for the new RF 500 to replace my 500 EF F4, but now this new angle would work for me. I’m doing more video, which I tend to shoot wider, and a built in extender is great as I have one on 90 pct of the time. I do realize that I’ll likely have to give up the 1 kg savings that I expected, as per what the version IIIs of the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 got.

Simon

 

[Del Paso]

I was shooting Sony when they came out with their 200-600. Was amazing for the price. At the time, I owned their excellent (and at the time lightest-by-far) 600mm f/4. The price of the 200-600 was crazy low and surprised everyone. But Sony was under pressure at the time because super telephoto was a great weakness among its lens line-up.

I found I used the 200-600 much, much more than the big f/4 lens simply because it was smaller, and as I moved around the woods, it wasn't like I was carrying a suitcase around, bumping into things. Because the f/4 was so light (this was before the EF 600 f/4 III, by the way), I would sometimes take it instead for darker days in the woods, where the light was at great premium.

But the image quality on the 200-600 was really adequate for most things, including magazine resolution images after big crops. It was also super-fast focusing. This is a picture of a crazy brittany coming at you around minimum focus distance at around 200mm (the weaker IQ end of the focal range).

I bought into the Canon RF mount before the Canon 100-500 came around, and I sorely missed that 200-600. Because of the extra native focal length and the fact that the Canon 100-500 doesn't take teleconverters in a convenient manner (IQ is great, but the retracted length becomes awkward), I'd probably prefer the 200-600 if Canon offered one identical to the Sony.

I am not holding my breath for this, though.

Do you own this beautiful little dog?
Because I was almost sure it's an English Springer Spaniel

 

[AlanF]

If Canon now brought out a 200-600mm comparable in price and performance to the Sony, it would be highly popular with birders who currently can only afford a 600/11. Those people in most cases probably can't afford an RF100-500. A good affordable 200-600 would only mildly eat into sales of the RF100-500, because those who can afford the latter will choose it anyway, due to the wider max aperture, much more rugged and weather resistant build, better optical performance, and provision of hood, case and tripod foot.

A 600 f/8 has a wider aperture than a 500mm f/7.1 - 75mm vs 70.4mm diameter. The 600mm will put on more photons per duck than the 500 and give better signal to noise at the same shutter speed - just up the iso by a 1/3rd of a stop for the f/8, and it's not the iso that gives the S/N but the number of photons per duck. The 600/8 will also give slightly better isolation of the subject. The crucial factor would be the optical quality.

 

[birdman916]

I’m kinda afraid to post this because it seems like I will be in the minority but…every canon product I’ve ever bought has been great and I’m currently going to start saving monthly to afford this rumored lens as it sounds amazing for me and I am happy with canon for making this for birders. I don’t have any charts or graphs or ten dollar words to throw into the mix but this is how i feel

 

[entoman]

A 600 f/8 has a wider aperture than a 500mm f/7.1 - 75mm vs 70.4mm diameter. The 600mm will put on more photons per duck than the 500 and give better signal to noise at the same shutter speed - just up the iso by a 1/3rd of a stop for the f/8, and it's not the iso that gives the S/N but the number of photons per duck. The 600/8 will also give slightly better isolation of the subject. The crucial factor would be the optical quality.

Yes, all the more reason to launch a good zoom that's 600/8 at the long end. If the RF100-400 is anything to go by, optical quality on a modestly priced Canon 200-600/5.6-8 would be good enough for most bird photography - it's not a genre that I'd regard as particularly demanding of fine detail resolution (bird feathers compared e.g. to butterfly wings, which have ultra-fine detail and demand really good optics).

 

[scyrene]

Yes, it's great that there are now affordable options for long focal lengths, and I'm grateful to Canon for that. The RF lineup at the top end is very comprehensive, more than enough for most pros and affluent amateurs. Likewise the bottom end is very complete - everything from 16-800mm and plenty of zooms. It's just the middle ground that IMO needs more coverage.

The most affordable native RF alternative to the 800/11 seems to be the 800/22 that results from putting a 2x extender on the RF100-400. It zooms back and focuses closer, but the F22 aperture and detrimental effects of the 2x extender seriously undermine its usability and performance. That's why I bought the 800/11 instead (which I've since sold).

A better but much more expensive alternative is to put the 1.4x extender on the RF100-500, which gives a range of 420-700mm and F10 at the long end. That's what I use now, and as expected, it's far better in almost every regard to either the 800/11 or 600/11.

I'm very happy with what I've got. My plea for middle-ground lenses comes from listening to my birding friends, who become very frustrated when they see folk with a very nice, affordable Sony 200-600mm, but find nothing comparable in the Canon range.

FWIW, my recommendation to these guys (and gals) is to buy a mint used *EF* 100-400 and attach it to an R7, with or without a 1.4x extender. It's an excellent combination at a modest price.

A minor point but the 2x extender on the 100-400 at 400 yields an 800mm f/16, not f/22. Obviously that's still extremely narrow, especially to those of us who come from a DSLR background, but not unusable; I haven't yet got the 2x so can't comment on that specifically but I will say the 800 + 1.4 which is also f/16 is surprisingly good. Both these setups are extraordinarily small and light for their reach and image quality.

My original point was that there wasn't much of a middle ground offering for these folk in all the EF years - I guess the EF 100-400 filled that niche, but its replacement as we all know is the 100-500, which is expensive but I still don't see a big enough gap in the lineup for the lens your birding friends might want. Canon have never responded to Nikon's 500 f/5.6 either, so presumably they see things differently. You keep asserting this imaginary zoom would be popular - I think they would know better than us either way. (If we're offering them advice I'd rather they just dropped the price of the 100-500 by 1/3, say).

A secondhand EF 100-400 is definitely a good compromise budget choice, or there are the third party EF x-600mm zooms.

 

[entoman]

A minor point but the 2x extender on the 100-400 at 400 yields an 800mm f/16, not f/22.

Sorry, silly error on my part ...

Obviously that's still extremely narrow, especially to those of us who come from a DSLR background, but not unusable; I haven't yet got the 2x so can't comment on that specifically but I will say the 800 + 1.4 which is also f/16 is surprisingly good. Both these setups are extraordinarily small and light for their reach and image quality.

The 1.4x extenders are very good and when used with good lenses produce very good sharpness. The 2x extenders (both EF and RF) are a different story. Most reports I've read, here and elsewhere, says that the performance is pretty poor, even on a RF100-500. Putting one on a RF100-400 will apparently produce *usable* results, but not satisfying results. Diffraction will be quite pronounced at a small aperture like F16, and that will be magnified by an extender. Also you're pretty much restricted to bright sunlight if you are shooting moving subjects, unless you jack up the ISO. DeNoise is pretty good at tackling high ISO/low light noise, but it's still best to avoid high ISO as the DR will be a lot worse.

My original point was that there wasn't much of a middle ground offering for these folk in all the EF years - I guess the EF 100-400 filled that niche, but its replacement as we all know is the 100-500, which is expensive but I still don't see a big enough gap in the lineup for the lens your birding friends might want. Canon have never responded to Nikon's 500 f/5.6 either, so presumably they see things differently. You keep asserting this imaginary zoom would be popular - I think they would know better than us either way. (If we're offering them advice I'd rather they just dropped the price of the 100-500 by 1/3, say).

A secondhand EF 100-400 is definitely a good compromise budget choice, or there are the third party EF x-600mm zooms.

Yes, it's definitely true that Canon see things differently and prefer to go their own way, rather than follow the routes of Nikon or Sony (it beats me why Nikon and Canon always had their controls operating in different directions on their DSLRs!). I think it's unlikely that Canon would be seen to "copy" Sony or Sigma by launching an affordable 200-600 or 150-600, although it's quite possible that they might at some stage produce an alternative solution such as a budget 300-600/5.6-8. That could be produced more cheaply than a 200-600, it would be lighter and more compact, and would complement the 100-400. Birders rarely have need for anything shorter than 300, so a 300-600 might be popular at around £1600.

 

[tron]

I’m kinda afraid to post this because it seems like I will be in the minority but…every canon product I’ve ever bought has been great and I’m currently going to start saving monthly to afford this rumored lens as it sounds amazing for me and I am happy with canon for making this for birders. I don’t have any charts or graphs or ten dollar words to throw into the mix but this is how i feel

As long as you do not have alternatives and you are OK with the size and weight of the specific lens I do not see why not. It is perfectly OK.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A cheap and sharp RF 200-600 f/8 would seriously eat into sales of the 100-500mm.

I am not so sure.
It would be a completely different kind of lens.
It would probably eat into the RF 100-400 sales more.
If it costs $2K USD that would not be much of a problem.
It would probably be much cheaper to make than the 100-500 L so eating into those sales might not be much of a problem either.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A minor point that occurred to me yesterday, an advantage the 100-400 + extender has over the f/11 lenses is its much closer MFD

Canon gets severely mocked for the RF 800 f/5.6 but that is pretty much what they were thinking.
Most birders preferred using a 600 f/4 x 1.4 TC over the EF 800 f/5.6 because of the MFD and lighter weight even though they cost the same and the 800 f/5.6 was significantly sharper.
Nikon went ahead and made a 600 f/4 x 1.4.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

How many Sony 100-400s that sell at £600 more than their 200-600s do you see in hides and on safaris? Not many I would guess because the birders went for the longer cheaper lens when it came out, which would be the likely scenario if Canon brought out a cheap but good 200-600.

The 100-500 L would still be better for a lot of sports and aviation photography.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Most RF products are relatively expensive, so I would generally expect them to be a little more than rivals' equivalents

Most RF L lenses are exactly $1 USD more than the Sony GMaster equivalents.
It does not usually matter whether the Canon or the Sony one comes out first.
The Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 is $2 USD more than the Nikon 120-300 f/2.8.

 

[[email protected]]

Do you own this beautiful little dog?
Because I was almost sure it's an English Springer Spaniel

Her name is Pompanoosuc. She's a pointing dog. Us brittany owners tell people (and it's half-true) that american brittanies aren't actually spaniels. They have a lot of setter and pointer in them genetically nowadays - especially the ones out in the Midwest, but the AKC folks are unlikely to admit it. It's a long story.

I used to fool with bird dogs competitively, but this girl is a sandwich-stealing pet. She's genius at it. If this effort and cunning could be turned to good, I'm sure I could retire early. But, as it is, my wife comes home today and tells me she got extra turkey with the groceries with the expectation of shrinkage.

I set up a camera trap at the dining room table to prove it...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yes, those lenses are aimed at budget birders, they are primarily for people who want to play with long focal lengths experimentally to see how they get on, rather than at more "serious" users.

Canon has a history of being an affordable entry point but people choosing other brands to go to the next level because there is too large of a gap between entry-level and pro-level gear.
By the way, the RF 100-500L is prosumer but that is still a huge gap from the RF 100-400.
It is going to end up with RF 100-400, RF 100-500 L, and RF 200-500 f/4 L with nothing in between.
Sigma and Tamron could potentially sit in between the 100-400 and 100-500 but not between the 100-500 and 200-500.
Where Canon does have a healthy selection is with zoom lenses starting around 24 mm.

Canon RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens​

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Lens​

Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM Lens​

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens​

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens​

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM Lens​

 

[mimbu]

Because those bolt-on adapter RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are the EF MkIII designs that were released after the R series came out, while the EF 300/2.8 and 500/4 are MkII designs from over a decade ago.

I don't see why that would stop Canon, since Canon users seem happy to hand over large quantities of money for recycled EF glass on RF mount.

 

[AlanF]

Sorry, silly error on my part ...


The 1.4x extenders are very good and when used with good lenses produce very good sharpness. The 2x extenders (both EF and RF) are a different story. Most reports I've read, here and elsewhere, says that the performance is pretty poor, even on a RF100-500.

I have loads of bird shots posted on CR and some dragonflies etc with the RF2x on the RF 100-500mm. It's a very sharp combo, much better than the EF2x on the EF 100-400mm II, especially close up. A few of us tested it 2 years ago on CR and we were very pleased https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-2x-extender-anyone-used-one.40408/
And I followed up here with detailed comparisons https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/

 

[Del Paso]

Her name is Pompanoosuc. She's a pointing dog. Us brittany owners tell people (and it's half-true) that american brittanies aren't actually spaniels. They have a lot of setter and pointer in them genetically nowadays - especially the ones out in the Midwest, but the AKC folks are unlikely to admit it. It's a long story.

I used to fool with bird dogs competitively, but this girl is a sandwich-stealing pet. She's genius at it. If this effort and cunning could be turned to good, I'm sure I could retire early. But, as it is, my wife comes home today and tells me she got extra turkey with the groceries with the expectation of shrinkage.

I set up a camera trap at the dining room table to prove it...

Such a beauty!
I too had a "sandwich stealing" dog, an Irish Setter. He would leave the bread intact, and flee
with the cheese or meat...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't see why that would stop Canon, since Canon users seem happy to hand over large quantities of money for recycled EF glass on RF mount.

It is not like the EF 400 f/2.8 and EF 600 f/4 were old lenses.
They were not on the market very long when Canon adapted them to the RF mount.
Of course, they are behind the Nikon lenses.
Those just recently came out.
Canon would not need to make new lenses in order to catch up.
They just need to add built-in teleconverters.
Due to the long backfocus on supertelephoto prime lenses, there is not much of an advantage to native mirrorless.
That is why going with zoom lenses like the 100-300 f/2.8 makes sense over just sticking with a 300 f/2.8 prime.