Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM confirmed, likely in Q4 [CR3]

[SonicStudios]

Wow so Canon maybe redesigning the TC's for the 100-300 and 200-500, OUTSTANDING!!! Hoping the TC is a Combo of both in one converter and below $2000 USD.

 

[AlanF]

A third idea option may be weird but: what if they made a 1/1.4/2x TC that was an EF-RF adapter, and released new telephotos in EF mount!!?? Then the 1.0x position would not need any extra glass, and there'd be room for the mechanical complexities of moving the TC elements in and out. Mechanically and optically it'd be great. This TC adapter would work probably all EF glass. And you could add a few extra contacts to these new EF's that let them have the full bandwidth to the camera of the RF electrical contacts.

That would be stretching weird to the extreme - they want us to buy RF lenses rather than have an adapter to make EF more versatile than RF.

 

[Elmonducky]

Probably just a dream but I would love to see this lens available for Under $8000.

 

[AlanF]

Nice lens. However, I will have to give the price, weight and IQ a good hard look before thinking of replacing it with my current 100-500 rf. If the new lens costs close to the 400 f2.8, I will prefer to buy the 400 and keep my 100-500.

Didn't you buy the 100-400 f/4 then sell it because it wasn't useful enough or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

[Tony5787]

The RF 800 5.6 actually has a super impressive MFD of 8.5 feet, which is pretty surprising, since my EF 500 II is about 12 feet. The 600 III is closer to 14, though.

That’s because it’s a 400 f/2.8 with a 2x extender built into the lens. The minimum focus distance on the RF 800 f/5.6 and 1200 f/8 are identical to the RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 respectively.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But a 200-500/4? This seems useless even for a rich amateur's family photos. You'd get the 100-500 and the 135/1.8 for the kid's sports games and portraits of the wife; if you had a 200-500/4 it'd never leave the house. Only if the amateur were into nature photog would it make sense and even then not sure it's long enough (but yeah, TC). I might be wrong but I'd guess this is like 80% pro (sport and some nature), 20% amateur, or something.

How many RF 100-500/4.5-7.1 lenses has Canon sold? It seems to be a rather popular lens. A 200-500/4 would be for the same subjects, right?

 

[unfocused]

Probably just a dream but I would love to see this lens available for Under $8000.

The 200-400 EF is over $11,000. So yes. Just a dream.

 

[unfocused]

They would introduce a new teleconverter just as I finally obtain both the existing RF ones!

Most likely these will only work on specific lenses like the 100-300 f2.8 and the 200-500 f4. Also, just looking at the rumored designs I can’t see these as walk-around teleconverters.

 

[Ekpil]

TC 0 = Bypass like the EF 200-400 4,0 1,4Ext when you Switch ist off/out

 

[davidespinosa]

TC 0 = Bypass like the EF 200-400 4,0 1,4Ext when you Switch ist off/out

If you put a TC 1.4 on a 100mm lens, you get a 140mm lens.
If you put a TC 1.0 on a 100mm lens, you get a 100mm lens.
If you put a TC 0 on a 100mm lens, you get a 0mm lens.

 

[AlanF]

Two steps: 0x and 1.7x. a 1.4x is not too much of help behind these zooms and 2x is less needed.

See above post as well.
The number with a TC is the multiplier for the new focal length. A 2xTC gives twice the focal length, a 1.4xTC gives 1.4x. A 0 TC gives 0 focal length because a number x0 = 0. A bypass = 1xTC, i.e. leaves it the same.

 

[stillviking]

Unfortunately this will not be a lens for "normal" guys, maybe around $10.000 (?). Why they didn't f5.6? I miss old affordable telelens with quality like 400 mm 5.6 L, where they are nowadays?

 

[SwissFrank]

OK, I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but: the 100-300/2.8 with a 1.4x is 140-480/4.

If you want to shoot around 200-500mm, arguably you're better off with the shorter zoom on a TC as you can grab twice*** the scene at the short end, but pretty much the same at the long end, and otherwise do so at the same aperture.

So I'm left wondering, is the 200-500 sacrificing a lot of wide-end in a tradeoff for some other thing, such as working better with TCs? In other words maybe it's optimized to work with 1.4x or 2.0x itself? Or does it have substantially better AF? Or less weight, or simply cheaper??

*** 1.4x is a linear measurement... square it to get the area equivalent...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I suspect one of their highest goals is to bring in more entry level customers and then to raise those to, if you will, "lower middle

I am just not seeing that.
There always needs to be some significant price gap between offerings but the price of the RF 100-500 L seems out of reach for the target market of the 100-400,
The same goes for RF 50 f/1.8 vs RF 50 f/1.2, RF 85 ff/2 vs RF 85 f/1.2, RF 600 f/11 vs RF 600 f/4, RF 800 f/11 vs RF 800 f/5.6, etc.
The only middle ground is looking at EF primes.
It actually makes some sense if Canon reasons that most people buying at the top end probably already have EF lenses.
Where Canon has plenty of selection are zoom lenses in the standard range.
There is just about every budget between the RF 24-50 and the RF 28-70 f/2.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I miss old affordable telelens with quality like 400 mm 5.6 L, where they are nowadays?

They were discontinued so I reason they were not popular enough.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If you want to shoot around 200-500mm, arguably you're better off with the shorter zoom on a TC

Such an argument will depend on the price difference between the zoom lenses.
At the same time, I can't see very many choosing to do that at the Olympics.

 

[SwissFrank]

I miss old affordable telelens with quality like 400 mm 5.6 L, where they are nowadays?

Good question. We actually have the 600/11 and 800/11 lenses which are kind of in that family.

I grant they don't have the same biggest f-stop as the 200/2.8, 300/4, and 400/5.6, but remember the old SLRs couldn't even autofocus unless you had at least f/5.6, and the viewfinder was quite dark even at f/5.6. And today's sensors have far less noise at ISO2500 than the old film did at ISO100. And we have IS as well. And today's zooms are very very sharp*, while the zooms of the period you name (1991-1993) weren't anywhere as good. I think the f/11 primes are kind of what you want now, but they should probably make a 400/8 IS and 300/5.6 IS to complete the series.

* I got the 135/2 the month it came out in 1996 and it was by far the sharpest black EF lens, maybe only tied with the 180mm macro and 35/1.4 MkII. But today's 100-500/4.5-7.1 zoom is EVEN SHARPER according to my test results posted on this website's forum. (under Lenses, search for SHOOTOUT.)

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I do hope it will focus close,

I imagine that it will focus relatively close on the wide end and a TC would even make the wide end fairly long.
I doubt that magnification will be very high so the 100-500 might still end up being a better choice.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Thanks, I've never seem anything like that before, wild.

No one has.
It would put Canon far in front if it were compatible with every RF super-telephoto lens.
Plus, there is a hack to make RF TCs work with each and every EF lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

there will be many people who use these EF lenses for fun and experimentation

The fact that I can use any EF lens with a rear drop-in filter puts them at an advantage for me.
The lack of a drop-in filter in the RF 100-300 f/2.8 L is a major turnoff for me.