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

[SwissFrank]

they want us to buy RF lenses rather than have an adapter to make EF more versatile than RF.

OK, so set aside the idea of EF, and just call it XXX for a second. I think my mention of EF distracted you from the advantages of my proposal. Here's the proposal, reworded:

ALL the long lenses should have been XXX mount, with enough electronic contacts for the RF system. The XXX mount would have a long-enough back focus (film-to-flange distance) to allow the creation of a teleconverter that could swing optics for a 1.4x, 2.0x, or 2.8x TC into the optical path, or leave that space empty for 1.0x.

Budget/backpacking users would have to use an adapter from XXX to RF. But it wouldn't make the lens any longer, I don't think, than it is today, because the actual lens would be that much shorter. People could just leave it on and pretend it doesn't detach.

But more flexibly, you could have an expensive, bulky TCs that can give you hollow (for 1.0x) or swap in optics for 1.4x, 2.0x, or even 2.8x into that space with the throw of a lever. This would be expensive and bulky but super-powerful. Then you'd also have simple 1.4x and 2.0x TCs as we know and love, with no moving parts. All of these TC's would convert from the XXX to RF mount as well. They wouldn't be like the EF TC's whereby they were designed to take a lens designed to be the same mount and same film-to-flange they themselves have.

So now the question is simply, what should this XXX mount be? Well, Canon already has such a mount, the EF, if that allows enough space for a 1.4x, 2.0x, or 2.8x to squeeze into that space. So the question boils down to: is Canon better off at extracting money from our pockets by making XXX a brand new mount, called RFTele or something? Or could they call it RFEF, and make it so such lenses work fine on EF cameras as well, AND, the new super-TC works with all EF glass?

I'm not saying I have the answer on that, in fact I don't even have an opinion. I'm just pointing out that this could have been a great way to go.

Result: their initial release of a 300/2.8 (say) would actually be a 300/2.8, 400/4, 600/5.6, and 840/8 at the same time. A 600/4 would be 600/4, 840/5.6, 1200/8 and 1700/11. That in turn would have made RF users feel like they were getting a lot of optical capability really fast out of the gates.

----

Also, the big white lenses' lens cases should have little places purpose-designed to hold TCs, and extension tubes, and drop-in filters. There's obviously space in the case for such things, and having empty places to carry this stuff I'm sure would lure a few more people to fill those spaces in...

Finally, when first introducing long lenses, they should have had the TC's and extension tubes all ready at the same time.

 

[SwissFrank]

That's interesting because I haven't seen any reviews that agree with your assessment that RF lenses are HUGELY better than EF.

Well, the link below has my analysis, complete with actual-size target photos to consider. I designed the test so you should be able to just look, and understand how the different lenses work.

When I got the 135/2 in 1996, it was (according to Canon's old Lens Work book, the only source of MTF's for all EF lenses) the sharpest black lens Canon made, except the 180/3.5. After that, I think only the 35/1.4 MkII was similar sharpness.

Today's 135/1.8 absolutely beats the EF135/2 to a pulp, at least in my tests.

Even the 100-500 beats it very handily.

I'm happy to discuss further, and maybe you have some insights whereby I should reconsider that conclusion, but if so why don't we discuss in the comments on the following thread.

135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Rzrsharp]

I believe they can make a zoom lens as good as a prime many years ago. They just don't want to.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

I suspect no one has mentioned it because most people are better at math.

300mm x 1.4 is 420mm, not 480mm.

420mm is not ‘around 500mm’. Your argument might apply to the EF 200-400/4 (although that differentiates with an optimized, built-in 1.4x), but the lens being discussed here is a 200-500/4.

Moreover, a bare 200-500/4 will be optically better than the 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x, and the former with a 1.4x becomes 280-700/5.6 and with 2x becomes a 400-1000/8, both with far more reach than the 100-300 with extenders.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But, I am more inclined to fall back on @neuroanatomist 's assessment of the market, which is that the real money and real demand is always in wealthy amateurs who have disposable income and no need to balance the expense against earnings.

There is a statement in the developer interview for the 100-300/2.8, “As a brand new flagship for the large aperture telephoto L zoom lenses…” I think the implication of a forthcoming lineup of fast, long zoom lenses is consistent with that market shift.

The RF 400/600/800/1200 supertele primes were ‘low-hanging fruit’ – short development timelines and limited effort by starting with the existing, recent 400/600 designs and bolting on an adapter and internal 2x TC (some optimization for the latter).

The RF 100-300/2.8 is the first ‘great white’ lens designed directly for RF, and it seems the RF 200-500/4 will be the second. Zooms, not primes.

With modern engineering, zooms rival primes for optical performance. We see that comparing the MTFs of the RF 100-300/2.8 with the EF 300/2.8 II, and I suspect we’ll see it with the 200-500/4 vs. the EF prime. In that context it’s worth noting that the EF 400/600 III updates reduced weight but delivered minimal (if any) optical improvements over the MkII versions. Optical performance of supertele primes seems to be at an asymptote, and zooms are now performing at that level.

One thing that separates pros from enthusiasts is access. A pro at an event can go where they need to, move along the sidelines, etc. At some events there are designated areas at fixed distances (e.g. a pit next to the dugout near first base in baseball, a pit in front of the stage, etc.). In those scenarios, a prime works very well.

Enthusiasts often have less control over where they are in relation to the action. They’re seated in a venue, the action moves around but they cannot. In those scenarios, the flexibility of a zoom is a big advantage.

Also, the popularity of zoom lenses has far surpassed that of prime lenses in the past two decades. We saw this in the EF lineup, where the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6 were not updated, while the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L were both updated in EF and rapidly transitioned to RF.

I wonder if we’ll see supertele primes developed for RF going forward, or if instead Canon will focus on large aperture telephoto zooms for which the 100-300/2.8 is the flagship? We may not see a new RF L-series prime of 200mm or longer (except perhaps a 200/4 macro). That wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[timmy]

Would prefer the flexibility with the built in tele. Obviously I don’t know how much the lens will weigh but when a lens weighs 6 lbs, you don’t notice if it weighs 5lbs 12 oz or 6lbs 4 oz. The built in weight of the tele is irrelevant at this point, especially when 99% of people that use this kind of lens will always use it on a tripod, no matter how many stops of IBIS the camera has. Still looking forward to having it!

 

[SonicStudios]

The mention of a new upcoming TC for the 100-300 and 200-500 hopefully, IMO, would be cool if it was a combo of 1.4 and 2x with a bypass switch. Personally I don’t care about weight, I’m tripod or mono 24/7. I would think the glass in this combo will be really good, specifically made for theses new zooms

hummmmmm, wonder if this is our new converter for zooms ... https://www.dpreview.com/news/51693...-teleconverter-with-is-and-variable-nd-filter

 

[mpmark]

If this were true, then why even bother with a very short minimum focus distance? The fact that there is a short minumum focus distance sorta proves that people are - and will - use it for short range subjects like flowers, insects, dragonflies, etc. I certainly do.

You’re missing the point, if YOU like to take pictures of flowers close up and bugs, you are NOT buying a $12k plus 400/2.8, 600/4 lens. People buying these lenses bought them for different purposes. The large whites usually magnify .12x to .2x macro capabilities. Don’t be silly honestly

 

[Dragon]

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.

It depends on where you make the cut between entry and "lower middle". I would say anyone who goes beyond the kit lens and buys a prime (at least anything beyond the 50mm f/1.8) has stepped into that lower middle category, so that puts the 100-400, the 600 and 800 f/11, the 24 and 35 f/1.8, the 85 f/2, and the little 16mm all in that bracket. The 70-200 f/4 and the 14-35 are at the upper end of that bracket and both (particularly the 1435) have come down in price recently. Whether the initial higher price on the last two was due to Covid shortages or simple cream skimming is hard to tell. There may also be an effort to clear EF inventory before cutting prices too far on RF lenses.

I think the bigger hole is in the step to upper middle (and again, it depends on where you make the cut). I agree that selection in the $1k to $2k range is kind of thin, but maybe that is just anticipatory recognition that currencies around the world are inflating at a record pace and raising prices is a lot harder than cutting them. One thing that is nice is that there are no real dogs in the lineup. Even that little 24-50 is quite sharp. I use the 24-240 on my R5 as as walk-around lens and have never had any complaint about the image quality.

 

[AlanF]

OK, so set aside the idea of EF, and just call it XXX for a second. I think my mention of EF distracted you from the advantages of my proposal. Here's the proposal, reworded:

ALL the long lenses should have been XXX mount, with enough electronic contacts for the RF system. The XXX mount would have a long-enough back focus (film-to-flange distance) to allow the creation of a teleconverter that could swing optics for a 1.4x, 2.0x, or 2.8x TC into the optical path, or leave that space empty for 1.0x.

Budget/backpacking users would have to use an adapter from XXX to RF. But it wouldn't make the lens any longer, I don't think, than it is today, because the actual lens would be that much shorter. People could just leave it on and pretend it doesn't detach.

But more flexibly, you could have an expensive, bulky TCs that can give you hollow (for 1.0x) or swap in optics for 1.4x, 2.0x, or even 2.8x into that space with the throw of a lever. This would be expensive and bulky but super-powerful. Then you'd also have simple 1.4x and 2.0x TCs as we know and love, with no moving parts. All of these TC's would convert from the XXX to RF mount as well. They wouldn't be like the EF TC's whereby they were designed to take a lens designed to be the same mount and same film-to-flange they themselves have.

So now the question is simply, what should this XXX mount be? Well, Canon already has such a mount, the EF, if that allows enough space for a 1.4x, 2.0x, or 2.8x to squeeze into that space. So the question boils down to: is Canon better off at extracting money from our pockets by making XXX a brand new mount, called RFTele or something? Or could they call it RFEF, and make it so such lenses work fine on EF cameras as well, AND, the new super-TC works with all EF glass?

I'm not saying I have the answer on that, in fact I don't even have an opinion. I'm just pointing out that this could have been a great way to go.

Result: their initial release of a 300/2.8 (say) would actually be a 300/2.8, 400/4, 600/5.6, and 840/8 at the same time. A 600/4 would be 600/4, 840/5.6, 1200/8 and 1700/11. That in turn would have made RF users feel like they were getting a lot of optical capability really fast out of the gates.

----

Also, the big white lenses' lens cases should have little places purpose-designed to hold TCs, and extension tubes, and drop-in filters. There's obviously space in the case for such things, and having empty places to carry this stuff I'm sure would lure a few more people to fill those spaces in...

Finally, when first introducing long lenses, they should have had the TC's and extension tubes all ready at the same time.

Interesting idea.

 

[sanj]

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?

No Alan. I have both the 100-500 and the 100-400. Very different applications...

 

[unfocused]

...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...

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?

Since I know nothing about lens design and production costs, I always have a hard time wrapping my head around the significant cost differences between lenses.

For example, the difference between the RF 100-400 at $599, vs. the RF 100-500 at $2,699. That sounds like a lot, but then factor in the price of the EF 100-400 at $2,399, which makes the 100-500 price seem about right. Then introduce the 200-400, at $12,000, which is probably the floor for this new 200-500.

Or compare an 800 mm f11 for $899, vs. a f5.6 800 mm for $17,000. That's $16,000 for a two-stop difference.

Another example, the EF 500 mm f4 is $9,000, more than $6,000 more than the RF zoom, which has less than a two-stop difference.

My conclusion is that the incremental cost of adding an f-stop or additional focal length can be huge in some cases. My other conclusion is that some market segments are not large enough to justify dividing up among multiple lens variations. Let's take that ancient EF 400mm f5.6, which used to retail for around $1,200 at the time of its demise. It seems like a bargain when compared to the EF 400 f2.8 at $12,000 or the EF 400 f4 DO at $6,900 ($5,700 for one stop improvement). But, it seems overpriced when compared to the RF 100-400, which gets you a zoom at half the price, less weight and less bulk for the cost of one stop at 400mm.

Factor in the improvements in sensor design over the last decade, which had made a one or two stop difference much less significant than during the film days when some of these lenses were released. The 400mm f5.6 dates back to the film days, when the best you could get was about ISO 400. You can shoot that 100-400 RF zoom at ISO 1600 in the same light as the 400 f5.6 and get a better image than you could with 400 ISO film.

Now, I understand that some people still yearn for these older EF lenses, but I think there are at least two things to keep in mind. First, is there really enough of a market to justify some of these lenses and second, let's remember that Canon is just beginning to build out its RF lineup. We don't know what they may offer in the future.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My conclusion is that the incremental cost of adding an f-stop or additional focal length can be huge in some cases.

Consider that one stop means twice the amount of light collected, two stops means four times as much light. The limiting factor there is the entrance pupil, and for telephoto designs that’s essentially the front element. So compared to an 800/11 an 800/5.6 needs a front element and the elements just behind it four times the area (twice the diameter). A lot more glass, and more robust construction to hold it.

It seems like a bargain when compared to the EF 400 f2.8 at $12,000 or the EF 400 f4 DO at $6,900 ($5,700 for one stop improvement). But, it seems overpriced when compared to the RF 100-400, which gets you a zoom at half the price, less weight and less bulk for the cost of one stop at 400mm.

The RF 100-400 is f/8 at 400mm, two stops narrower than the 400/4 DO.

Factor in the improvements in sensor design over the last decade, which had made a one or two stop difference much less significant than during the film days when some of these lenses were released. The 400mm f5.6 dates back to the film days, when the best you could get was about ISO 400. You can shoot that 100-400 RF zoom at ISO 1600 in the same light as the 400 f5.6 and get a better image than you could with 400 ISO film.

Sure, but expectations change with the times.

 

[Czardoom]

You’re missing the point, if YOU like to take pictures of flowers close up and bugs, you are NOT buying a $12k plus 400/2.8, 600/4 lens. People buying these lenses bought them for different purposes. The large whites usually magnify .12x to .2x macro capabilities. Don’t be silly honestly

Yes, sorry misunderstood. You replied to someone mentioning the RF 100-500. That was the lens I was referring to. (I consider it a big white...) These $12,000 lenses are indeed for a more specific purpose.

 

[unfocused]

The RF 100-400 is f/8 at 400mm, two stops narrower than the 400/4 DO.

Please read my statement again: "Let's take that ancient EF 400mm f5.6, which used to retail for around $1,200 at the time of its demise. It seems like a bargain when compared to the EF 400 f2.8 at $12,000 or the EF 400 f4 DO at $6,900 ($5,700 for one stop improvement). But, it seems overpriced when compared to the RF 100-400, which gets you a zoom at half the price, less weight and less bulk for the cost of one stop at 400mm."

The subject of the sentence, 'it,' refers to the EF 400 f5.6, which is one stop faster than the 100-400 RF at 400mm and one stop slower than the EF DO 400mm Sorry if my sentence construction was confusing.

---

Your comments regarding telephoto design provide a nice technical explanation that underpins my main point.

That being that seemingly small, incremental differences in lenses can translate into major price differences and that there may not be room between any two lenses to slot a third lens that falls neatly in the middle or toward the lower end of the pricing structure. And, I think you would also agree that Canon is not done filling out their RF lens selection, so we may yet see some lenses slotted in between the lowest cost consumer lenses and the eye-watering L super telephotos.

It would not surprise me in the least to see Canon come up with one or more lenses that fill slots formerly filled by the f5.6 400, the f4.0 DO 400, the 70-300 L and the 300 f4. I don't expect one-for-one replacements, but it does seem likely that Canon will flesh out the line a bit more over the next 1-3 years.

 

[birdman916]

I’m a birder and have the R5 and 100-500. I’ve attached some images. I like the quality of my photos but often look at images on IG and get super envy. I realize a lot of that is post processing techniques and wizardry and that is not a strong suit of mine. Often the photos I am envious over are taken with a bigger prime type lens. If I buy this 200-500 I think I will hand hold it with my cotton carrier because I wouldn’t want to be hindered by a tripod while birding. I think I will buy this lens because I believe it will take my photos to another level with lower f stop and better bokeh. I’m not sure tho and I’m hoping the scientists on here that pontificate with tables and charts and shit like that can tell me why I shouldn’t do that

 

[Cariboucoach]

Only one ?

You could donate part of you liver as it regenerates itself. Maybe a new lens every year or so.

 

[Click]

Beautiful series, birdman.

​

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please read my statement again: "Let's take that ancient EF 400mm f5.6, which used to retail for around $1,200 at the time of its demise. It seems like a bargain when compared to the EF 400 f2.8 at $12,000 or the EF 400 f4 DO at $6,900 ($5,700 for one stop improvement). But, it seems overpriced when compared to the RF 100-400, which gets you a zoom at half the price, less weight and less bulk for the cost of one stop at 400mm."

The subject of the sentence, 'it,' refers to the EF 400 f5.6, which is one stop faster than the 100-400 RF at 400mm and one stop slower than the EF DO 400mm Sorry if my sentence construction was confusing.

Thanks and apologies. I missed that. I even looked up the price of the 400/5.6 myself because I was going to make the very point you made, that’s how badly I missed it!

Your comments regarding telephoto design provide a nice technical explanation that underpins my main point.

That being that seemingly small, incremental differences in lenses can translate into major price differences and that there may not be room between any two lenses to slot a third lens that falls neatly in the middle or toward the lower end of the pricing structure. And, I think you would also agree that Canon is not done filling out their RF lens selection, so we may yet see some lenses slotted in between the lowest cost consumer lenses and the eye-watering L super telephotos.

We might. But I think we’ll see many more on the ends of the spectrum for the next few years. There’s seemingly a 28/2.8 that’s imminent and priced at $300. I’m hoping it’s a pancake, but either way it’s a cheap lens and the 200-500/4 will be the opposite.

It would not surprise me in the least to see Canon come up with one or more lenses that fill slots formerly filled by the f5.6 400, the f4.0 DO 400, the 70-300 L and the 300 f4. I don't expect one-for-one replacements, but it does seem likely that Canon will flesh out the line a bit more over the next 1-3 years.

I really doubt we’ll see lenses like the 300/4 or 400/5.6 in RF, or any approximation of them. The 100-500 is the replacement of the 100-400L that replaced those primes.

I view the RF 100-400 as the replacement for the EF 70-300 non-L. We might see an RF L in that vein, but I doubt it.

Definitely agree there’s more fleshing out to do, for example I do think we’ll see 24 and 35 fast L primes and a 10/11-24 L zoom. Those lenses will likely be in the $2-3K range, I’m not sure that counts as filling out the middle.

 

[GoldWing]

Crazy... We've not bought any Canon glass since the 1DXMKIII. Until the R1 is out and we can test it with big whites, we're not opening our budget. Ready to buy 20 to 26 R1's and all their new glass kits... Nikon has a made a dent here with the Z9... But to be honest, we're less than thrilled with focus and tracking by Nikon's Z9