Canon readies the RF 200-500 f/4L IS with the discontinuation of the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

[David - Sydney]

Sony has won this battle years before Canon even entered the race. You just don't want to admit it.

Please provide the marketshare or sales revenue or profitability data to even slightly defend your assertion

 

[David - Sydney]

Well, as a point of comparison, the new 100-300 is extremely sharp. Basically optically perfect even with a 1.4x on it, wide open. I suspect the 200-500 will perform similarly.

I guess that is my point that Canon is replacing the EF300/2.8 (and perhaps the RF200-500 vs EF500) because it has been able to make a zoom just as sharp. Zooms have always been considered a compromise vs primes but canon is "surprising" us again.

 

[David - Sydney]

How do you define ‘true replacement’? By many accounts, the EF 600/4 III falls just short of the EF 600/4 II in terms of wide open sharpness. Is the MkIII not a true replacement for the MkII?

A 'true replacement" is whatever Canon defines it to be... and the best example will be the lack of replacement of an EF equivalent lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please provide the marketshare or sales revenue or profitability data to even slightly defend your assertion

Troll-boy bought the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3, and most likely can't afford what the Canon 200-500/4 will cost anyway. What's to defend?

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 'true replacement" is whatever Canon defines it to be... and the best example will be the lack of replacement of an EF equivalent lens.

That was the point of my question – the 'optical reviews that determine if it is sharp enough wide open' are irrelevant. If Canon deems it the replacement, it is. They won't say that, of course...and who knows, even though the RF 100-300/2.8 is as sharp wide open as the EF 300/2.8 II, it's substantially larger so perhaps there will be an RF 300/2.8 (and RF 500/4) at some future point.

 

[David - Sydney]

Troll-boy bought the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3, and most likely can't afford what the Canon 200-500/4 will cost anyway. What's to defend?

my preference is to hold them to account rather than a simple putdown. Maybe they will take it as a learning experience and "do their own research"

 

[rontele7]

Perhaps you are new to photography, it's hard to tell since you apparently haven't shared even a single image here. In fact, the difference between f/4 and f/6.3 is noticeable at 600mm, often more so than the difference between 500mm and 600mm. I say this as someone who typically shoots birds at 840/5.6 (600/4 + 1.4x), because 600mm is often not long enough, but I do use the bare lens and also the 100-500 on occasion, and I've compared them both formally and in field use.

Funny how you suggest the background blur at f/4 and f/6.3 is 'identical', when that difference is 1.33-stops compared to the 1.67-stops between f/6.3 and f/11. Perhaps you are new to either logical discourse or math...or both. As for ISO, at f/11 many of my bird images would be at the absurd values of 1000-2000, making your point effectively useless. As for the lens itself, the many excellent images posted with the 600/11 and its 800/11 brother, quite a few right here on this forum, make it clear that you're clueless about these matters.

See what you did? You crawled back out of your cave and managed to embarrass yourself even further. Well done!

Ahhh I get it now. You're a bird nerd.

And you shoot at f/11.

Enough said.

 

[neuroanatomist]

my preference is to hold them to account rather than a simple putdown. Maybe they will take it as a learning experience and "do their own research"

This is from nearly two years ago. Seems there is either a lack of willingness or a lack of ability to learn (or both).

Too bad Canon offers such limited options when compared to Sony. Either $12k for a massive heavy lens, or $699 for an unusably slow lens. The new 100-500 is unusably slow too.

Meanwhile Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k, which is the perfect combo of speed, reach, and price.

Canon is WAY out of touch with the market.

Notice how 500/7.1 is ‘unusably slow’ but 600/6.3 is ‘perfect’. Asinine.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ahhh I get it now. You're a bird nerd.

And you shoot at f/11.

Enough said.

Ahhh I get it now. You're unable to comprehend what you read.

Enough said.

 

[rontele7]

Please provide the marketshare or sales revenue or profitability data to even slightly defend your assertion

Good lord, which century did you learn your debate tactics? We are discussing lenses, not market share.

You must be a boomer.

 

[rontele7]

Ahhh I get it now. You're unable to comprehend what you read.

Enough said.

Wow, I just looked at your images. No wonder you are fiercely defending f/11 lenses. You couldn't make a good photo if your life depended on it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Good lord, which century did you learn your debate tactics? We are discussing lenses, not market share.

You must be a boomer.

Assumptions, assumptions... and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt which neuro definitely isn't inclined to do!

Note to self not to feed the troll but... a) I am not a boomer (which I suspect is not a compliment) and b) marketshare/profitability is the key to most things commercial which you seem to lack the basic understanding of.

Canon not having an exact competitive offer to one Sony lens will not mean that "Sony has won this battle years before Canon even entered the race". Canon's ongoing dominant marketshare and profitability means that they are dictating the market rather than other players.
I can't see how you are "debating" or "discussing" by your comments at all.
Perhaps venting your frustrations in DPR's forums will receive a more favourable response than here.

 

[fogleman]

I'm convinced that the only people complaining about the 100-500 are people who have never used it.

That said, the gap between it and the 600 f/4 is huge in terms of size and weight (and price). I really do wish Canon had something like a zoom that went to ~ 600 f/6.3 with similar IQ to the 100-500. A little bigger and heavier but a bit more reach and a bit faster. Bonus points if it can accept a teleconverter throughout its full zoom range. The 600 f/4 is just too damn big, and I'm afraid the 200-500 isn't going to be much better.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 600 f/4 is just too damn big, and I'm afraid the 200-500 isn't going to be much better.

The RF 100-300/2.8 is 75 mm / 3” longer than the EF 300/2.8 II. If that’s true for the RF 200-500/4 compared to the EF 500/4 II, the new RF zoom will be longer than the 600/4. Probably a bit heavier, too. We’ll find out when/if the lens is announced.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't see how you are "debating" or "discussing" by your comments at all.
Perhaps venting your frustrations in DPR's forums will receive a more favourable response than here.

S/he would certainly fit in better with the rancorous resonance and the plethora of puerile pr!cks for which DPR is known.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Sony has a 200-600mm for $2000. Will the Canon 200-500 be lighter, cheaper, or otherwise better than the competition?

Or will it be substantially more expensive, and substantially heavier, and substantially less practical?

Knowing Canon, it will be the latter.

But vice versa Sony doesn't offer a light cheap 100-400 like Canon. Sony 70-300G is too expensive for what it is, and the f number matters little when there's good high ISO capabilities in modern cameras(plus AI denoise in post-process).

 

[DhlcadR6]

Perhaps you are new to photography, it's hard to tell since you apparently haven't shared even a single image here. In fact, the difference between f/4 and f/6.3 is noticeable at 600mm, often more so than the difference between 500mm and 600mm. I say this as someone who typically shoots birds at 840/5.6 (600/4 + 1.4x), because 600mm is often not long enough, but I do use the bare lens and also the 100-500 on occasion, and I've compared them both formally and in field use.

Funny how you suggest the background blur at f/4 and f/6.3 is 'identical', when that difference is 1.33-stops compared to the 1.67-stops between f/6.3 and f/11. Perhaps you are new to either logical discourse or math...or both. As for ISO, at f/11 many of my bird images would be at the absurd values of 1000-2000, making your point effectively useless. As for the lens itself, the many excellent images posted with the 600/11 and its 800/11 brother, quite a few right here on this forum, make it clear that you're clueless about these matters.

See what you did? You crawled back out of your cave and managed to embarrass yourself even further. Well done!

but....modern mirrorless can use ISO3200 and below easily & safely without much noise. For those 24MP cameras, up to ISO12800 is feasible.

 

[neuroanatomist]

but....modern mirrorless can use ISO3200 and below easily & safely without much noise. For those 24MP cameras, up to ISO12800 is feasible.

Of course…that was the point of my (sarcastic) reply.

With DxO’s NR, I can get usable results from ISO 25600 in a pinch.

 

[koenkooi]

but....modern mirrorless can use ISO3200 and below easily & safely without much noise. For those 24MP cameras, up to ISO12800 is feasible.

Depending on the subject, I’m happy with the R5 at ISO25600 and DxO DeepPrimeXD. But you have to really watch your exposure!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Ahhh I get it now. You're a bird nerd.

And you shoot at f/11.

Enough said.

It's posts like yours that put me off this forum. Do you really go around spewing out this kind of stuff?
I really don't know why this forum attracts this poor behaviour. Are you a left over from the DPreview forums?