Is an RF 100-500mm lens on the way? [CR2]

[sid.safari]

Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.

The new 600mm f/4 III is exceptionally light for what it is.

I know it would be a heavy lens, and it would cost north of $13000. And it's likely never going to be built that fast. I expect it to be a 100-500 variable f/3.5 - 5.6. Hopefully L quality but i wouldn't be suprised if it was a sub $2000 lens. ($1799 if i were to guess).

But just imagine a 100-500mm f/4 with TC. It would be every wildlife photographers dream lens. As exciting as the Canon 200-400 f/4 was when it first came out -- only this would be for their shiny new RF system. But yeah...very little chance of it happening.

 

[ahsanford]

A RF 100-500 f/4?

No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!

I think it was implied that Canon was aiming future supertele zoom at the various sub-$2K superteles out there.

Also, if you are prepared to drop north of $10k (which is what a 100-500 f/4 would cost), you wouldn't do it for a 5x zoom multiple design. It simply wouldn't be as sharp as it could be.

Something relatively inexpensive (still talking $1500-2500 here) that natively gets RF users to 500 or 600 seems far more needed and likely to occur to me.

- A

 

[Dragon]

The new 600mm f/4 III is exceptionally light for what it is.

I know it would be a heavy lens, and it would cost north of $13000. And it's likely never going to be built that fast. I expect it to be a 100-500 variable f/3.5 - 5.6. Hopefully L quality but i wouldn't be suprised if it was a sub $2000 lens. ($1799 if i were to guess).

But just imagine a 100-500mm f/4 with TC. It would be a wildlife photographers dream lens. As exciting as the Canon 200-400 f/4 was when it first came out this would just as big for the RF system. But yeah...very little chance of it happening.

Frankly, with the increased AF performance, improved high ISO performance, and increased resolution coming down the road I would rather have the smaller lens if it is nice and sharp. All too often, f/4 does not offer enough DOF to get an adequate portion of an animal in focus so the faster lens will be stopped down a lot of the time anyway. Long, sharp, and sensibly portable is the hallmark of the 100-400 and is also the key to a large market with this one.

 

[sid.safari]

I think it was implied that Canon was aiming future supertele zoom at the various sub-$2K superteles out there.

Also, if you are prepared to drop north of $10k (which is what a 100-500 f/4 would cost), you wouldn't do it for a 5x zoom multiple design. It simply wouldn't be as sharp as it could be.

Something relatively inexpensive (still talking $1500-2500 here) that natively gets RF users to 500 or 600 seems far more needed and likely to occur to me.

- A

Perhaps. But there are zooms...and there are ZOOMS.

I know it's not apples to apples, but the 200-400 f/4 is not your average zoom. And lets not forget someone once made a 200-500 f/2.8. Yes, it's crazy and weighs as much as a panzer tank. But they made it....So, it can be done. Should it be done? Well, as a wildlife photographer I say it should. Let the market decide.

Hell, I know a few people who have the 200-400 TC and they claim IQ is better than the primes and it's significantly more versatile in the field.

 

[sid.safari]

Frankly, with the increased AF performance, improved high ISO performance, and increased resolution coming down the road I would rather have the smaller lens if it is nice and sharp. All too often, f/4 does not offer enough DOF to get an adequate portion of an animal in focus so the faster lens will be stopped down a lot of the time anyway. Long, sharp, and sensibly portable is the hallmark of the 100-400 and is also the key to a large market with this one.

I think you'll get what you want...Canon knows the numbers. The 100-400 II outsold the 200-400 f/4 TC by a factor of 100 or more.

I was just hoping for a halo product. Something to blow everyone out the water. I knew at the time of writing it that it wasn't a realistic thing. Perhaps just aspirational.

 

[Dragon]

I think you'll get what you want...Canon knows the numbers. The 100-400 II outsold the 200-400 f/4 TC by a factor of 100 or more.

I was just hoping for a halo product. Something to blow everyone out the water. I knew at the time of writing it that it wasn't a realistic thing. Perhaps just aspirational.

At some point, you may get your halo product, but I doubt it will be the first long zoom for the R. I am thinking that kind of thing will come along with an R1 with a big and strong enough body to swing that kind of glass around. In the meantime, the EF big whites will work just fine. As I have said before, I love my 800L, but portable it is not.

 

[sid.safari]

At some point, you may get your halo product, but I doubt it will be the first long zoom for the R. I am thinking that kind of thing will come along with an R1 with a big and strong enough body to swing that kind of glass around. In the meantime, the EF big whites will work just fine. As I have said before, I love my 800L, but portable it is not.

I take your point and agree completely -- everything I have said hinges on a future R1 exceeding all expectations and taking the crown from the 1dx III.

But hey...if the R5 comes in as rumored...*fingers crossed*...I can't see how the R1 won't be even better!

 

[ahsanford]

Perhaps. But there are zooms...and there are ZOOMS.

I know it's not apples to apples, but the 200-400 f/4 is not your average zoom. And lets not forget someone once made a 200-500 f/2.8. Yes, it's crazy and weighs as much as a panzer tank. But they made it....So, it can be done. Should it be done? Well, as a wildlife photographer I say it should. Let the market decide.

Hell, I know a few people who have the 200-400 TC and they claim IQ is better than the primes and it's significantly more versatile in the field.

But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.

What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.

They need a modest 200-500 5.6 or 200-600 f/6.3 to fill a missing piece in their lineup.

- A

 

[AlanF]

Local hearsay but it's relevant. Yesterday, I mixed with plenty of birding photographers. It was mainly Canon 100-400mms and Tamrons and Sigmas. Two guys next to me in a hide had 500mm f/4 Nikons and Canons, and were moaning about the weight. One was thinking of going over to Olympus. They then got excited at seeing the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. Pros will continue to use the big f/2.8s and f/4s but the much larger amateur audience have flocked and will continue to flock over to the lighter cheaper lenses. Tamron and Sigma set the revolution going with their cheap and good 150-600mms. Canon responded with the much delayed 100-400mm II. Nikon has lightweight primes and Sony its revolutionary 200-600mm. The lady next to me in a hide this morning waited 8 months to get her 500/5.6 PF delivered this week. When I started with long telephotos 8 years ago, there were very few suitable lenses with IS outside of the big whites. The genie is out of the bottle, and I have no doubt Canon will rise to the challenge.

 

[tron]

Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.

Even more! The 200-400 was heavier than the 500!

 

[sid.safari]

Local hearsay but it's relevant. Yesterday, I mixed with plenty of birding photographers. It was mainly Canon 100-400mms and Tamrons and Sigmas. Two guys next to me in a hide had 500mm f/4 Nikons and Canons, and were moaning about the weight. One was thinking of going over to Olympus. They then got excited at seeing the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. Pros will continue to use the big f/2.8s and f/4s but the much larger amateur audience have flocked and will continue to flock over to the lighter cheaper lenses. Tamron and Sigma set the revolution going with their cheap and good 150-600mms. Canon responded with the much delayed 100-400mm II. Nikon has lightweight primes and Sony its revolutionary 200-600mm. The lady next to me in a hide this morning waited 8 months to get her 500/5.6 PF delivered this week. When I started with long telephotos 8 years ago, there were very few suitable lenses with IS outside of the big whites. The genie is out of the bottle, and I have no doubt Canon will rise to the challenge.

You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!

Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.

 

[Optics Patent]

But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.

What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.

They need a modest 200-500 5.6 or 200-600 f/6.3 to fill a missing piece in their lineup.

I'd say after 6 weeks of testing a 400mm f2.8 IS III that the adapter to body connection was a little wobbly. Not enough to harm images, but enough to give a feeling that a true RF build would be worth the wait.

No quarrel with your point, and as I've posted elsewhere, an RF version of the 400 IS III is nothing more than an summer engineering intern modifying the rear housing and using flex circuits an inch longer.

 

[tron]

But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.

What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.

They need a modest 200-500 5.6 or 200-600 f/6.3 to fill a missing piece in their lineup.

- A

Canon will always be more expensive than 3rd party lenses. Al they have to do is to make the above mentioned lens with very high IQ and as light as possible. YMMV,

 

[tron]

You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!

Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.

I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.

 

[mpmark]

Why? How heavy would it be?

have you not seen the 200-400 F/4? this would be 100-500 F/4, even bigger! the 200-400 is 13k

 

[AlanF]

You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!

Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.

They have to carry the gear around with them to get to the hide and it's a pain using it outside with tripods and gimbals.

 

[AlanF]

I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.

Sorry, I missed this before I replied - I too could not believe he had missed the obvious.

 

[sid.safari]

I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.

I guess anything is possible. Can't say i've encountered such people before...but I guess there always someone out there complaining their big, fast glass is just too big and too fast!

 

[sid.safari]

They have to carry the gear around with them to get to the hide and it's a pain using it outside with tripods and gimbals.

Hmm...Ok.

 

[sid.safari]

have you not seen the 200-400 F/4? this would be 100-500 F/4, even bigger! the 200-400 is 13k

I've seen it. Used it. Recommend it!

Yes it will be expensive, and heavy and ridiculously cool.

So far, I don't see a problem.