Search results

This makes me think of the presumed 100-500 as a 100-400 with a built in 1.25x extender!

The real question is whether this applies to Canon's camera department, or to the collective hive mind here? ;-)

My confidence is driven by these two alternative scenarios. Imagine a Dilbert style meeting in Japanese culture as the chief designer reports to the VP of new products: 1. “Good news boss! Not only was the team able to successfully adapt our successful 100-400 design to the RF mount, but...

Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market, and Canon folks aren't insane enough to reduce performance in order to extend range.

Amen. And the beauty is that with virtually no engineering resources, then can announce a whole slew of new RF lenses for professionals. Nearly doubling the RF lens selection in a snap. Certainly the 400 and 600 IS III models can be offered in RF. Others maybe, or just await until they (300...

The 100-500 is going to be just as good as the 100-400, with a bonus reach to 500. The laws of physics (shortly to be refined by experts here) tell us that with the 77mm filter size, you can't hold f5.6 much past 400, so the lens will be slightly slower in the bonus zoom range. The above is...

The excitement is right here! Build to L standards, use superior DO (immersion fresnel) optics, optimise size and weight for RF, and paint that sucker white!

The notion of three bayonet joints between a $12,000 lens and a $3500 body makes me cringe.

I was going to have CPS send a 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 DO (I see both in your collection) to try on the possibility of making a used decision between them, but when I'm honest with myself I know I'll just neglect or sell it once I get the RF tele I really want (which might be the 100-500, but...

That certainly meets my criterion of: "Give me the best tele you can with 95mm of glass"! For reference, less than a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II. Amazingly, the Nikon 500 5.6 weighs ~3 pounds - less than the 100-400 IS II. I'll look forward to see what the creators of the light RF70-200 can do...

Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit. I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and...

Think in terms of filter sizes. I'll bet the machinery takes a step up for each size. 77mm gets you the 100-400(500), the 70-200, etc. In the $2000 range for top quality. And the Nikon 300 f4 PF (754g) for that price and the Canon 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 for much less. 82mm is found on the new...

You may be right that today, those who own only RF bodies is a small segment. After the R5 brings switchers that will increase, and as EF owners switch to RF that will continue. If Canon wants to won more switchers, having an appealing range of current pro lenses not requiring adapters reduces...

No, it merely means they they were working on the design, and thought it potentially worth preventing competitors from pursuing the concept. I imagine Canon files many many times more patent applications than they release lenses. I do like the notion of an RF tele-zoom with a 95mm filter size...

My question is this: Would an owner of only R bodies ever buy a new EF big white lens for $7000-12,000 for adapter use, if they could wait for lenses designed for the RF? I've asked this before, and never heard anyone say yes. A working pro might with an immediate and ongoing need surely, but...

It took 33 posts for someone to notice this. With the Canon Cloud, it means that not only are you insured against card failure, but also against theft and a host of other concerns. Cloud+ 1 card is safer than 2 cards? I predict that in a few years many cameras will be like phones, and not...

Agreed: Scoshe: 1-5% Tad: 5-10% Bit: 10-15% Lot: 20%+ Dont recall what 15-20% is.

Good to know. Any good options out there or are we hoping they develop one for this?

I’ll wager the price of the EF lens with a suitable stakeholder. Seriously. Any takers? (Crickets). Those who disputed my assumption most firmly have already offered hypothetical “kudos” to the designers for solving the challenge I presume was an imperative and already met by the fact the lens...

That seems like an excellent offering if they are essentially dropping the crop frame options. With 8(!?) stops of IS and improving high ISO performance, hand holding long lenses should be realistic. 95mm filter size is a sweet spot.