An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
147
115
UK
Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.
I bet you’re getting some amazing shots! Have you been to North Seymour Island? That place was incredible!
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,214
736
People will be using the EF big whites for at least the next decade, the end of next year is fast enough.

Plus, if it was released now people would just complain that the bodies aren't good enough to use it on (Like they have with the 28-70 f2, the 50 f1.2, the 85 f1.2, and nearly every other lens that's come out).
Guess what slow gets you? It gets you the best AF dslr lens selection with very few competitors in most areas and lens sizes. It gets you fair prices, it gets you great service and in quite a few cases, best in class build quality.
 

dick ranez

I'm New Here
Apr 26, 2013
10
4
This lens has been rumored for at least two years. I'm tired of waiting, so the new Tamron 150-600 is the winner. Haven't ever bought a lens that wasn't Canon before, (for my canon Systems) but that's long enough.
 

LensFungus

EOS T7i
Apr 8, 2017
53
197
I'm a little bit sad that they killed the long rumored EF 100-600mm or 200-500mm (I guess that was the so called supertelephoto zoom lens from the article).
 

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
147
101
Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).
I think that they are aiming to have a "quartet RF" 11mm-24mm, 24mm-70mm, 70mm-200mm and 200mm-500mm, which, to me, sound like a good plan when it will come together.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RGB86 and Jasonmc89
How would they shorten it like the 70-200 when the 100-400 is already ... a collapsing telescopic zoom?
The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.

Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

PCM-madison

EOS 80D
Dec 9, 2013
114
44
The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.

Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.
I have the RF 24-105 F4 L IS and EF 24-105 F4 L IS v1 and they are almost exactly the same size.
 
I have the RF 24-105 F4 L IS and EF 24-105 F4 L IS v1 and they are almost exactly the same size.
The RF version is about 1/2" smaller and 1/4 lb lighter than the mk. II EF that I had for comparison. I didn't realize that the mk. II was that much larger than its predecessor. I looked up the specs though, and you're right. Nearly same size, and it turns out the Mk. I was actually an ounce or so lighter than the RF. Was very impressed by the RF lens in service, though. (I had it and an RP for a week on a rental, my only complaint was that I had to send them back.)

Its definitely incorrect for me to say that the size difference is across the board though - the RF 50mm f/1.2 is dang near twice the size and twice the weight of its EF equivalent.
 
Last edited:

Tom W

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2012
220
152
200-500 f/5.6 IS and a 1.4X teleconverter would make a very good birding kit.
Especially with a pretty fast sporty body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonmc89

Drcampbellicu

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2019
57
47
Completely agree
24-70 and 100-400 is my backpacking 2 lens combo
I love the idea of a 200-500 as well but the 100-400 announcement will be exciting.

Now please announce a high speed body with autofocus improvements and mirrorless.
I’m not interested in any 5Dsr variant.

Yeah I’d be happy with a 100-500 but a 200-500 would be a far more wildlife focussed lens than a 100-400. I use my 100-400 at the short end of the zoom a lot for mountain landscapes and it pairs really well with a 24-70 for a two lens kit. If it was an RF 200-500 I’d feel like I have to carry the 70-200 as well to fill in that gap.

I guess I can still use the Ef 100-400, I know that, but hey if you’re going to pick a side in the mirrorless wars then you want to be able to use the new lenses. After all, the lens designs that are possible with the new mount are the best reason for moving to mirrorless as far as I can see.

Btw, where is the rf 1.4x extender rumour? There must be one in the pipeline for the 70-200, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,774
Canada
Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).
At the moment, they have that lens in EF mount and you can use it with an adapter. To my mind, it makes more sense to developer lenses that add to the system first.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
Sep 8, 2012
926
37
FWIW, the EF 100-400 mkii works very well with an adapter on my RP. But, it is a bit long and hand-holding is not quit the same experience as it is on my 5D mkiv. If an RF 100-400 were released, I'd need to consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,774
Canada
FWIW, the EF 100-400 mkii works very well with an adapter on my RP. But, it is a bit long and hand-holding is not quit the same experience as it is on my 5D mkiv. If an RF 100-400 were released, I'd need to consider it.
Yes,

I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.

For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,173
1,759
Irving, Texas
Yes. Yes, they will.
If they could just get people to quit peeing in their corn flakes every morning, they might have better attitudes. Most of the complainers will never be buyers anyway. Personally, I am praying for a 70-135 f/2... but that may never be a lens made. Until then, I have my sights set on the RF 85mm f/1.2, or a fast 135. It will take me a couple of years to raise the money anyway, so no rush or complaint here. I'll make do with my lowly 28-70 until then. ;) And my fast vintage manual focus lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,173
1,759
Irving, Texas
Yes,

I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.

For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!
Exactly. Canon done good.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
246
348
I think that they are aiming to have a "quartet RF" 11mm-24mm, 24mm-70mm, 70mm-200mm and 200mm-500mm, which, to me, sound like a good plan when it will come together.
Hopefully all at f2.8, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 came out over a decade ago and nothing has replaced it yet.