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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
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.
Sorry, but it’s not reasonable at all. First, the RF 24-105 wasn’t significantly shorter, and the RF 50/1.2 is a helluva lot bigger (both of which were discussed above).

But for the 70-200 you’re missing a key point — the RF 70-200/2.8 is substantially shorter than the EF version because the RF lens is an extending design, an inner barrel extends as you zoom, just like the RF/EF 24-105 , the EF 70-300L, and many other zoom lenses. The EF 70-200 lenses are all fixed length, non-extending lenses. The reason the RF lens is shorter is that extending design — when zoomed to 200mm, the RF lens is actually a bit longer than the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, such that the sensor-to-front-element distance is about the same for RF and EF.

The EF 100-400 already has an extending design (that was the point @degos made), so there’s no reason to think an RF version will be shorter (but good reason to think it’ll be 20-25mm longer).
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,148
1,082
Alberta, Canada
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!
... And make use of the filter adapter on the 11-24!

Jack
 
Jul 10, 2019
4
3
There's only one reason to think it's 'too late', and that's missing the huge PR opportunity of a real pro R body and a lens like this for the Tokyo Olympics next summer. Of course they just have to announce it and have test copies in the hands of a few select individuals. But if anyone thinks there's not a PR battle to be won by the Japanese camera companies over the Olympics they've missed the point.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
492
291
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!
Now that I have the CPL adapter I'm a bit more inclined to consider EF lenses before looking at RF lenses.
 

Danglin52

EOS T7i
Aug 8, 2018
73
56
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.
[/QUOTe

What lenses would you prefer Canon produce that add more value to the system? Your comment about using the adaptor applies to the entire lineup of EF lenses. Or are you suggesting the 200-500 instead of the 100-400? Personally, I would like to see them complete the lineup of zooms for the RF mount that covers 16mm-400mm.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
456
266
Frankfurt, Germany
200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available.
In fact, I do meet a lot of Nikonians with Nikons 200-500 when I go birding. Looks like Nikon has regained some potential Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lens users back with that lens. But I guess that Canon will not come up with a completely new designed wildlife lens for the R system first, an R version of the very good 100-400 is most probable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPAZ

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
456
266
Frankfurt, Germany
The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.
Interesting to read, since I met this year quite a lot of Nikon 200-500mm users when I go birding. But I know from my wife's Nikon gear that Nikonians generally have to live with a not so brilliant AF system :devilish:, Nikon's highly acclaimed 3D tracking doesn't really work well with many birds in real life photography (soft feathery contours etc.).
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
456
266
Frankfurt, Germany
Nikon has a 200-500, a 500 f5.6, and an excellent 300 f4.
Did Nikon finally tackle their problem with de-centered lenses in their 300 f/4 VR? See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/

Decentered lenses seemed to be really a problem with Nikon gear in the past years. My wife decided to get a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens and not a Nikon 500mm f/4 VR in 2012, after she read a rare and thorough lab review of long tele lenses in a German photozine. It revealed that most of their tested Nikon lens copies suffered from de-centered lenses. Canon's and Sigma's lenses in that review were all nicely centered. My wife was already unhappy about her latest Nikon gear from the digital age, because of a lot of failures she didn't ever experience with her older analogue Nikon gear, including her faulty Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S lens (needed two AF drive replacements so far). It turned out, that my Canon gear is much more durable and reliable, when used in rugged environments (birding, wildlife).
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,225
415
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.
My guess is that they will choose an optical design that balances well with the body it is designed for. The mkiii versions of both the 600 f4 mk and 400mm f2.8 have advantages over the mkii in that respect.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Sorry, but it’s not reasonable at all. First, the RF 24-105 wasn’t significantly shorter, and the RF 50/1.2 is a helluva lot bigger (both of which were discussed above).

But for the 70-200 you’re missing a key point — the RF 70-200/2.8 is substantially shorter than the EF version because the RF lens is an extending design, an inner barrel extends as you zoom, just like the RF/EF 24-105 , the EF 70-300L, and many other zoom lenses. The EF 70-200 lenses are all fixed length, non-extending lenses. The reason the RF lens is shorter is that extending design — when zoomed to 200mm, the RF lens is actually a bit longer than the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, such that the sensor-to-front-element distance is about the same for RF and EF.

The EF 100-400 already has an extending design (that was the point @degos made), so there’s no reason to think an RF version will be shorter (but good reason to think it’ll be 20-25mm longer).
From my understanding, the RF 100-400 is likely to be longer than the current ef version. The focal length is measured from the sensor / film plane. The lack of a mirror box flange actually makes telephoto lenses longer than DSLR lenses of the same focal length....ie 35mm longer. Lens designers can mitigate this a bit...but too much and it will effect image quality.
Mirrorless is great for wide lens designs because there isn't a need for DSLR style retro-focus formulas. But with telephoto designs...DSLR has a mechanical advantage.

I think there is a market for both the 100-400 and 200-500. The latter being bought by photographers who want a long lens to augment their existing f2.8 zoom trinity. The 100-400 is more useful to the f4 zoom community (16-35 F4 LIS / 24-105 f4 LIS)

I see a lot of 100-400L on wild life workshops...which is a testament to how versatile this lens range is. It's the combination of reach, AF speed, IS and handling weight. Depending on how large the 200-500L would be compared to the existing 100-400L is the deal / no deal question. Add to the fact that Canon have already sold a LOT of 100-400L's...a lot of photographers feel that they already have this focal length covered.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,152
1,684
Canada
My guess is an ultra wide zoom first, then a long 200 to something, and finally a 70 to 200
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
364
316
117
Williamsport, PA
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).
100-400 MII is NOT a pus pull.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

12Broncos

EOS M50
Jul 20, 2019
28
32
Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'