Canon officially announces the development of the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, 1.4x and 2.0x extenders

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
There is a 500mm f/5.6, but as Canon doesn't make it, I have bought the only one available and a D500 on which to fit it. Weighing less than a 100-400mm II and tack sharp, it is a joy to use. Why on earth Canon having invented the technology has not made one, I will never understand. The demand is so high, it's back-ordered. And it's not that expensive, around half the price of a 400mm DO II.
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.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
By the same sort of logic RF 70-200/2.8 should be a teie converter compatible lens. As predecessor was Tele converter compatible. However RF lens is not....
Guarantee is a very strong word. What happens if 100-500 / x-7.1 won’t be F5.6 at 400mm? You loose credibility?
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 is announced. To repeat: the lens is already designed and announced. If they couldn’t have made it 5.6 at 400 this would not be the case. They’d still be working on it or surrendered to the “400 Barrier”.

I’m here for my own enjoyment and sharing of my hobby. As happy to be assumed credible as incredible by others.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
Being a Canon shooter for long.. going to F7.1 was not a typical Canon logic. Far from it. So. Expect unexpected aperture values at around 400mm end. :)
 
Jul 15, 2019
3
3
Do we know if there will be a RF *something*-400mm in addition to that 100-500mm, or is that 500mm supposed to "replace" the 400mm that was rumored here before?
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,049
Will Canon try to sell this lens to anyone who already have the 100-400, though? Or do they target a lower-priced market?
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
Will Canon try to sell this lens to anyone who already have the 100-400, though? Or do they target a lower-priced market?
They have sold a huge number of the 100-400mm II, and it is now going through regular cycles of massive discounts. I would assume that Canon sees a new market in those going into mirrorless, either new customers altogether or from those who have EF lenses. This lens might draw me into Canon mirrorless. Currently, I am very happy with DSLRs. But,if they can knock a few hundred grams off the 100-400, without losing its AF or IQ and increase its focal length, then that could well be a deciding factor for me if the newer mirrorless have improved AF. I think the market is there for an £/$1800-2000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
Of course it wasn't all that long ago that I broke down and bought the 100-400 mk II L
We have two, and worth every penny. We have had so much use from them that I wouldn't care if we had to give them away in a fire sale. Sharp from edge to edge and with AF as good as the 400mm DO II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and SteveC

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
439
113
52
If you were Canon with a venerable 100-400 lens that created a new market category, would you hobble the aperture at 400 in order to extend from 400 to 500 think that your buyers of $2000 lenses wouldn’t care?

Basically, I trust the folks at Canon not to be that insanely stupid. I’m not worried. It will be f5.6 at 400. I guarantee it.
My guess is that you are 100% correct. I just don't see them screwing with that METRIC. The RF mount perhaps helped their engineers add the extra 100mm with not too much weight-gain, not change the size too much - diameter, with only a 'minor' ding to the maximum f-stop (but no impact at 400mm).

Fun times for us photographers - professionals or hobbyists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.
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. Lots of possibility there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stitch

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.
no, it does not. it is though an indication of possibilities. this is a rumor website and not a repository of registered products. You asked for an indication of Canon's intent. well, here is an indication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stitch

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
342
146
7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..

Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.
You should be able to use the 100-500 as a 100-400 that is 5.6 at 400 [EDIT: or close enough to 400 that it doesn't matter at all in real world shooting]. Then you can reach to 500 if you want, but no-one's forcing you to.

In short, 100-500+TC is a 100-400 + TC, that can also do a bit more if you want to and accept the downsides of the smaller f-stop.

Also, there are at least some occasions for at least some users where they're only using the TC because they need a bit more than 400. Maybe they'd ideally like 560mm, but 500mm without TC, shot at f/7.1 instead of f/8, gives just enough less noise, allowing a bit more crop, that it's a very workable substitute. Meanwhile you lose the cost/weight/size of a TC, and the cost/weight/size of the EF-RF adapter, and gain 100-140mm too.

In short, in some cases 100-500 without a TC , is a 100-400 with a TC.
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
You should be able to use the 100-500 as a 100-400 that is 5.6 at 400. Then you can reach to 500 if you want, but no-one's forcing you to.

In short, 100-500+TC is a 100-400 + TC, that can also do a bit more if you want to and accept the downsides of the smaller f-stop.

Also, there are at least some occasions for at least some users where they're only using the TC because they need a bit more than 400. Maybe they'd ideally like 560mm, but 500mm without TC, shot at f/7.1 instead of f/8, gives just enough less noise, allowing a bit more crop, that it's a very workable substitute. Meanwhile you lose the cost/weight/size of a TC, and the cost/weight/size of the EF-RF adapter, and gain 100-140mm too.

In short, in some cases 100-500 without a TC , is a 100-400 with a TC.
Your assumption that 100-500 will be F5.6 at 400mm is most likely incorrect. Review your position based on 100-500 is at F6.3 at 400 and F7.1 at around 420mm and up. So probably not as straight forward as it would appear at a first sight.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
342
146
Your assumption that 100-500 will be F5.6 at 400mm is most likely incorrect. Review your position based on 100-500 is at F6.3 at 400 and F7.1 at around 420mm and up. So probably not as straight forward as it would appear at a first sight.
What makes you think it would be f6.3 at 400? Did you see that in the patent or something, or is it just a guess? To be clear my guess is as guess. I might not be right but I wouldn't tell someone who thought otherwise that they were "most likely incorrect".
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
What makes you think it would be f6.3 at 400? Did you see that in the patent or something, or is it just a guess? To be clear my guess is as guess. I might not be right but I wouldn't tell someone who thought otherwise that they were "most likely incorrect".
it has been discussed many times on this forum. there numerous signs that the lens will unlikely to be F5.6 at 400mm end:

girth is one of these signs. observe how 100-400 / 4.0-5.6 changer its F number through focal lengths.

Model
f/4.0​
f/4.5​
f/5.0​
f/5.6​
f/6.3​
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens
55-63mm​
64-99mm​
100-154mm​
155-250mm​
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens
55-73mm​
74-95mm​
96-153mm​
154-250mm​
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ISL USM Lens
70-103mm​
104-154mm​
155-228mm​
229-300mm​
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
70-84mm​
85-134mm​
135-224mm​
225-300mm​
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens
70-94mm​
95-184mm​
185-300mm​
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens
100-129mm​
130-259mm​
260-400mm​
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
100-134mm​
135-311mm​
312-400mm​
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Lens
80-134mm​
135-249mm​
250-400mm​
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens
150-173mm​
174-312mm​
313-500mm​
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens
150-225mm​
226-427mm​
428-600mm​



now.. with that in mind, and based on information available at hand, I suggest that Canon RF 100-500 lens will be F6.3 at around 400mm. I suggest revisit this conversation when information become available. all the best for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwooding and AlanF

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
It does get frustrating when there has been considerable discussion on a topic, like the possible aperture of the 100-500mm at 400mm, and a new poster makes a comment without having read the earlier exchanges. But, there are so many back posts to plough through for those not logging in frequently that polite repetition as here is helpful.