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

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,349
4,472
So all those folks walking around with a Sigma 150-600 (either variety) are doing the impossible? (They are both f/6.3 at 400). If AF and IS work better and DR and noise are also improved, how is 1/3 of a stop the end of the world?
I was replying to the comment "You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x." with you will only be able to do that if the lens is f/5.6 at 400mm, because we don't know yet what the aperture will be at 400mm. I happen to walk around sometimes with a Sigma 150-600, and it is really good at 400mm f/6.3. So, I don't understand your post.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
161
137
I was replying to the comment "You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x." with you will only be able to do that if the lens is f/5.6 at 400mm, because we don't know yet what the aperture will be at 400mm. I happen to walk around sometimes with a Sigma 150-600, and it is really good at 400mm f/6.3. So, I don't understand your post.
Sorry, I didn't interpret you comment correctly. With DPAF, shooting at f/9 or even f/10 (at 700mm) should be an issue. I am sure Canon evaluated all these issues very carefully before moving in this direction. I regularly use my 800L with a 2x TC and have no issue with DPAF at f/11 and the newer bodies keep getting better at AF.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,349
4,472
Sorry, I didn't interpret you comment correctly. With DPAF, shooting at f/9 or even f/10 (at 700mm) should be an issue. I am sure Canon evaluated all these issues very carefully before moving in this direction. I regularly use my 800L with a 2x TC and have no issue with DPAF at f/11 and the newer bodies keep getting better at AF.
No offense taken! I think that the 100-500 will be a very successful lens, although it's not top of my list. I am very happy with just the bare 100-400mm II on the 90D for a walk around around lens as the pixels have got so small f/8 is becoming limiting. A 500/7.1 might actually be optimal for the lightest kit with a high density R series. My guess is that the new generation of cameras with effective smaller tele lenses is going to change what the amateur uses for nature photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape
Feb 14, 2020
3
0
For me it is not that simple what amateurs should use for wildlife photography. A amateur can sacrifice build quality and weight but needs a versatile zoom lens that wont ruin his limited time in the weekend. A f/7.1 is not a versatile lens. It's a huge restriction. I see some people talk about IBIS... sorry but IBIS won't freeze the movement. Some talk about raising the ISO but on a crop like 80/90D a bird photograph above ISO 1600 looks bad. High ISO ruins the feather detail. For me a 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop like D500 is a versatile combo. At the moment Canon don't have lens or body to satisfy the amateur bird photographer.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,349
4,472
For me it is not that simple what amateurs should use for wildlife photography. A amateur can sacrifice build quality and weight but needs a versatile zoom lens that wont ruin his limited time in the weekend. A f/7.1 is not a versatile lens. It's a huge restriction. I see some people talk about IBIS... sorry but IBIS won't freeze the movement. Some talk about raising the ISO but on a crop like 80/90D a bird photograph above ISO 1600 looks bad. High ISO ruins the feather detail. For me a 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop like D500 is a versatile combo. At the moment Canon don't have lens or body to satisfy the amateur bird photographer.
Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.
 
Last edited:

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,488
258
S Florida
Brad, you said "I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm" I said "I'll take the bet," and gave some of my presumptions and technical speculations below as to why (you call these "assertions" to justify what others describe as a snotty response). You call these assertions to justify "calling me out." Is this a playground bully battles I've stumbled into? Are there alpha nerds I'm threatening with technical speculations? Here what I wrote that seems to have triggered you - emphasis added:

Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500.

Granted, lens design has subtleties, and there would presumably be issues introduced (possible mechanical getting that telescope distance - I'd cringe at a three-part telescope). But it's hard to imagine that the change would require reducing the aperture at 400mm. That's the last solution the designer would be allowed by the boss to revert to.


If seeing my actual words causes you to reassess anything you posted, please let me know.
You seem to be quite confused about the series of responses. Nothing "triggered" me in any way at any time. The "snotty" response had nothing to do with our very limited repartee, it was a reference to others. I said all I had to say with my "if only life were that simple" remark. You did come off several times as asserting your view like an armchair quaterback, but I couldn't care less. You may want to reread the thread...
 

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
24
25
I agree completely, plus you still have access to 100mm instead of 140mm. That matters to me as I need the reach for the racing event on the water and then try to capture the smiles as they paddle back into the dock.

However, they announced a 2x alongside this 100-500 as well, which puts it beyond f/11, what new tricks for focus limits might the new R5 have up it's sleeve?
Also we don’t know how good the new sensor is at high iso it could be a lot better than what we currently have with the R and RP.
 

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
24
25
Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.
From what I’ve read the 500 5.6 PF is a great lens, I was kinda hoping Canon would release something similar to either the Nikon 200-500 5.6 or the Sony’s new 200-600 its priced well and I like the idea of the internal zoom but I guess the Canons 100-500 will be a lot more portable and lighter which can be a huge benefit.
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
171
156
Also we don’t know how good the new sensor is at high iso it could be a lot better than what we currently have with the R and RP.
True. But lets not have too high expections. 1 stop is a lot (thats a wholetech generation). Dont expect more than that.
 
Feb 14, 2020
3
0
Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.
I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.
 
Feb 14, 2020
2
0
Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,488
258
S Florida
Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.
I am amazed. I just went on about how there's no way that could be true in the R5 thread. I have since visited Canon Japan and it does appear that those images are accurate. So I guess that means that no lens wider than 100 will be able to use them. I am shocked that they won't work on the 70-200 and serve me up a big dish of crow...
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
171
156
Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.
Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,349
4,472
I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.
The 100-400mm II is very good for BIF, much, much better than the 150-600mms. The 80D is not the best body for BIF, and I personally like a wider field of view and 400mm on crop is my favourite. The 500 on the D500 is a little on the narrow side for me but the blisteringly fast and accurate AF is the key factor that makes it all worthwhile, as well as the outstanding IQ and low weight of the lens. The Nikon 200-500mm is not ideal. There are many reports of its being soft at 300-500mm (though copy variation comes in), it is much slower to focus than the 500mm PF, closer to the 150-600mms, and it is heavy. Here is a careful comparison of the 200-500mm and the 500mm by an expert bird photographer which chimes with most things I have read http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/nikkor-af-s-500mm-f-5-6-pf-vr-review/
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,488
258
S Florida
Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...
I have an EF 70-200 2.8L II so I have no desire for another, but I am interested in an RF 70-200 f/4L. This gives me great pause. I can't even consider the 100-500 until some reviews come out. Since most everything RF is so expensive, waiting is good. Not much fun though...
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,877
1,679
I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.
Yet thousands of 100-400 Mkii + 1.4 ext users at f/8 and 560mm aren't disappointed at all
 
Feb 14, 2020
3
0
… The 80D is not the best body for BIF, and I personally like a wider field of view and 400mm on crop is my favourite. ...
I have problems mostly with focus accuracy and I don't know if the 80d or the Tammy is causing the problem. Canon 7d mark2 is a very old camera to buy now. The 400 f/5.6 is very old too. Unfortunately don't think Canon have adequate body or lens for the enthusiast bird photographer. The 90d has more fps and a nice joystick but no focus system improvement. We will see the R5.. it might be good for wildlife but the announced 100-500 lens is not. No matter how compact and how light it is. To fill the frame you need a hide or a camouflage. I shoot from a beanbag, a pan or a tripod. So weight up to 2.5 kg is ok for me. To get good light you need to shoot 1-2 hours after sunrise and before sunset and keep the ISO up to 800 or 1600 as absolute maximum on a crop. If I want a sharp BIF I need to shoot at 1/2000-2500. How is this possible with a f/7.1 lens? I don't care if I can handle it easy if it can't get the job done... I'm not there for a easy walk after all.
 
Feb 14, 2020
2
0
Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...
So I also own the RF 24-70 and took a good look at it's rear element, I noticed the rear element for the 24-70 has a square 'window' while the 70-200 is round and more open. This gives me hope that the extenders will still be somehow usable with the 70-200 as it looks like the 70-200 was designed in a way to utilize some kind of extension. All Canon's past extenders have worked with their 70-200 lenses, it doesn't make sense they would change this now...

Edit: To add now that I'm looking better at the 70-200, there are lips on the black surrounding part of the glass--almost like a semi socket for the extender's nub. I'm more confident the extender will come with some kind of round extension tube to circle the protruding nub element of the TC so it can also fit the 70-200. Pure speculation though but there are what appear to be potential design decisions to accept TCs.
 

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
508
301
Fast focusing 100-600mm plastic f6,2 could be nice ,even when only sigma quality optic.
Its crazy how fast lenses get old these days .improved optic ,improved af ,improved is.
Maybe no more sense make strong L lenses so much when on 5 year they will be outdated? Only peoples who use them lot get benefit,hobbyists could use something more crappy.
Dunno about you guys but i am just good weather shooter .staying in if drizzling :p
Or no idea 100-500mm surely got even better close up features what 100-400. I am so clueless what to do with camera stuff :p
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,349
4,472
I have problems mostly with focus accuracy and I don't know if the 80d or the Tammy is causing the problem. Canon 7d mark2 is a very old camera to buy now. The 400 f/5.6 is very old too. Unfortunately don't think Canon have adequate body or lens for the enthusiast bird photographer. The 90d has more fps and a nice joystick but no focus system improvement. We will see the R5.. it might be good for wildlife but the announced 100-500 lens is not. No matter how compact and how light it is. To fill the frame you need a hide or a camouflage. I shoot from a beanbag, a pan or a tripod. So weight up to 2.5 kg is ok for me. To get good light you need to shoot 1-2 hours after sunrise and before sunset and keep the ISO up to 800 or 1600 as absolute maximum on a crop. If I want a sharp BIF I need to shoot at 1/2000-2500. How is this possible with a f/7.1 lens? I don't care if I can handle it easy if it can't get the job done... I'm not there for a easy walk after all.
I sometimes shoot BIF at f/8 with 1/3200s and iso800 on a sunny day at a typical manual setting when I have a 1.4xTC on an f/5.6. I up the iso if it‘s darker or increase in post. I prefer f/4 or f/5.6, but I manage with extenders on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick