Is an RF 100-500mm lens on the way? [CR2]

[CDR]

LOL I may not be technically correct, but my point is not really as regards reach, but rather flexibility and weight - after all I already use a 7D11 as my second camera body which is effectively a 1.6X cropped sensor with a lot more pixels, but on the same lens also provides a smaller field of view than using it on a full frame body!

The issue is more that as I am getting on in the years I would ideally like to have just one lightweight body that gives me the coverage I need to cover both photography and video whilst carrying as little variation of lenses /extenders as possible - maybe not be that far away this year!

 

[tron]

Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.


I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.

I bought the EOS R 24-105 kit the end of November (Black Friday offer) to contribute to the announcement of EOS R5

 

[arbitrage]

No give us a 600 f/5.6 DO, Nikon 500 PF is a fantastic lens and ridiculously small for a 500mm and I’m hoping they release 600 f/5.6 PF. There are rumors of 800 PF too but I doubt that at least for a very long time.

They already make a 560 f/5.6 DO....it is called a 400 f/4 DO with a 1.4TC. Why waste effort on another lens that would just duplicate that option and decrease versatility? The front element of a 600/5.6 would be larger than the 400DO and the lens would be longer than the 400/1.4TC. I guess maybe the bare 600/5.6 could have better IQ than the 400/1.4TC but I don't see it being that big of a difference to matter. 400DOII even with 2xTC is super sharp and contrasty especially on a consistently focusing MILC be it A9 or EOS R camera.

 

[SteveC]

I bought the EOS R 24-105 kit the end of November (Black Friday offer) to contribute to the announcement of EOS R5

I just realized I proved the M5 II will never come out.

I finally gave up and bought the M6 II...and that was a couple of months ago. Surely the M5 II would have been announced sometime between then and now.

 

[AlanF]

There has been a lot of discussion of 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6. I have spent some considerable time in a geeky analysis of their relative merits which I hope may be of use to some as it also discusses some general points about cropping, use of TCs etc (I haven't been giving tutorials this term so sorry!).

Iso, noise, extenders, cropping, and 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 zooms

Another one of my geek notes that may be of some practical use. This has been stimulated by discussion in the threads about 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lenses. It is usually thought that the larger f-number of the longer lens means either a slower shutter speed or introducing more...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[AlanF]

LOL I may not be technically correct, but my point is not really as regards reach, but rather flexibility and weight - after all I already use a 7D11 as my second camera body which is effectively a 1.6X cropped sensor with a lot more pixels, but on the same lens also provides a smaller field of view than using it on a full frame body!

The issue is more that as I am getting on in the years I would ideally like to have just one lightweight body that gives me the coverage I need to cover both photography and video whilst carrying as little variation of lenses /extenders as possible - maybe not be that far away this year!

If you are getting on in years and worried about weight, the 300mm f/2.8 is not the ideal choice to go on your R. I have the same problem of ageing and have got into lighter systems. I sold my 300/2.8 and bought the 100-400mm II when it came out - one of my best decisions ever. My current go-to gear for a casual days birding is the 90D + 100-400mm II. Unfortunately, Canon hasn't been helping us oldie nature photographers much and we have to go to other systems for light weight. If you want ultralight, a Nikon 7500 + 300mm f/4E PF will give unbeatable performance at that level. When I want to travel really light, I take the Sony RX10IV, which is the best all in one on the planet, with a little bit of help from the light. No single maker sells for me the right overall combination of lenses and bodies.

 

[Dragon]

If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a very small and affordable supertele.

I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.

- A

That depends on IQ. If it is very sharp at 500, it will kill the 150-600s because none of them give you any more detail at 600 than they do at 500 and frankly, they don't support more than about 20MP at any part of the long end.

 

[Joules]

That depends on IQ. If it is very sharp at 500, it will kill the 150-600s because none of them give you any more detail at 600 than they do at 500 and frankly, they don't support more than about 20MP at any part of the long end.

Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.

 

[slclick]

Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.

I went back and forth for a LONG time over a >400 solution. It really is the magical focal length when it comes to price vs value. Other factors are carry weight, stability issues and purchases, i.e. additional gear like plates, feet, gimbals, tripod upgrades and also, camera bags.
What it came down to me was the old adage of 'Buy once cry once'. The 100-400 + 1.4 tc was the best option for me, price, weight, image quality, AF points and speed. I may not get to the magical minimum of 600mm like so many wildlife shooters profess to need but I'll get a far better minimal crop than going with a 3rd party lens which is much heavier, lesser IQ, somewhat slower and offers less AF targets at the widest aperture available.

If Canon puts out a zoom which goes to 500, it will be a success, whether it's with a larger general population or just a niche group of shooters, it will still be a top value lens. How many Canon FF lenses can you think of in the past 15 years which have been less than very good?

 

[Del Paso]

Hard times ahead for me ($$$) if this zoom is:
- as good as the 100-400 (no doubt about this, it will !)
- as lightweight as the 100-400 (some doubts...)
- as compact as the 100-400 (some doubts too)

 

[Dragon]

Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.

I didn't say they were bad, just that they area what they are. I have the Tamron 150-600 and the EF-100-400L II. So long as the body will support f/8 AF, the 100-400 is sharper across the frame at 560 with the 1.4 TC and it is also sharper in the center at 400 (but not that much). The point I was making is that you don't buy much between 400 and 600 with any of the 150-600 lenses, so if Canon makes a very sharp 100-500, it will be quite popular, particularly if it is priced similarly to the EF 100-400L II. The low end 150-600s have no weather sealing, so in a bit different market. The Sigma 150-600 sports underperforms the 100-400 L II at the short end and offers very similar performance at the long end (with a 2/3 stop advantage), but it weighs almost twice as much. The Sigma 60-600 is in some ways the most interesting, but it still underperforms the 100-400 all the way from 100-800 and while priced similarly, it still weighs almost twice as much. And that discussion is only about sharpness. When it comes to AF, the 100-400 wins pretty much hands down, even at 560mm (with an f/8 body) and most folks looking for this kind of reach are also looking for fast, accurate AF.

 

[Dragon]

Hard times ahead for me ($$$) if this zoom is:
- as good as the 100-400 (no doubt about this, it will !)
- as lightweight as the 100-400 (some doubts...)
- as compact as the 100-400 (some doubts too)

It will likely have a larger objective lens (and filter), but depending on the design, it might not be any longer when closed (it will be longer at 500).

 

[AlanF]

Copied this from another thread. I am not advocating this lens but just pointing out that Sony has rewritten the book for IQ quality of 600mm zooms. There is much compelling evidence from reliable posters on sites that the lens doesn't lose sharpness from 400mm to 600mm. A couple of reliable review sites that make MTF measurements show that 600mm keeps up the IQ
https://www.pcmag.com/review/368812/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss
https://uk.pcmag.com/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-63-g-oss/123501/sony-fe-200-600mm-f56-63-g-oss
And TDP has tested it.

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

It's actually cheaper than their 100-400mm. So, why am I not rushing to buy it? First, I don't like Sony bodies; secondly, it's too heavy and too long. But, it does show that sharp 600mm zooms are possible and Canon should make one.

 

[Dragon]

Copied this from another thread. I am not advocating this lens but just pointing out that Sony has rewritten the book for IQ quality of 600mm zooms. There is much compelling evidence from reliable posters on sites that the lens doesn't lose sharpness from 400mm to 600mm. A couple of reliable review sites that make MTF measurements show that 600mm keeps up the IQ
https://www.pcmag.com/review/368812/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss
https://uk.pcmag.com/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-63-g-oss/123501/sony-fe-200-600mm-f56-63-g-oss
And TDP has tested it.

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

It's actually cheaper than their 100-400mm. So, why am I not rushing to buy it? First, I don't like Sony bodies; secondly, it's too heavy and too long. But, it does show that sharp 600mm zooms are possible and Canon should make one.

Yes, that is a nice lens and a couple of pounds lighter than the Sigma Sports 150-600. No doubt whatever Canon does will be aimed at this lens. The question of 500 or 600 will be mostly one of aperture. 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 translates to a 95mm filter either way and unlikely that they will go bigger than that. Given the push for small in mirrorless, they might go for 500 at 5/6.3 and squeeze it into an 86mm front element. Also would expect to see an extending design much like the EF 100-400 to keep the transport size down, but time will tell. Whatever FL choice they make, the lens will be designed to support high res bodies.

 

[tron]

They already make a 560 f/5.6 DO....it is called a 400 f/4 DO with a 1.4TC. Why waste effort on another lens that would just duplicate that option and decrease versatility? The front element of a 600/5.6 would be larger than the 400DO and the lens would be longer than the 400/1.4TC. I guess maybe the bare 600/5.6 could have better IQ than the 400/1.4TC but I don't see it being that big of a difference to matter. 400DOII even with 2xTC is super sharp and contrasty especially on a consistently focusing MILC be it A9 or EOS R camera.

400DOII + 1.4XIII weighs about 2.5 Kg vs the 1.6Kg of Nikon's 500PF.
IQ is great but AF isn't perfect with teleconverters.
EOS R may focus correctly but it is not suitable for bird photography.

 

[Michael Clark]

A RF 100-500 f/4?

No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!

Have you priced an EF 200-400mm f/4?

 

[mpmark]

A RF 100-500 f/4?

No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!

Thats a disaster of formula for people who want it to stay hand holdable and a walk around lens. I wouldn't even want that, let alone the sticker price.

 

[sid.safari]

Thats a disaster of formula for people who want it to stay hand holdable and a walk around lens. I wouldn't even want that, let alone the sticker price.

Why? How heavy would it be?

 

[sid.safari]

Have you priced an EF 200-400mm f/4?

I've used it several times in the field. Excellent glass. Best super telephoto Canon has made imho.

 

[Dragon]

Why? How heavy would it be?

Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.