A new super telephoto lens will be announced soon

[Canon Rumors Guy]

There have been a lot of patents and talk about new “big white” lenses from Canon, from the RF 200-500mm f/4L 1.4x to the RF 500mm f/4L IS USM. There is also the possibility of more lenses from the design team of the RF 600mm f/11 and RF 800mm f/11. Canon has admitted to more

See full article...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I hope this is the RF 300/2 8.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The RF 600/4 is just the EF Mark III with an RF mount swapped in, but the EF 500/4 never got the Mark III treatment so it could be just that (which wouldn't be a bad thing). What I'd really like to see though, is the 200-500/4 1.4x, if the weight is no more than my 600 III, and if the price is not too outrageous.

I hope this is the RF 300/2 8.

That's overdue too. I loved my EF 300/2.8L II, and although I couldn't go back to it because I need longer, I really miss it.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] What I'd really like to see though, is the 200-500/4 1.4x, if the weight is no more than my 600 III, and if the price is not too outrageous.[...]

Is that outrageous from before are after we were all inured to RF pricing?

 

[Chaitanya]

A more "affordable" supertele lens(natively designed for RF mount) would be a hot seller. Something like 500mm 5.6 or 400mm 4 would be great options for birders and wildlife shooters.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A more "affordable" supertele lens(natively designed for RF mount) would be a hot seller. Something like 500mm 5.6 or 400mm 4 would be great options for birders and wildlife shooters.

Canon doesn’t seem inclined to ‘middle’ options for the RF mount. There are already budget options covering that range (RF 100-400, 600/11, 800/11). I think they’ll add to the high end, which is not yet filled out.

Edit: if a 500/5.6 would be such a ‘hot seller’, why wasn’t there one for EF? Perhaps Canon knows something you don’t? I’m not sure why people persist in the belief that because they personally want something hordes of other buyers must want it, too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I loved my EF 300/2.8L II, and although I couldn't go back to it because I need longer, I really miss it.

I’m not planning to give up my 600/4 II.

 

[koenkooi]

A more "affordable" supertele lens(natively designed for RF mount) would be a hot seller. Something like 500mm 5.6 or 400mm 4 would be great options for birders and wildlife shooters.

The post implies that an existing EF lens will get a make over, so of the two examples you mention, only a 400 f/4 exists in EF: the EF400L DO. I don't think that is going to be 'affordable' if it stays in the L series. A 400mm f/4 DO non-L could be affordable, however unlikely such a lens would be.

 

[koenkooi]

A make over of the 400mm f/5.6L would be nice, especially if stays light and relatively cheap. If it has IS and a better than 1:2 magnification ratio, I would be interested.
Switching between the RF100-500L and EF180L makes me appreciate just how nice dual nano USM is, it feels like the body is holding back the lens, the EF180L is very clearly holding back the body.

 

[Chaitanya]

A make over of the 400mm f/5.6L would be nice, especially if stays light and relatively cheap. If it has IS and a better than 1:2 magnification ratio, I would be interested.
Switching between the RF100-500L and EF180L makes me appreciate just how nice dual nano USM is, it feels like the body is holding back the lens, the EF180L is very clearly holding back the body.

That would be an awesome lens and perfect for butterflying and herping(granted it wont be useful in cloud forests/monsoon/foggy weather).

 

[AlanF]

I hope this is the RF 300/2 8.

Canon classifies the 300mm lenses as telephoto, and seem to require 400mm for primes and at the long end for zooms to qualify as supertelephoto: https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/old-products.html So, that narrows it down a bit.

 

[AlanF]

A make over of the 400mm f/5.6L would be nice, especially if stays light and relatively cheap. If it has IS and a better than 1:2 magnification ratio, I would be interested.
Switching between the RF100-500L and EF180L makes me appreciate just how nice dual nano USM is, it feels like the body is holding back the lens, the EF180L is very clearly holding back the body.

Can't see a 400mm f/5.6 cutting it, but who knows.

 

[AlanF]

That would be an awesome lens and perfect for butterflying and herping(granted it wont be useful in cloud forests/monsoon/foggy weather).

You can so much closer with an RF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm that they are much better for insects. The RF 100-400 gives 0.41x at its closest distance whereas the old 400mm f/5.6 is only 0.12x magnification.

 

[bergstrom]

More unaffordable stuff from Canon. woohoo!

 

[LSXPhotog]

Selfishly, I would like to see them create a lens like the Sony 200-600 which is both affordable and reasonably weighted. Alas, the existence of the 100-500 likely means this will never happen.

At this point in time the only big whites that come to mind that haven’t made the transition to RF are the 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and 200-400. The 200-400 seems to me like it’s next on the list. That lens dominated sidelines at sporting events - especially American Football - and is long overdue for a new optical formula that can hopefully bring its size and weight down.

Also, I believe the 300mm f/2.8 will be the first RF prime with a built-in TC. At the cost of it not being compatible with any TC at the back. This would be a total Canon move, unfortunately. The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM works incredibly well as a 600mm f/5.6 - it’s not even funny. I believe this ability will be lost while Canon boasts about the size/weight refinement of the new RF 300 f/2.8.

 

[LSXPhotog]

More unaffordable stuff from Canon. woohoo!

The isolation of customers looking for more affordable, quality options is the greatest weakness of Canon RF right now. They’re focusing far too heavily on the migration of its professional customers to RF, that they’re neglecting one of the greatest strengths the EF mount had: options. They very badly need to get some f/1.4 options available in the $1,000-2,000 tier and open this mount up for third-party competition that influenced some EF lenses. Like the Sigma 85mm Art preceding the EF 85mm f/1.4L.

 

[jprusa]

if they come out with the 200-400, I hope they trim about 3.5 -4 lbs of weight off.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Wuuuhuuu, finally a new rumor I've been loading this page over and over again these past few weeks and started hating the image of the EF-M 11-22mm

 

[[email protected]]

Canon is pretty generous with its "all new" description. When applied to 18mp sensors and previous RF superteles, we heard "all new" a few times, which turned out to be a squinting interpretation. I hope we do get some all new designs in the literal meaning. Like Neuro, I'm still hefting a 600mm II, waiting for something to justify the price differential. Because they refreshed the 400, 600, 800 troika recently with just some refurbished remounts and internal teleconverters, plus some IQ and AF fairy dust, I too expect the 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 to pop out next. Not that my expectations have been a good predictor of much.

The topic of the 200-500 1.4xTC rumor is interesting. I know me well enough that I'd be at 700mm the whole time with that, so if it added a lot of weight to get the zoom range, I'm not sure I'd bite. I'm sure the price differential between my 100-500 and this new lens would be around 10k, which I wouldn't be able to justify as a swap.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

As an enthusiast, I am naturally not in the market for a big white prime, therefore have no specific wishes/ hopes/ whatsoever. There is one lense, that would strike my attention though:

The EF 200mm F1.8 (or F2) sounds very interesting. Given a decent price point (which will probably never happen) an RF version would/ could tempt me. Since the EF design is very old (I guess, not doing any research here) a new optical formula might make it a stellar lense.

With extenders you'd get:
200mm F2 - 280mm F2.8 - 400mm F4

I'd be willing to give up my 70-200 and 100-500mm for this, but they probably would not generate enough money to buy it.

That might worth ones money.