5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
309
Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.

Pipe dream? Actually, I have shot and like the 400 DO IS II. Not bad, but the zooms are much more versatile for what I shoot. It is a great lens for airshows, easy to handhold and pan. If they come out with an RF 400 or 500 DO, that will probably be my next lens. That said, I will always have something like the 100-400 II in my bag. I would even be happy if they would release a RF 200-400 w/1.4x as long as they could shave off 2-3 lbs similar to what they did with the 400 & 600 III.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,158
1,912
Kentucky, USA
DSCF0401.jpg


XUoxYnn9GC1lxb8tR5G1BCHF9EWlE5VHdbttdLVRvuwGlk6k9DfzZyW160ecuruIzl6d2mmck3Gj3OupvoaPUbCLuwhNe4eTawPUnmPiu6b4PQcYdnHN

Yes it is external zooming, it is probably a little lighter than the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 II and about the same size if you add the EF mount converter to the latter.
Thanks for the info and picture for size comparison. For those that complain about f/7.1 being "slow", I remind them that the aperture at 500mm is 70.4mm (500/7.1) which is ideal as about the biggest value you can get in a consumer/handheld size, weight and cost.

Maybe Canon can also develop a 100-500 f/4 version for professionals and well-to-do prosumers. I wonder which of the two would be bought by those complaining about f/7.1 after they saw the cost of a 100-500 f/4 lens and tried to carry the weight of it around?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Thanks for the info and picture for size comparison. For those that complain about f/7.1 being "slow", I remind them that the aperture at 500mm is 70.4mm (500/7.1) which is ideal and about the biggest value you can get in a consumer/handheld size and cost.

Maybe Canon can also develop a 100-500 f/4 version for professionals and well-to-do prosumers. I wonder which of the two would be bought by those complaining about f/7.1 after they saw the cost of a 100-500 f/4 lens and tried to carry the weight of it around?
uhm, so that we both understand. regardless of aperture size in mm or inches F number affects AF performance. more or less. full stop.
yes, canon mirrorless will still focus at F7,1. but not as snappy as at F4 or F5.6

I am not a mirrorless guru. not yet. but here is the quizz:

According to Canon (!!!!), I repeat according to Canon:

Notably, the focus on R is said to work down to -6 EV when used with a f/1.2 lens and -3 EV with a f/2.8 lens .

so.. would be AF ability with F7.1 lens attached be limited to -1EV at F5.6 and down to 0EV at F8?

if so, there is a nearly full stop between lighting condition where a F5.6 lens would still focus and F7.1 lens would not..

aha! here comes the reality: in good light: yes you are correct, it may not have taht much of a difference. however in poor light you going to have an uphill battle with your lens hunting or what ever. so.. thank you. stuff that..

can I have a F5.6 lens in poor light please? 500/5.6 would be a reasonably compact and inexpensive lens.. relatively inexpensive and compact. likely the size of 100-400/ 4.0 - 5.6 (extended)?
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,158
1,912
Kentucky, USA
uhm, so that we both understand. regardless of aperture size in mm or inches F number affects AF performance. more or less. full stop.
yes, canon mirrorless will still focus at F7,1. but not as snappy as at F4 or F5.6

I am not a mirrorless guru. not yet. but here is the quizz:

According to Canon (!!!!), I repeat according to Canon:

Notably, the focus on R is said to work down to -6 EV when used with a f/1.2 lens and -3 EV with a f/2.8 lens .

so.. would be AF ability with F7.1 lens attached be limited to -1EV at F5.6 and down to 0EV at F8?

if so, there is a nearly full stop between lighting condition where a F5.6 lens would still focus and F7.1 lens would not..

aha! here comes the reality: in good light: yes you are correct, it may not have taht much of a difference. however in poor light you going to have an uphill battle with your lens hunting or what ever. so.. thank you. stuff that..

can I have a F5.6 lens in poor light please? 500/5.6 would be a reasonably compact and inexpensive lens.. relatively inexpensive and compact. likely the size of 100-400/ 4.0 - 5.6. and around.
I don't have an R and can't comment about AF vs f# with it. But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and [edit] I assume that they intend for this lens to AF on their newly released R5 or R5s because(IMHO): it is inferred by their USM designation and it would be an unexpected and major embarrassment otherwise.

If Canon could make a RF 100-500/f5.6 lens (with 89mm aperture) which is reasonably compact/not-too-heavy/affordable then I'd be ecstatic and join you in buying it. In fact, I previously sent in a suggestion to their customer service to make a 200-500/f6 lens in a compact & surprisingly lightweight size like they did with their 70-200 f2.8. That would be a 83mm aperture which would be much more of a challenge than 71.4m but much easier than 89mm in a 100-500 f5.6 zoom.

If your comment at the end was for a prime 500mm/f5.6 then that's now comparing apples to oranges as it's a prime vs. a zoom. I'm sure a 500mm f5.6 prime could be made better/shorter/lighter/cheaper than a 100-500mm f5.6 zoom, and maybe that would make it a reasonable lens for them to make, and I'd hope they could indeed make it. In fact, if they also gave it a surprisingly close focus so the max. magnification was 0.5x then I'd want it just for the stunning flower/insect pictures it could take which would blur the background so smooth it's a joyful wonder to behold. The more lenses they make, the better!:)
 
Last edited:

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,158
1,912
Kentucky, USA
Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:

RF 70-135/2
RF 35/1.2
+
2 slow, cheap primes that I don't care about :p
You're probably pretty close to what they'll do. But I think "cheap primes" are very much in-need for Canon to develop, as it's probably the weakest link in their otherwise stunning lens lineup.

The one lens I can think of that many would like is something like a RF 16-60mm f4 L IS USM. It'd be ideal for wide landscape(which very often wants stopped down apertures anyway) to "normal" range in a lighter weight, high quality affordable zoom lens. If you could then pair that with something like a RF 70-250 f4 L IS USM then you'd have an affordable, high quality two-lens f4 solution for those that would be happy enough with it. Or you could pair it with the RF 70-200 f2.8 or 70-135 f2 zooms for those (like me) wanting big portrait bokeh blur.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
132
283
I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.
$2700 would make this lens DOA. It needs to priced similarly to the EF 70-300L (which launched at $1599) imo for this to be desirable to the market.

Canon has launched lenses at prices way above what the market was willing to pay only to drop the price quickly, example being the ef 24-70 F4L IS which went from launch of $1499 to $1099 (27% drop) in a mater of 7-8 months.

If you're right and it does launch that high, I would wait it out and see what the market thinks of the price before you jump in.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
309
I agree with you on the F2 "wow" lens to go with the 28-70
pro 35 makes sense
I think there has to be a 70-200 F4 in the mix - low cost gateway "L" lens for RP owners etc
and maybe a pancake?

I hope you are right on the RF 70-200 f4 L IS. I replaced my EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II with the f4 L IS II to cut weight and have never looked back. Lens is light, sharp and has good AF / IS. It is actually a very nice fit with FF DSLR and the M6 II if you want a high quality, walk around zoom for the M cameras. Balance on the M is not bad.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Regarding the rf 100-500mm. Why not 150-500 f4 - f5.6? Or even 200-500? I tend to use lenses like this in the range from 250mm to 500mm.
you mean something along these lines? :D

 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,158
1,912
Kentucky, USA
$2700 would make this lens DOA. It needs to priced similarly to the EF 70-300L (which launched at $1599) imo for this to be desirable to the market.

Canon has launched lenses at prices way above what the market was willing to pay only to drop the price quickly, example being the ef 24-70 F4L IS which went from launch of $1499 to $1099 (27% drop) in a mater of 7-8 months.

If you're right and it does launch that high, I would wait it out and see what the market thinks of the price before you jump in.
Thanks for the advice. I really have no accurate idea of what it should be priced, and won't be buying it as soon as it's offered anyway, so I'll see what price it comes out at and the reviews of it's quality. That alone should give me more of an idea of it's worth. I do think that some zoom lens to 500mm is needed, and hoped it would be more like f6, but f7.1 will allow it to be lighter and cheaper. The quality and price that it can justify remain to be seen.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
714
850
I agree with you on the F2 "wow" lens to go with the 28-70
pro 35 makes sense
I think there has to be a 70-200 F4 in the mix - low cost gateway "L" lens for RP owners etc
and maybe a pancake?

I'd be super into that combination! I'm dying for a pancake (40/2.8?) and a 70-200/4 would make a lot of sense, though it needs to be said that besides the 15-35/2.8, wide angle lenses haven't gotten much love on the RF system.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
650
777
Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.

The 400 DO is 4 times the price of a 100-400 type of lens like this 100-500. It's like a comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
307
337
UK
As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?
Same. Non L sure.. but L!?
 

dslrdummy

EOS RP
Aug 28, 2012
376
145
So how is a 100-500 7.1 worse than a 100-400 5.6 if at 400mm is still 5.6 and weight stays about the same too?
This won't be a Sigma 150-600 equivalent, that lens is likely twice as heavy.
Probably around half a stop slower at 400mm one would think.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
That is not an andere to my question. I really wonder why canon designs such a lens.
It is a question to your question if you missed “?” at the end of my post.
Canon designed such a lens In order to ensure affordability for a broader audience. A F7.1 zoom could be a really inexpensive lens. Relatively of course.