5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

Feb 15, 2020
527
362
My lens hope:

1. A small, lightweight 50mm f/1.4 IS
2. A lightweight 16-35 f/4L IS or a 20 to 24 f/2.8 IS prime

But I doubt these will be included in this round. And Canon has had a hate on against producing a new 50 f/1.4 for decades now.
I gave up on waiting for a new 50mm 1.4... hopefully I'm wrong and Canon decide to finally make one.. well overdue!

The next lens I'm really hoping for is the RF 35mm f1.2!
 
Last edited:

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
678
843
If you want better than f7.1 at 500mm+, then you will need the Farrari

Not really. There is a HUGE price gap between a $2000 telephoto zoom and a $7000 prime.
Sony has a 200-600 6.3. That seems to be a very good lens. Nikon also is coming out with a similar one, it's in the roadmap.

If this Canon 100-500 stays 5.6 at 400mm then it's great, otherwise it will be a disappointment for me. The extra 100mm can ve bery useful even at 7.1, IF it's not darker at 400mm.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
588
S Florida
Not really. There is a HUGE price gap between a $2000 telephoto zoom and a $7000 prime.
Sony has a 200-600 6.3. That seems to be a very good lens. Nikon also is coming out with a similar one, it's in the roadmap.

If this Canon 100-500 stays 5.6 at 400mm then it's great, otherwise it will be a disappointment for me. The extra 100mm can ve bery useful even at 7.1, IF it's not darker at 400mm.
Absolutely. If the 100-500 is as sharp as the EF100-400 II and is 5.6 @ 400, then it's all good. If it's not as sharp as the EF or has a longer MFD or is 6.3 at 400, then the penalty for the 100mm is too much for me as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,195
2,031
Kentucky, USA
Absolutely. If the 100-500 is as sharp as the EF100-400 II and is 5.6 @ 400, then it's all good. If it's not as sharp as the EF or has a longer MFD or is 6.3 at 400, then the penalty for the 100mm is too much for me as well.
Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.

Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).

In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# at 400mm is in the upper 6's or even 7.1.

Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).

In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.
It all sounded reasonable until you mentioned 135-500 F4..... look at the 200-400/4 then add about 25% in girth and another 25% in length and about 50% in weight. Oh, price. ... of course.. about 25-40% price as well.
now... thats not going to fly.
zooming with 200-400/4 handheld is a challenge Already.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,195
2,031
Kentucky, USA
It all sounded reasonable until you mentioned 135-500 F4..... look at the 200-400/4 then add about 25% in girth and another 25% in length and about 50% in weight. Oh, price. ... of course.. about 25-40% price as well.
now... thats not going to fly.
zooming with 200-400/4 handheld is a challenge Already.
Well, I did mention "or f4.5 or f5" (so that could be 135-500 f5) and I never mentioned handholding it. So in all fairness you should take that into account. Zooming with a beautiful big zoom lens is something that a well-off prosumer or working professional could gladly do on a monopod or tripod. While it may not be affordable to many on this site, that's never stopped Canon from coming out with such lenses before. :cool:
 
Last edited:

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
678
843
Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.

Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).

In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.

I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,195
2,031
Kentucky, USA
I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.
I agree on both points! Well, 200-600 f5.6 would be too big & heavy for me, and 200-600 f6.3 would have a 95mm aperture so we'd better have some massive biceps or a mono/tripod. I'd prefer 200-500 f6 or a 200-600 f7 myself to trim off some of the weight and would accept either a telescoping or non-telescoping design (each has it's benefits). But in principle, I hope Canon is listening and comes out with one.

I also absolutely love the fully articulating screen, which Canon has & Sony doesn't. That, plus a lot of other things brings me to wanting a Canon body. R6 I'd enjoy, but R5 or R5s is what I'll get.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.
Well, Canon has sold a lot of 100-400 zooms, with an extender or two to go along with it. They seem to think a lower cost, more flexible, package is the way quite a few people want to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,195
2,031
Kentucky, USA
Well, Canon has sold a lot of 100-400 zooms, with an extender or two to go along with it. They seem to think a lower cost, more flexible, package is the way quite a few people want to go.
Why can't they come out with both?
One (like they are) with a modest aperture (70mm) and another with a bigger one (83-100+mm)?
Choice is always good, so each of us gets to choose what works for us. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
Why can't they come out with both?
One (like they are) with a modest aperture (70mm) and another with a bigger one (83-100+mm)?
Choice is always good, so each of us gets to choose what works for us.
The devil is in the details on whether it makes sense to Canon to make both. How many people will buy the bigger lens? At what price? How much will it cost Canon to make it? EF or RF or both? Choice is good for the consumer, but it has to make sense to Canon too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
237
433
Everyone hoping for 5.6 at 400, won’t happen. That’s a larger physical opening than 500 at 7.1. At best, one can hope for 6.3.

Precedent suggests it might hit 7.1 at 400. The RF 24-240 hits max aperture of 6.3 by 110. I know that one isn’t L glass. But it doesn’t make sense to hold it between 4.5 and 5.6 from 100-400, then physically narrow the aperture to 7.1 at 500.

400/5.6 = 71.4
400/6.3 = 63.5
500/7.1 = 70.4

Although it’s entirely possible I have zero idea what I’m talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and usern4cr

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Everyone hoping for 5.6 at 400, won’t happen. That’s a larger physical opening than 500 at 7.1. At best, one can hope for 6.3.

Precedent suggests it might hit 7.1 at 400. The RF 24-240 hits max aperture of 6.3 by 110. I know that one isn’t L glass. But it doesn’t make sense to hold it between 4.5 and 5.6 from 100-400, then physically narrow the aperture to 7.1 at 500.

400/5.6 = 71.4
400/6.3 = 63.5
500/7.1 = 70.4

Although it’s entirely possible I have zero idea what I’m talking about.
Try 395/5.6. See what happens. :)
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,195
2,031
Kentucky, USA
The devil is in the details on whether it makes sense to Canon to make both. How many people will buy the bigger lens? At what price? How much will it cost Canon to make it? EF or RF or both? Choice is good for the consumer, but it has to make sense to Canon too.
I agree that it has to make business sense. I'd assume an RF development would be appropriate since they're trying to leverage people to buy into a new R system with R bodies. But I could see the logic in coming out with one in an EF, too, as that's still a big market and it could also be adapted to the R bodies. :cool:

As far as making sense to develop both medium & big long zooms, Sony apparently thought it made sense and are selling a lot of their big long zooms now. It's interesting to see Sony catch up to Canon there, while we've been talking about Canon catching up to Sony here. :unsure:
 
Last edited:

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
690
212
Adelaide, Australia
Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.

Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).

In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.

1) It's relatively interesting discussing where the RF 100-500mm will change apertures through its zoom range. For example:
- Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM changes from f/5 to f/5.6 at 312mm.
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM changes from f/5 to f/5.6 at 229mm
- Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens changes from f/5.6 to f/6.3 at 313mm
Hence with this data and the design aspects of this lens we know, I guess the RF 100-500mm will change from f/6.3 to f/7.1 at ~320-400mm.

2) What's much more important to me, is how well the R5 (and other/future Canon mirrorless cameras) will AF at various light levels. My experience bears out that AF ability of focusing on subjects is not always entirely linear (on light level, max available aperture). Some of my DSLRs with live view and/or DPAF, as well as my M5 and my use of the EOS R have indicated differing AF characteristics (e.g. also more dependent on contrast / colour, type of lens, etc).

I know that the R5 is not primarily designed to be a 'sports or wildlife camera'... However, I still do 'wish' that the RF 100-500mm would focus "fairly well" (consistently, reasonably fast, and without too much hunting) on the R5 in relatively low light. I would love to use the R5 for some twilight birding, event photography where lighting can often be tricky, as well as the occasional sports. Ideally, my hope for decent AF in this manner, would apply to all of its AF modes (one shot, tracking, face/eye/animal, etc).

Then in additional, I also would like the R5 will focus very well at extremely low EV light levels with brighter lenses (f/2.8 and below), and especially so with primes f/2 and below. That's where it's at for me. Hopefully we'll know the answer to that when thorough reviews and early adopter experiences come through.

PJ