5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,019
Kentucky, USA
Saw a couple mallard ducks out back and some deer. Getting close to twilight last night, but not dark by any stretch. I have an RP and an RF 24-240. At 240, I had to be at 6.3 and 1/100th for decent exposure. Pushed the ISO right to 6,400 for the brightness I wanted (just a couple JPEG snaps).

Long way of saying that 7.1 during the so-called “golden hour” could be problematic for people on the 100-500. I’m happy with my pictures, but wouldn’t be if I had paid a couple grand for the lens by itself.
Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved). :unsure:

Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
235
426
Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved). :unsure:

Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case. :)

The 200 2.8 I imagine would be awesome. Kind of my dream lens if the kids didn’t have to eat anymore.

These are just backyard shots. In good light I have zero complaints. I’m just understanding why the proposed lens might not be “good enough” for the wildlife enthusiast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,019
Kentucky, USA
The 200 2.8 I imagine would be awesome. Kind of my dream lens if the kids didn’t have to eat anymore.

These are just backyard shots. In good light I have zero complaints. I’m just understanding why the proposed lens might not be “good enough” for the wildlife enthusiast.
Yeah, it's hard to say what "good enough" is at the long end, as it's all about trade-offs.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 got voted (by many) as the best tele-zoom lens of 2019. But I wonder what people would think of a similarly designed RF 100-300 f2.8-4 if they pulled that off? It'd match well with their 24-105 f4 zoom. Or if they pulled off a RF 135-420 f4-5.6, which would match well with the 70-135 f2? And the 200-600 f5.6-8 would match well with the 70-200 f2.8? That'd be a whole lot of nice choices for people to pick from.:geek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: digigal and JustUs7

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,639
4,049
Irving, Texas
Yeah, it's hard to say what "good enough" is at the long end, as it's all about trade-offs.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 got voted (by many) as the best tele-zoom lens of 2019. But I wonder what people would think of a similarly designed RF 100-300 f2.8-4 if they pulled that off? It'd match well with their 24-105 f4 zoom. Or if they pulled off a RF 135-420 f4-5.6, which would match well with the 70-135 f2? And the 200-600 f5.6-8 would match well with the 70-200 f2.8? That'd be a whole lot of nice choices for people to pick from.:geek:
I’ve shot both soccer and American football with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and found it to be too short from the sidelines on FF. While f/7.1 would be woefully dark at a night football game, for daytime sports it would be great. F/6.3, that people keep mentioning, would not fair much better at a night game. Were I the father or grandfather of a kid playing sports at night, I think I would just have to bite the bullet and get something fast for that. Painful, yes. But those years come and go quickly and photos help keep memories alive as we age.

Other than sports, I can think of numerous ways the 100-500mm could be very useful on a budget to someone, including portraits.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved). :unsure:

Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case. :)


uhm.. $1,250.00 brand new.. not so heavy not so huge. just FYI: anything zoom with 95mm front filter isn't going to be prohibitively heavy or huge.
I totally understand what Canon is trying to achieve here. look at the size/ cost of Sigma 100-400 C and Tamron 100-400.. small, slow and cheap.
commercially translates to a broader audience, higher GP levels and wider revenue stream.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,718
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
Even though this topic isn't about the 100-500 mm 7.1 it seems to be a subject of much controvery. But just because it goes to 7.1 on the long end I bet this tele will have very little in common with the 24-240 mm 6.3 and 24-105 mm 7.1 in terms of quality and pricing. It probably is not a direct upgrade over the 100-400 mm 5.6 II (unless it somehow is 5.6 at 400 mm), but it should be very much in the same league.

Unless your subject is so close that you can't use 500 mm, the lens should match or beat the 100-400 mm 5.6 II since it gathers basically the same amount of light on the long end as you would get if you crop an image at 400 mm 5.6. I most frequently use my 150-600 mm C at 600 mm ... on a crop sensor. So I would guess the 100-500 mm 7.1 will also see the most action at 500 mm. Shooting 400 mm 5.6 and cropping and shooting 500 mm 7.1 and not cropping is essentially equivalent. You can verify that yourself if you have a zoom lens, see attachements. Those images are shot with wildy different apertures, but since the wider shot has to be cropped drastically to match the tighter one, all that advantage in light is lost. In this example, it is the same as comparing a 600 mm shot on FF with a 150 mm shot from a 4X crop factor sensor. f22 is 1/16 the light per area compared to f5.6, but a 4X crop factor results in 1/16 the sensor area and so they cancel out. It's a purposefully drastic example to show that you can't just look at the aperture without considering the magnification if you want to compare aspects like noise and detail. This is from the Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 C on an 80D and just an example, not a perfect comparison since the 600 mm shot is far into diffration limited territory. And they are both cropped slightly to make the differences (Or lack therof) more apparent.
150 mm 5_6.jpg 600 mm 22.jpg
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Even though this topic isn't about the 100-500 mm 7.1 it seems to be a subject of much controvery. But just because it goes to 7.1 on the long end I bet this tele will have very little in common with the 24-240 mm 6.3 and 24-105 mm 7.1 in terms of quality and pricing. It probably is not a direct upgrade over the 100-400 mm 5.6 II (unless it somehow is 5.6 at 400 mm), but it should be very much in the same league.

Unless your subject is so close that you can't use 500 mm, the lens should match or beat the 100-400 mm 5.6 II since it gathers basically the same amount of light on the long end as you would get if you crop an image at 400 mm 5.6. I most frequently use my 150-600 mm C at 600 mm ... on a crop sensor. So I would guess the 100-500 mm 7.1 will also see the most action at 500 mm. Shooting 400 mm 5.6 and cropping and shooting 500 mm 7.1 and not cropping is essentially equivalent. You can verify that yourself if you have a zoom lens, see attachements. Those images are shot with wildy different apertures, but since the wider shot has to be cropped drastically to match the tighter one, all that advantage in light is lost. In this example, it is the same as comparing a 600 mm shot on FF with a 150 mm shot from a 4X crop factor sensor. f22 is 1/16 the light per area compared to f5.6, but a 4X crop factor results in 1/16 the sensor area and so they cancel out. It's a purposefully drastic example to show that you can't just look at the aperture without considering the magnification if you want to compare aspects like noise and detail. This is from the Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 C on an 80D and just an example, not a perfect comparison since the 600 mm shot is far into diffration limited territory. And they are both cropped slightly to make the differences (Or lack therof) more apparent.
View attachment 190442 View attachment 190443
That’s if one have enough light though :). ISO 12800 is still perfectly usable.
Nikon 200-500/5.6 does exist and is an inexpensive, reasonably sized zoom There is no reason why Canon couldn’t design a similarly sized / priced lens with a variable aperture F6.3 at the long end.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,718
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
This lens will be useful in a good light only unless ISO 12800 is a consideration
Well, my point is exactly that. This lens will be usable under the same circumstances as the 100-400mm 5.6 II, unless in addition to moody light your wildlife is too close to you. In that case it depends on how the aperture changes as you go down in focal length. We don't know that yet. And even the if it stayed that dark at 400 mm, 5.6 is just 60 % more light than 7.1. Not a make or break difference.

I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had. But if it struggles with the light one is using it in, the 100-400mm II won't necessarily be a better choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Well, my point is exactly that. This lens will be usable under the same circumstances as the 100-400mm 5.6 II, unless in addition to moody light your wildlife is too close to you. In that case it depends on how the aperture changes as you go down in focal length. We don't know that yet. And even the if it stayed that dark at 400 mm, 5.6 is just 60 % more light than 7.1. Not a make or break difference.

I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had. But if it struggles with the light one is using it in, the 100-400mm II won't necessarily be a better choice.
++++ I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had.
AM.: no, not the greatest idea indeed. Not for a Canon L lens anyway :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,577
11,299
I set up a thread about the similar situation (to which Joules contributed) of 500mm f/5.6 vs 600mm f/6.3 https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...g-and-600mm-f-6-3-vs-500mm-f-5-6-zooms.38178/
Basically, the entrance diameter of the 500mm f/7.1 is the same as that of the 400mm f/5.6 and so both let in the same amount of light. If you are going to crop the 400mm f/5.6 to the same view as the 500mm f/7.1, you can up the iso to give the same shutter speed with the f/7.1 as the f/5.6, and the S/N will be the same for both after cropping. I'd take a 500mm f/7.1 over a 400mm f/5.6 any day if they were optically as good as each other and the same weight, which they should be.
I shoot Nikon as well as Canon now for birds and I wouldn't use their 200-500mm f/5.6 if you gave me one -it's too heavy like the Sony 200-600mm for hiking with for me. The Canon 100-400mm II is one of my favourite lenses because of its optical quality, great AF and light weight. The 500/7.1 is likely to be the same, and a nice weight.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,019
Kentucky, USA
[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

uhm.. $1,250.00 brand new.. not so heavy not so huge. just FYI: anything zoom with 95mm front filter isn't going to be prohibitively heavy or huge.
I totally understand what Canon is trying to achieve here. look at the size/ cost of Sigma 100-400 C and Tamron 100-400.. small, slow and cheap.
commercially translates to a broader audience, higher GP levels and wider revenue stream.
Thanks for the link to this lens so I could check it out. It weights 2,300g, or 5 lbs. That's pretty heavy to me (too heavy, really) but I'm guessing that might be about what one would expect for a 89mm max aperture. That's also a DSLR lens which might be getting pretty discounted as it's not a new Z mount lens, so the lower price would probably not reflect what the cost might be for a new RF 200-500 f5.6 lens now.

I really like the range of zooms I suggested (100-300, 135-420, and 200-600), and a max aperture of 75mm in them (if possible: 100-300 f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8) would probably be ideal for me. Maybe they could also make a version of these at a smaller aperture for a much cheaper & lighter set, as well as a version at an appropriately larger aperture for a more expensive & heaver set. But that sure would be a lot of lenses and I don't know if that would make economic sense.

By the way, if they did make these kind of zooms, would you prefer a telescoping version or a fixed length one? They both have advantages, so I'm just curious? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,577
11,299
Thanks for the link to this lens so I could check it out. It weights 2,300g, or 5 lbs. That's pretty heavy to me (too heavy, really) but I'm guessing that might be about what one would expect for a 89mm max aperture. That's also a DSLR lens which might be getting pretty discounted as it's not a new Z mount lens, so the lower price would probably not reflect what the cost might be for a new RF 200-500 f5.6 lens now.

I really like the range of zooms I suggested (100-300, 135-420, and 200-600), and a max aperture of 75mm in them (if possible: 100-300 f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8) would probably be ideal for me. Maybe they could also make a version of these at a smaller aperture for a much cheaper & lighter set, as well as a version at an appropriately larger aperture for a more expensive & heaver set. But that sure would be a lot of lenses and I don't know if that would make economic sense.

By the way, if they did make these kind of zooms, would you prefer a telescoping version or a fixed length one? They both have advantages, so I'm just curious? :unsure:
The Sony 200-600mm is the best of the longer zooms, with excellent optics and fast AF. Users like its rapid internal zoon with its fixed length. However, there are complaints about its weight and it is more difficult to stow. I prefer telescoping versions as they are easier to pack and easier to carry on a black rapid. I used to be happy with the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs which was heavier, but shorter, than the Nikon 200-500mm but it is so much easier to carry and hand hold a lens 800g less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,019
Kentucky, USA
The Sony 200-600mm is the best of the longer zooms, with excellent optics and fast AF. Users like its rapid internal zoon with its fixed length. However, there are complaints about its weight and it is more difficult to stow. I prefer telescoping versions as they are easier to pack and easier to carry on a black rapid. I used to be happy with the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs which was heavier, but shorter, than the Nikon 200-500mm but it is so much easier to carry and hand hold a lens 800g less.
Thanks - I also would be happier with a telescoping version to get the stowable length as short as possible. I'd also prefer a lighter weight, but I don't know if a telescoping version would be any lighter than a fixed length one or not (I'd probably prefer whichever is lightest). I also hope that they can get the weight down enough so I can hand hold it (at least for short durations) and then stow it in a backpack. I'd prefer not to have to deal with a tripod while I walk/hike with it. I don't know the point where the weight is ok for that vs too heavy. I do have a 1,270g lens (600mm f8 FF EQ) which I'm happy handholding, but I don't know how much heavier I could take (maybe 1,400g or so???) :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
Apr 22, 2020
3
3
I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.

Wow.

$2,699.00
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,019
Kentucky, USA
Wow.

$2,699.00
Thanks for reminding me!
Apparently my guess wasn't that far off ($1), after all.
Now, what do I win? :ROFLMAO:

I do remember so many thinking it would be more like half that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974