A Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM makes an apperance

[1ll]

Keep in mind this is a patent application. Canon files thousands of those per year, very few actually become products.

Especially in this case, where the intent appears to be protection of a method generally applicable to zoom lenses. Patents that become products typically have several similar examples with modest differences in focal length and/or aperture.

Got it. Thanks. In the end, an internal zoom provides quite a few positives including parafocal technology, consistent weight, thereby better balance. If Canon does release an RF 200-500 f5.6 L, and the optical quality is equal to or better than the current 100-500mm f4.5-7.1, then I'll purchase it. I'm sure it will cost a lot less than the 600mm f4 I bought a month ago.

 

[Jon741]

It's tricky... if they want to keep the price down the lack of 600mm, compared to the competition's 180-600 and 200-600 lenses, will be an issue. It can be sharper at 500mm than them but blowing that up to get 600mm will throw that away and more.

Can it be expensive and sell? In that case I can't see it doing many sales vs. the slower existing 100-500mm lens that is optically good, plus in any case every sale would be a 100-500 you didn't sell.

IMHO they need a competitor to the Nikon/Sony x-600mm <$2k (just) Wildlife lenses that are f/5.6-6.3, a constant f/5.6 L at $2k5 could be it... possibly a $2k8 launch price to gouge the early adopters...

 

[1ll]

It's tricky... if they want to keep the price down the lack of 600mm, compared to the competition's 180-600 and 200-600 lenses, will be an issue. It can be sharper at 500mm than them but blowing that up to get 600mm will throw that away and more.

Can it be expensive and sell? In that case I can't see it doing many sales vs. the slower existing 100-500mm lens that is optically good, plus in any case every sale would be a 100-500 you didn't sell.

IMHO they need a competitor to the Nikon/Sony x-600mm <$2k (just) Wildlife lenses that are f/5.6-6.3, a constant f/5.6 L at $2k5 could be it... possibly a $2k8 launch price to gouge the early adopters...

Keep price down, especially because of tariffs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Keep price down, especially because of tariffs.

The US is not the only market, or even the largest one. Will those tariffs be in place a year from now? Or next week, for that matter?

 

[1ll]

The US is not the only market, or even the largest one. Will those tariffs be in place a year from now? Or next week, for that matter?

Only the person who applied the tariffs knows whether they are long term or not. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, Canon USA is a hub for Canada, Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean and the tariffs on Canon USA affect those locations. I don't know if Canon is planning for the tariffs to be long term. I presume Canon is thinking about pricing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Only the person who applied the tariffs knows whether they are long term or not. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, Canon USA is a hub for Canada, Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean and the tariffs on Canon USA affect those locations. I don't know if Canon is planning for the tariffs to be long term. I presume Canon is thinking about pricing.

Administratively, Canon USA covers the US and most of Latin America, but not Mexico or Canada (link). Canon has headquarters in Canada and Mexico, but also in Panama, Brazil and Chile. Their distribution network is large enough that I highly doubt products intended for Latin America or Canada are shipped though the US (they sell a lot more than cameras!). The Americas receive ~23% of total cameras and lenses produced in Japan (CIPA data).

OTOH, Leica specifically announced that their cameras sold in Canada are shipped though the US and thus prices in Canada will be affected by US tariffs.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]
OTOH, Leica specifically announced that their cameras sold in Canada are shipped through the US and thus prices in Canada will be affected by US tariffs.

A nice experiment to see if Leicas are Veblen goods in the US

 

[Ozarker]

"fixed" as with the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11?

This used to confuse me. Fixed just means the aperture doesn't change as you zoom, like it does with the 100-500.

 

[koenkooi]

This used to confuse me. Fixed just means the aperture doesn't change as you zoom, like it does with the 100-500.

As a non-native speaker, I tend to use 'constant aperture' for that situation. And I realize that isn't less confusing, it certainly feels like someone got a thesaurus as a present and went wild

 

[mpmark]

Canon certainly does offer prime lenses with “reasonable” apertures. The RF 600/4 and 800/5.6, as two examples. People buy the f/11 lenses because for many people the price of those reasonable apertures is very unreasonable.

I own the awesome RF600/4, I don't think it's a matter of unreasonable. It's a matter of searching for the ultimate and willing to pay for it.

 

[1ll]

I own the awesome RF600/4, I don't think it's a matter of unreasonable. It's a matter of searching for the ultimate and willing to pay for it.

I agree. It's, definitely, an awesome lens, same for the 400mm f2.8.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm stuggling to understand the point of this rumoured lens. The Rf 100-500mm f7.1 is only 2/3rd of a stop less bright and is regarded as a superlative optic. I can understand a Rf 200-500mm f4. But I'm confused by the f5.6 aperture spec.
It seems halfway between a fast wildlife lens and an ultra-portable super-tele. I wonder what it's pricing will be?
If you take a RF 100-300mm f2.8 and pop a 2x TC on it, you still get a longer reach fort he same aperture.

 

[RobbieHat]

This lens interests me for a few reasons. First, if this handles extenders better than the 100-500 with less loss in IQ then that is a plus. I like me 100-500 but I struggle with sharp images and definitely see a loss of IQ with extenders attached, as well as the loss of speed and need to use higher ISOs. I will take 2/3s stop of extra light anytime I can get it.

Second, it appears to not be nearly as heavy as my adapted EF 600mm f4 II, which will be greatly appreciated and cause me to use the lens quite a bit more.

Third, the zoom range and internal zoom will be useful for telephoto landscape images especially in difficult conditions (sand, rain, etc.). Hoping this is L lens quality for weather sealing so I don't deal with the need to send the lens in for cleaning and deal with internal dust when visiting the desert in windy conditions.

I would pair this purchase with a 70-200 upgrade from EF, my existing 24-70 RF lens and a new ultra wide and astro lens. I have been waiting to update my ecosystem of lenses until this longer telephoto lens is released so I can rebuild my kit around it. I have workable options but will always opt for fewer lenses that are lighter and better quality if possible.

We shall see.

 

[mpmark]

I agree. It's, definitely, an awesome lens, same for the 400mm f2.8.

What makes it awesome is not only its light gathering, it's how it renders the image, I am not sure if many care but the images have life, the micro contrast, the depth of the background. It comes down to the low element count, the specific design for one focal length.

I absolutely love it and can see the difference in the images it creates. In my mind it's worth every penny, but I understand many just can't justify the price.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I own the awesome RF600/4, I don't think it's a matter of unreasonable. It's a matter of searching for the ultimate and willing to pay for it.

Perhaps I should have stated, 'unaffordable' instead of 'unreasonable'. As for ultimate, that's why I kept the EF 600/4 II – it reportedly has a (very) slight IQ edge, and I can handhold the MkII so the significant weight drop for the MkIII/RF aren't as important to me. Still hoping Canon comes out with an RF 600/4 + 1.4x, I'd swap my 600/4 II for that in a heartbeat.

 

[1ll]

Perhaps I should have stated, 'unaffordable' instead of 'unreasonable'. As for ultimate, that's why I kept the EF 600/4 II – it reportedly has a (very) slight IQ edge, and I can handhold the MkII so the significant weight drop for the MkIII/RF aren't as important to me. Still hoping Canon comes out with an RF 600/4 + 1.4x, I'd swap my 600/4 II for that in a heartbeat.

4 weeks after I purchased the RF 600mm f4 and the RF 400mm f2.8, I read about Canon's 600mm f4 with an integral 1.4x teleconverter and I see myself selling the 600 back to B&H Photo and receiving nowhere near what I paid for it in order to buy the new.

 

[neuroanatomist]

4 weeks after I purchased the RF 600mm f4 and the RF 400mm f2.8, I read about Canon's 600mm f4 with an integral 1.4x teleconverter and I see myself selling the 600 back to B&H Photo and receiving nowhere near what I paid for it in order to buy the new.

Ouch but yeah. I bought my EF 600/4 II at launch in summer 2012, so I've gotten quite a lot of use from it. Canon will stop servicing it in a couple of months, so in that sense I'll be on borrowed time.

 

[1ll]

Ouch but yeah. I bought my EF 600/4 II at launch in summer 2012, so I've gotten quite a lot of use from it. Canon will stop servicing it in a couple of months, so in that sense I'll be on borrowed time.

Why not extend the service for one year with CarePAK?

 

[mpmark]

EF 600/4 II – it reportedly has a (very) slight IQ edge

The weight difference is substantial, and much better balanced, world of difference when you're walking around with it all day. I've owned the version 2 so I can attest to what I say here. The "reported" better IQ is just silly, if I put images from both side by side you wouldn't tell the difference. Majority of people reporting this silly fact most likely have never owned these lenses. This is just people trying to get too scientific, and it's stupidity if you ask me. I wouldn't pay this much if it rendered a soft image. It doesn't.

Funny how you have no problem with image degradation when you request a built in extender. Cause regardless how little, there still will be image degradation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why not extend the service for one year with CarePAK?

Not my EF 600/4 II, ALL of them. Canon only services products for so long. The official end of service life for the 600/4 II is July 2025. Canon will stop accepting them for repair after that. 3rd party shops might still service them, if they can find parts.

As for my lens, an extended warranty certainly isn’t an option for a lens I bought nearly 13 years ago.