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

[Canon Rumors]

Canon continues its development of super telephoto zoom lenses with another patent application showcasing a lot of different designs. The RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM design is the one that caught our attention.

Read The Full Article

 

[FleetingMoments]

Now this would be that 'last' lens....after I get the 70-200mm that is , O and the 50mm F1.2.....

 

[blackcoffee17]

I do not see how a 200-500 F5.6 would be significantly better than the 100-500. The only advantage could be an internal zoom and full TC support. I doubt it could be considerably better optically or have better AF. Is 2/3 stops extra light at 500mm worth a few $1000 more?

 

[Toamelicious]

I do not see how a 200-500 F5.6 would be significantly better than the 100-500. The only advantage could be an internal zoom and full TC support. I doubt it could be considerably better optically or have better AF. Is 2/3 stops extra light at 500mm worth a few $1000 more?

I remember all the hate the 100-500 got when it released.
People were furious about the f/7.1 aperture and declared the lens to be unusable in anything else than broad daylight.
Of course the same was said about the f/11 lenses, but those were below the financial threshold of those snobs.

So if canon releases a new lens with a max aperture of f/5.6 I am very much interested in seeing if the same people now find some other reason to say it's unusable.
They'll probably say something like "why would you buy this lens, if there's already a 100-500?" Or "it's far too heavy to handhold so it's unusable"

 

[Tom W]

Canon continues its development of super telephoto zoom lenses with another patent application showcasing a lot of different designs. The RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM design is the one that caught our attention.

Read The Full Article

Interesting. I could see this replacing my 100-500 for the value of the 2/3 of a stop at the long end. Although I'd also welcome a 150-600, which would be a bit larger in both length and diameter - and a bit heavier. Keep in mind that a 600 mm f/5.6 is the same diameter as a 300 f/2.8, with a minimum of 107 mm diameter for the front lens element. A 500 f/5.6 reduces that diameter to about 90 mm, and so is going to be lighter and potentially more practical for handholding and walkabout nature photography.

 

[koenkooi]

I do not see how a 200-500 F5.6 would be significantly better than the 100-500. The only advantage could be an internal zoom and full TC support. I doubt it could be considerably better optically or have better AF. Is 2/3 stops extra light at 500mm worth a few $1000 more?

For me, it needs to have an improvement in an area I care about, so better-or-equal magnification at the long end and weigh less. Either of those are unlikely to happen, so I can safely ignore this lens

 

[bf]

It's a nice spec, following Nikon's steps but I doubt it will offer such a value. This is an L lens with fixed apperture. Will it be 2x - 3x of Nikon's Z180-600?

 

[Elmonducky]

A 150-600 I would purchase in a heartbeat, 500mm is just too short for me and would require a teleconverter which kind of defeats the purpose!

 

[john1970]

Looks like we are going to get ~150/200 mm to 500/600 mm f5.6 internal zoom. The 200-500 mm f5.6 is interesting, but likely a bit short for my needs. I kinda wish that Canon would just make with 200 mm f5.6 to 600 mm f6.3. I don't really require a constant aperture. If I do buy this lens it would have to replace my 100-500 mm lens. I really hope they make it 600 mm at the long end.

 

[juststeve]

Interesting patent read. Also in the patent are a 70-200/4, 70-200/2.8, 100-300/2.8, 200-400/4, and finally, a 200-500/5.6. All very similar tin design. All appear to have 18 elements. May have missed something here; this is a hard patent to read. All have a large number of aspheric elements, five, and all of those aspheric elements are located similarly. At least I think so with less than half a cup of coffee in me at this point.
Rereading patent discovered a 60-180/2.8 of similar design, total length of about 200,

Most of the lenses seem to have similar back focus of 37.4 mm which I believe is enough to accommodate the teleconverters. The 200-400/4 has a longer back focus 43.54. The 200-500/5.6 back focus is 37.96. Both lenses are 350 mm long.

Haven't we seen some of these lenses already? Might be an omen of what is to come. And if you look at the diagrams, these lenses look to be very highly corrected, something already seen from the 70-200/2.8 and the 100-300/2.8. A person needs to check out just how many aspheric surfaces are in those two lenses. So did. B&H has the 70-200/2.8 Z lens with three aspherics and the 100-300/2.8 with one. The lenses in this patent all have five aspheric surfaces with the ninth element being a double aspheric lens. The IS unit has an aspheric element.

Personally, I think I would stick with my 100-500 as my go everywhere lens. This past week I exercised its full range of focal lengths, The same with my 200-800. Much of the time I carried both lenses, one on the R5, the other on the R5ii. A 150-600/5.6 or variable aperture as long as it was internally zoomed would probably be my preference. The extra 50 mm on the short side is as important to me as the extra 100 on the long end. With a 1.4 teleconverter it would cover most of my needs with my trusty 500/4ii in reserve for extra light gathering. Even with that I would keep my 100-500. Its size and weight are just too nice for a carry everywhere lens.

 

[jo6466]

Canon continues its development of super telephoto zoom lenses with another patent application showcasing a lot of different designs. The RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM design is the one that caught our attention.

Read The Full Article

When you see the second hand price of a EF400 F2/8 perhaps it's better to buy it and add it an EF/RF and a EF 1,4x III converters ... we obtain a 560mm F/4 or with a 2x converter an 800mm F/5.6
Ok it's more heavy but that isn't always a problem

Sincerely with the exceptional quality of this lens, the result is super despite these converters!

 

[Nemorino]

EF/RF and a 2x converters ... we obtain a 800mm F/4

No, 800mm f/5.6

 

[Exploreshootshare]

...a fixed f/5.6 super telephoto zoom...

Read The Full Article

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

 

[jo6466]

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

Many people buy RF zooms simply because Canon doesn't offer fixed models with reasonable apertures. F/11 is really too high, so they buy zooms.

But with an EF400 f/2.8, you have everything you need for all situations.
400mm F2/8
560mm F/4
800mm F/5.6
1120mm F/8 but with an autofocus limited at 300-400m

 

[Loswr]

Many people buy RF zooms simply because Canon doesn't offer fixed models with reasonable apertures. F/11 is really too high, so they buy zooms.

I think you may be missing the point. I believe @Exploreshootshare is referring to the fact that the RF 600/11 and and 800/11 have fixed apertures – they are f/11 only, the iris diaphragm is not adjustable.

In this context, I am fairly sure that ‘fixed’ refers to an internal zoom mechanism rather than an extending zoom mechanism, and not to the aperture being fixed.

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.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I think you may be missing the point. I believe @Exploreshootshare is referring to the fact that the RF 600/11 and and 800/11 have fixed apertures – they are f/11 only, the iris diaphragm is not adjustable.

Thank you! That´s exactly what I meant.

In this context, I am fairly sure that ‘fixed’ refers to an internal zoom mechanism rather than an extending zoom mechanism, and not to the aperture being fixed.

Ok makes sense.
A L supertelezoom with a fixed F5.6 (as only available aperture) would've put this in a truly unique place and I started what how light it could be.

 

[1ll]

I do not see how a 200-500 F5.6 would be significantly better than the 100-500. The only advantage could be an internal zoom and full TC support. I doubt it could be considerably better optically or have better AF. Is 2/3 stops extra light at 500mm worth a few $1000 more?

Does Canon listen to photographers? Many were ready for RF 100-500mm f4 L instead it's 200-500mm f5.6. I was hoping for something that I could use in low light without having to use a very, slow shutter.

 

[Loswr]

Does Canon listen to photographers? Many were ready for RF 100-500mm f4 L instead it's 200-500mm f5.6. I was hoping for something that I could use in low light without having to use a very, slow shutter.

Yes. Do you think you have a better understanding than Canon of the desires of a majority of photographers?

Always amusing, in a sad sort of way, when people think their personal desire represents that of the majority.

 

[1ll]

Yes. Do you think you have a better understanding than Canon of the desires of a majority of photographers?

Always amusing, in a sad sort of way, when people think their personal desire represents that of the majority.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Loswr]

Thank you for correcting me.

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.