A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon

[EricN]

Don't worry I have it on good authority that certain reviewer couldn't make a review quickly for a non L f1.2 because of the decadent number of L lenses coming soon. Doesn't everyone trust random people with no specific sources?

 

[Del Paso]

Since I just broke down and bought a 200-800, the 300-600 L is imminent.
Sure as if you wash your car, it will rain - if I buy a long tele, a newer, better long tele will be released.

This is exactly why I won't buy another 24-70 or 28-70 presently.
Yet, if nothing juicy is announced within the next few months, I too could break down and regret it...

 

[P-visie]

This is exactly why I won't buy another 24-70 or 28-70 presently.
Yet, if nothing juicy is announced within the next few months, I too could break down and regret it...

Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

 

[EricN]

Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

I like the 300 to 420, a good compromise on size and weight if the image quality is what one would presume.

 

[Del Paso]

Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

"soccer" or did you mean football?

 

[AlanF]

"soccer" or did you mean football?

Football is called soccer because the name originated in England as a shortening of "Association Football," which was created to distinguish it from other forms of football, like rugby. At Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the 1800s, students created slang names like "rugger" for rugby football and "soc" for association football, eventually adding an "-er" to make "soccer".

 

[Del Paso]

Football is called soccer because the name originated in England as a shortening of "Association Football," which was created to distinguish it from other forms of football, like rugby. At Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the 1800s, students created slang names like "rugger" for rugby football and "soc" for association football, eventually adding an "-er" to make "soccer".

And I thought it was an invention by your former rebellious colony...
Thanks for the very interesting explanation!

 

[AlanF]

And I thought it was an invention by your former rebellious colony...
Thanks for the very interesting explanation!

HSBC (Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) is known as Honkers and Shankers in some quarters for the same reasons.

 

[P-visie]

"soccer" or did you mean football?

Silly question, of course I meant soccer.

 

[Pire666]

So is there an announcement on the 26.11 ?
Anymore information around this lens ?

 

[homebodyMacro2]

So is there an announcement on the 26.11 ?
Anymore information around this lens ?

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any update so far. @Canon Rumors may have something in the works, but I haven't seen anything else on the internet. I bumped this thread to see if we could get that wheel spinning a bit lol. But who knows, maybe this one died down again. I certainly hope not!

In any case I'm at least rather happy with my 70-200Z + 2x for now, though I am hopeful for a 300-600 eventually. Some recent butterflies:

 

[Olli]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any update so far. @Canon Rumors may have something in the works, but I haven't seen anything else on the internet. I bumped this thread to see if we could get that wheel spinning a bit lol. But who knows, maybe this one died down again. I certainly hope not!

In any case I'm at least rather happy with my 70-200Z + 2x for now, though I am hopeful for a 300-600 eventually. Some recent butterflies:
View attachment 226875
View attachment 226876

I guess it will stay again just a rumor. It became so silent about it so don’t think any wildlife lense again.
Slowly becoming really disappointed with canon.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I guess it will stay again just a rumor. It became so silent about it so don’t think any wildlife lense again.
Slowly becoming really disappointed with canon.

I don't think we know either way at the moment. Surely they will produce more wildlife lenses. Given that Sigma has a $6600 300-600 f/4.0 with probably twice as much glass as a Canon 300-600 f/5.6L would have, I do think that a ~$8000 300-600 f/5.6 would be possible for Canon. I do expect Canon to be twice as expensive as Sigma generally, but in this case there's also half as much glass. But that could be wrong! Who knows.

As for being disappointed, certainly that is your own determination to make. I love my R5II, it's absolutely incredible. The 70-200Z and 24mm VCM are the two newest Canon lenses that I have, and they're both fantastic (the latter all the way from 70-400mm when including teleconverters). The 70-200Z is "the sharpest interchangeable zoom lens we've ever tested" per The Digital Picture (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx).

I think it's important to not get too emotionally invested in rumors here, especially in terms of timeframe which is frequently wrong, even if the folks here do their best to verify things; they fully admit timelines are difficult and often change.

If Canon can make a longer zoom anything like the 70-200Z, it will be incredible. IMO the Z has nearly perfect handling, great internal zoom throw, prime-like sharpness without teleconverters, very strong sharpness even with 2x TC, fast and silent autofocus, and a great 0.3x (up to 0.6x with 2x TC) max. magnification which is very useful for small creatures that allow some proximity (but not the sub-6" needed for a macro lens). So long as Canon doesn't get too greedy, it would be very hard to turn down the next big L zoom based on their recent work.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

And just a day later (https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/), "We know the lens has been tested in numerous places around the globe for everything from wildlife to surfing, but again. I don't know exactly when."

and "Lens announcements are always tougher to nail down than camera bodies. I don't like it, but I can't change it."

I wish we could've gotten a few more details, but this is still a welcome update.

Here's a snippet from something I posted on DPReview:

"We have Canon lenses (current new prices from Canon website in USD)

RF 100-500L: 500mm @ f/7.1 - $2700
RF 200-800: 800mm @ f/9 - $2249
RF 70-200Z (2x): 400mm @f/5.6 - $3300

RF 100-300L (2x) 600mm @f/5.6 - $10599
RF 400mm f/2.8 - $13399
RF 600mm f/4.0 - $14499

The recent Sigma 300-600 f/4.0 - $6599 (B&H right now)

Canon has an enormous no-man's land in terms of pricing. I doubt they can get away with much over $8000 for a 300-600 that is still a stop slower than the Sigma. Another ultra-expensive long L lens that basically no one can afford makes no sense in the current lineup."

That's not to say that Canon won't go the greedy route, but with half as much glass as the Sigma f/4.0, I think it would be a pretty risky/uncompetitive move to stick a 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 on the >$11k side of things. The current gulf is a bit ridiculous, imo. We jump from about $3000 to about $11000 currently, and there is clearly a market in the middle that other manufacturers are pursuing.

600mm @ f/5.6 should be a good candidate for this middle range, or at least I hope so. Losing a stop on a 600mm f/4.0 is a small price to pay if it saves $6000-7000 and still performs well. It certainly seems like I'm not alone in that sentiment.

 

[P-visie]

And just a day later (https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/), "We know the lens has been tested in numerous places around the globe for everything from wildlife to surfing, but again. I don't know exactly when."

and "Lens announcements are always tougher to nail down than camera bodies. I don't like it, but I can't change it."

I wish we could've gotten a few more details, but this is still a welcome update.

Here's a snippet from something I posted on DPReview:


That's not to say that Canon won't go the greedy route, but with half as much glass as the Sigma f/4.0, I think it would be a pretty risky/uncompetitive move to stick a 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 on the >$11k side of things. The current gulf is a bit ridiculous, imo. We jump from about $3000 to about $11000 currently, and there is clearly a market in the middle that other manufacturers are pursuing.

600mm @ f/5.6 should be a good candidate for this middle range, or at least I hope so. Losing a stop on a 600mm f/4.0 is a small price to pay if it saves $6000-7000 and still performs well. It certainly seems like I'm not alone in that sentiment.

The poster on DPReview forgot to mention the RF 600mm f11 and RF 800mm f11 lenses. The rumor has a rumored price for the RF300-600mm of $6499-$6999 USD.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

The poster on DPReview forgot to mention the RF 600mm f11 and RF 800mm f11 lenses. The rumor has a rumored price for the RF300-600mm of $6499-$6999 USD.

Like I mentioned, I was the poster lol. I didn't include those two because I'd consider them a tier down from the ones I mentioned. That's not to say they don't have their uses, but f/11 is dreadfully slow.

I think those are good low-tier long lenses, and then there are slightly more premium lenses that I listed in the roughly $2300-3300 range, and then of course there are the ultra-premium lenses that basically no one can afford. In any case, there's a glaring hole there in the upper-middle.

Regarding the rumored price, I'm not willing to be that optimistic yet lol. Ultimately, the ~$11k 100-300L f/2.8 has essentially the same front element size we'd expect on a 600 f/5.6, so Canon is certainly capable of being greedy and/or overpriced. That's not to say that the 2x zoom 300-600 is fully analogous to the 3x zoom, but IMO Canon was some combination of cost-ineffective and greedy on the 100-300L.

On the other hand, if Canon is about 2x Sigma pricing, the f/4.0 = 2* f/5.6 glass (and cost) rough conversion could suggest that comparable pricing to Sigma's 300-600 is possible. This is a bit of a crude estimate though, so it could be way off. Especially with the tariff BS going on, I'm not quite willing to get my hopes up on the price starting with a "6" lol. That would be nice though, and I think they'd sell a lot of lenses that way.

 

[P-visie]

Regarding the rumored price, I'm not willing to be that optimistic yet lol. Ultimately, the ~$11k 100-300L f/2.8 has essentially the same front element size we'd expect on a 600 f/5.6, so Canon is certainly capable of being greedy and/or overpriced. That's not to say that the 2x zoom 300-600 is fully analogous to the 3x zoom, but IMO Canon was some combination of cost-ineffective and greedy on the 100-300L.

On the other hand, if Canon is about 2x Sigma pricing, the f/4.0 = 2* f/5.6 glass (and cost) rough conversion could suggest that comparable pricing to Sigma's 300-600 is possible. This is a bit of a crude estimate though, so it could be way off. Especially with the tariff BS going on, I'm not quite willing to get my hopes up on the price starting with a "6" lol. That would be nice though, and I think they'd sell a lot of lenses that way.

I’m not that optimistic about the price either. The rumored price is +/- 50-55% of the EF200-400mm f4 L launch price of 2013.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I’m not that optimistic about the price either. The rumored price is +/- 50-55% of the EF200-400mm f4 L launch price of 2013.

Indeed, and yikes!

If Canon wants to announce an $11k+ 300-600 f/5.6, frankly I don't see how that would be a good market choice. The 600 f/4.0 is right there, and you can put a 2x on the 100-300L with good results. It would be an extremely marginal case for the lens. That's why I hope, perhaps naively, that it will be more like $8k.

 

[amorse]

Indeed, and yikes!

If Canon wants to announce an $11k+ 300-600 f/5.6, frankly I don't see how that would be a good market choice. The 600 f/4.0 is right there, and you can put a 2x on the 100-300L with good results. It would be an extremely marginal case for the lens. That's why I hope, perhaps naively, that it will be more like $8k.

Honestly, I'm not the traditional user of this lens, but I am interested. I'm more optimistic that they're going to price it a bit more competitively than what we might initially expect. A few (maybe misled) reasons:

1. There's been reports that another lens is going to be released which might cannibalize sales of the 100-500. I think there's been 4 articles on Canonrumors that made that assertion, and several linked back to this super-zoom with a moderately fast aperture. If this was going to be priced in the 5-figure territory, would it really be competition for the 100-500? That tells me it'll be a bit closer to the 100-500 price point, though likely a ways higher than the 100-500.
2. While Canon always does what Canon wants without much consideration for what others are doing, Sigma's 300-600 has to be noticed at $6600. At that price point, for those who want to shoot high-end wildlife but don't have the capital for a true big white, there could be temptation to buy the lens and a Sony body just for that one subject. When this lens and a body is cheaper than the Canon lens equivalent alone, there's could be a market positioning problem. Canon will always be more expensive, but the math needs to make some sense.
3. I've seen there are some steep discounts on the (theoretically) most comparable currently-available Canon lens in the 200-400 f/4 with extender. That EF can be had for 10k right now on a black Friday sale, down from $12,400 - not a bad discount. Maybe that implies they're just trying to move some inventory before a replacement comes along, or maybe it implies a change in their vision of where this lens needs to sit in the lineup.

Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but I am optimistic that it will be expensive but not necessarily in the same range as we'd see from the other big white lenses.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

Honestly, I'm not the traditional user of this lens, but I am interested. I'm more optimistic that they're going to price it a bit more competitively than what we might initially expect. A few (maybe misled) reasons:

1. There's been reports that another lens is going to be released which might cannibalize sales of the 100-500. I think there's been 4 articles on Canonrumors that made that assertion, and several linked back to this super-zoom with a moderately fast aperture. If this was going to be priced in the 5-figure territory, would it really be competition for the 100-500? That tells me it'll be a bit closer to the 100-500 price point, though likely a ways higher than the 100-500.
2. While Canon always does what Canon wants without much consideration for what others are doing, Sigma's 300-600 has to be noticed at $6600. At that price point, for those who want to shoot high-end wildlife but don't have the capital for a true big white, there could be temptation to buy the lens and a Sony body just for that one subject. When this lens and a body is cheaper than the Canon lens equivalent alone, there's could be a market positioning problem. Canon will always be more expensive, but the math needs to make some sense.
3. I've seen there are some steep discounts on the (theoretically) most comparable currently-available Canon lens in the 200-400 f/4 with extender. That EF can be had for 10k right now on a black Friday sale, down from $12,400 - not a bad discount. Maybe that implies they're just trying to move some inventory before a replacement comes along, or maybe it implies a change in their vision of where this lens needs to sit in the lineup.

Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but I am optimistic that it will be expensive but not necessarily in the same range as we'd see from the other big white lenses.

I agree there's some evidence pointing in that direction! My confidence in rumors is always pretty limited, as that's the only reasonable approach to rumors imo.

I also agree about the logic in general, very much including the fact that being able to buy a premium Sony body + the 300-600 Sigma for the price of a Canon f/5.6 should be a market deterrent to Canon pricing that high. That's very much my reasoning as well, along with the enormous pricing gulf in Canon's 400mm+ RF lens lineup.

I really don't see how Canon could justify another ~$11k+ supertelephoto lens when it would be right next to the 100-300L (which can be doubled to a respectable 600mm f/5.6), as well as the "true" 400 and 600mm big whites. 5 figures is industry pro pricing, and they already have equal or better gear. Not to mention the Sigma+Sony body price comparison as you mentioned. It would have no compelling reason to exist at that pricing (imo). So, I'm at least somewhat hopeful Canon will be less greedy. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year to find out lol.