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

[stillviking]

If not f4 I don't know what's this lens for.

 

[ruzun]

That same youtube channel is now predicting a 300-600mm with a constant 5.6 aperture. that makes more sense but honestly, its been too many years and too many false rumors to believe anything before canon actually announces some hint officially. Constant 5.6 makes sense since it would be an internal zoom most likely, and 5.6 is faster than other companies 600mm zooms are, so it will look good on paper in comparison. Although practically speaking 5.6 and 6.3 are almost equal.

 

[john1970]

If not f4 I don't know what's this lens for.

A smaller aperture (either 5.6 or 6.3 would be significantly lighter. I was really hoping that the 300-600 mm f4-f5.6 rumors would be correct, but until I see the official release from Canon who knows what and if when we will get it. The one requirement for me is an internal zoom design. Whether it is f5.6 or f6.3 at the long end does not matter too much to me. A f6.3 design would be lighter and less costly to produce.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

That same youtube channel is now predicting a 300-600mm with a constant 5.6 aperture. that makes more sense but honestly, its been too many years and too many false rumors to believe anything before canon actually announces some hint officially. Constant 5.6 makes sense since it would be an internal zoom most likely, and 5.6 is faster than other companies 600mm zooms are, so it will look good on paper in comparison. Although practically speaking 5.6 and 6.3 are almost equal.

Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock into any rumors, and especially not ones on a YT channel that change twice in a week based on single source leaks (at least, the first one was a single source).

 

[Quack]

Honestly, not the most compelling story though, single source, and 5.6-6.3 doesn't make much sense: what's the point of a 1/3rd stop variable aperture? I hope Canon doesn't go with a silly design.
....

The point would be to keep the front element at 95mm, making the lens lighter, cheaper and easier to use filters.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

The point would be to keep the front element at 95mm, making the lens lighter, cheaper and easier to use filters.

I was referring to the 1/3rd stop variable aperture, i.e. f/6.3 @ 600mm can clearly stop down a lot further at 300mm. Basically, f/5.6 is of little solace in the hypothetical, and I hope they don't go for that design.

 

[Quack]

I was referring to the 1/3rd stop variable aperture, i.e. f/6.3 @ 600mm can clearly stop down a lot further at 300mm.

A lot further? I don't think so. You are not the first to keep asking for these types of lenses that no one makes - presumably for good reason.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

We're currently posting in a thread for a 1-stop variable minimum f-number, which is notably more significant than 1/3rd of a stop.

 

[stillviking]

And we continue to wait for the much-desired lens, what will be the most likely outcome?

 

[homebodyMacro2]

And we continue to wait for the much-desired lens, what will be the most likely outcome?

Who knows, maybe it's right around the corner? https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rf-14mm-f1-4l-vcm-is-right-around-the-corner/

Kinda doubt we'll be that lucky though.

 

[stillviking]

No luck again for this lens.

 

[Ozarker]

A ghillie suit is some hard-core birding!

Yes. I'd look like a stand of Pampas grass in a ghillie suit.

 

[Ozarker]

No! I am enthusiastic about the RF 2xTC. I had one of the first and it is very good on the 100-500. I am not enthusiastic about the 1.4x on the 100-500 but it seems better on the 200-800 and 800/11.

Isn't it wonderful to put that combo together and no AFMA.

 

[AlanF]

Isn't it wonderful to put that combo together and no AFMA.

I actually got a bit of a kick getting AF spot on for a new lens - it took only 5 -10 minutes or so using Focal. But, it got a real bore when getting a new body and calibrating all lenses.