A new super telephoto lens will be announced soon

[[email protected]]

One additional comment: it used to be that as a gold member of CPS, I'd be able to borrow the most recent superteles to compare them. They usually had them available to CPS members about 6 months after they were generally available for sale. But the only RF supertele available for lending to either gold or platinum CPS members is the RF 400 f/2.8. The 600 came out 18 months ago. This is one of the reasons I haven't been tempted by some of the newer glass.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The isolation of customers looking for more affordable, quality options is the greatest weakness of Canon RF right now. They’re focusing far too heavily on the migration of its professional customers to RF, that they’re neglecting one of the greatest strengths the EF mount had: options. They very badly need to get some f/1.4 options available in the $1,000-2,000 tier and open this mount up for third-party competition that influenced some EF lenses. Like the Sigma 85mm Art preceding the EF 85mm f/1.4L.

How does that benefit Canon?

Canon’s lineup currently seems aimed at a low end and a high-end market, not a mid-range market. While many forum dwellers seem to fall into that third category, the question is how many actual buyers do? Canon seems to think the answer to that is not enough.

 

[john1970]

I really hope this is either a 500 mm f4 or a 300 mm f2.8 with a built in 1.4x TC. I would buy either of those lenses assuming it would take external TCs. I do not believe a prior post that speculates that the new big white will be incompatible with external TCs.

Would also be great if I could get the lens in hand prior to photo safaris in July and August.

 

[Del Paso]

Can't see a 400mm f/5.6 cutting it, but who knows.

+ 1

 

[TonyG]

I am curious to see what other lenses we get this year. It seems to be a pretty tightly packed predicted list for 2023.
If the goal is release 8 lenses this year, we currently have on the rumor list:
1 telephoto, hopefully the 3 wide primes, 3 RF-S lenses and maybe a surprise zoom lens?

Being selfish, a 200-600 to compete with Sony's would be nice to see, However I feel like it would probably take a while since the 100-500 is already close that range (even though it's far more expensive) and it might be either a 500 or maybe a 300.

 

[barton springs]

I hope this is the RF 300/2 8.

I do too but even better would be a 300 ƒ2.8L IS with 1.4 extender built in.
I'm still using all EF gear however if & when they release an RF 300 I'll flip to RF.
I shoot 90% of my work with the 300 and about 75% of that time I use a 1.4
extender

Tricky
Austin, TX

 

[Berowne]

I am pretty sure, that i will not spend around 6-7k€ for a RF-Version of the 300/2.8 and definitely not something above 10k€ for another supertele-lens, but maybe, the new 135/1.8 IS will be available sometimes next week at my local dealer and i have the feeling, that i want to catch one.

 

[Bonich]

I hope this is the RF 300/2 8.

RF 300 2.8 with an switchable TC 1.7x giving a second shooting option 500 4.5 with a flip.
Better than a zoom.

 

[MihalyLaczko]

For me, two things needed.
An APS-H (1.3 crop) R body and an RF L 100-500 f4-5.6 with an in-built 1.4 extender.
The APS-H sensor size is highly unlikely, while the 100-500 f4-5.6 requires an app. 95mm front lens diameter, which could be quite expensive.
It seems Canon has no cost-effective 90-95mm diameter lens manufacturing solution, so they are just "LEGO-ing" from those diameters, what they already have.

 

[Bonich]

Selfishly, I would like to see them create a lens like the Sony 200-600 which is both affordable and reasonably weighted. Alas, the existence of the 100-500 likely means this will never happen.

At this point in time the only big whites that come to mind that haven’t made the transition to RF are the 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and 200-400. The 200-400 seems to me like it’s next on the list. That lens dominated sidelines at sporting events - especially American Football - and is long overdue for a new optical formula that can hopefully bring its size and weight down.

Also, I believe the 300mm f/2.8 will be the first RF prime with a built-in TC. At the cost of it not being compatible with any TC at the back. This would be a total Canon move, unfortunately. The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM works incredibly well as a 600mm f/5.6 - it’s not even funny. I believe this ability will be lost while Canon boasts about the size/weight refinement of the new RF 300 f/2.8.

Affordable like Sony?
the 135 18 L does cost double the price from the G-Master here in Europe ....

Does Canon want to send the message: Switch, boy, switch!

 

[Bonich]

I am pretty sure, that i will not spend around 6-7k€ for a RF-Version of the 300/2.8 and definitely not something above 10k€ for another supertele-lens, but maybe, the new 135/1.8 IS will be available sometimes next week at my local dealer and i have the feeling, that i want to catch one.

The RF 135 1.8 is double the price of the G-Master here around.
No, I will not buy, rather take a Sony ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF 300 2.8 with an switchable TC 1.7x giving a second shooting option 500 4.5 with a flip.
Better than a zoom.

When has Canon made a 1.7x TC?

 

[bbasiaga]

My guess is the 200-400 replacement. Price ~12k US if no TC, 15K if TC included.

Second guess would be 500F/4-ish, price $11k

Third guess 300 2.8 for $9k.

All of these would be nice to have in the bag with an R1 at the 2024 Olympics. None of them will be in my bag though....$$$

-Brian

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 135 1.8 is double the price of the G-Master here around.
No, I will not buy, rather take a Sony ...

In the US, the Canon and Sony 135/1.8 lenses are the same price, and only the Canon has IS (which is more beneficial than IBIS at telephoto focal lengths).

 

[MoodyCat]

Canon doesn’t seem inclined to ‘middle’ options for the RF mount. There are already budget options covering that range (RF 100-400, 600/11, 800/11). I think they’ll add to the high end, which is not yet filled out.

Edit: if a 500/5.6 would be such a ‘hot seller’, why wasn’t there one for EF? Perhaps Canon knows something you don’t? I’m not sure why people persist in the belief that because they personally want something hordes of other buyers must want it, too.

I've been a reader of this site for about 7 years, but never made an account. I just did, just to reply to your comment. Um.. do you realize that Nikon's 500 5.6 pf has been getting sold like crazy since it's release? I really don't think you understand just how amazing a 3k 500 5.6 is.. "perhaps canon knows something you don't"... While implying a 500 5.6 won't sell? Thats a little bit delusional. The 500 pf, 200-500, and now the 400 4.5 which overlap each other still exist because Nikon gives option to us mere mortals that can't buy a 10k lens. Canon's 100-400 ii is amazing but no it's not at the level of the 500pf (of course it's cheaper), neither is the 100-500 which is f7.1 and not quite as sharp.. anyway.. its very obvious why canon hasnt released a 500 5.6. it would be too affordable and people wont buy the 400 do.

Also you said "..... Personally want something"..SO MANY people have been asking for an update to the now *30* year old 400 5.6, and the 25 year old 300 f4. Canon hasn't even bothered. Cmon. In 30 years they couldve updated it twice. Again, the reason behind it is very clear.

 

[GMAX]

The RF 135 1.8 is double the price of the G-Master here around.
No, I will not buy, rather take a Sony ...

Pre-ordered the RF135 within a heartbeat to replace my trusty but aged EF135. For me, a switch to Sony because of one lens is unthinkable and out of every range. Even in a financial perspective.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The RF 135 1.8 is double the price of the G-Master here around.
No, I will not buy, rather take a Sony ...

Canons pricing in Europe is actually insane and ridiculous! If you went to the US and bought an R5 (calculated with 8,25 VAT) you save about 900 €. That easily pays for your flight. Get an RF 100-500mm and a 24-105mm you save the cost for your spouses flight as well. And if you get startet, you might as well snatch up an UWA...

What's actually most concerning: the dollar-€uro exchange isn't even at favorable rate for europeans at the moment...
Nearly every lense is a significantly cheaper, usually by at least 20% (again, I calculated 8,25 % VAT and the current exchange rate), sometimes up to 40%...

 

[reef58]

I've been a reader of this site for about 7 years, but never made an account. I just did, just to reply to your comment. Um.. do you realize that Nikon's 500 5.6 pf has been getting sold like crazy since it's release? I really don't think you understand just how amazing a 3k 500 5.6 is.. "perhaps canon knows something you don't"... While implying a 500 5.6 won't sell? Thats a little bit delusional. The 500 pf, 200-500, and now the 400 4.5 which overlap each other still exist because Nikon gives option to us mere mortals that can't buy a 10k lens. Canon's 100-400 ii is amazing but no it's not at the level of the 500pf (of course it's cheaper), neither is the 100-500 which is f7.1 and not quite as sharp.. anyway.. its very obvious why canon hasnt released a 500 5.6. it would be too affordable and people wont buy the 400 do.

Also you said "..... Personally want something"..SO MANY people have been asking for an update to the now *30* year old 400 5.6, and the 25 year old 300 f4. Canon hasn't even bothered. Cmon. In 30 years they couldve updated it twice. Again, the reason behind it is very clear.

All the while Nikon continues to bleed market share. I get your point great cheap lenses are nice, but it seems they don't keep the lights on.

 

[navastronia]

Wuuuhuuu, finally a new rumor I've been loading this page over and over again these past few weeks and started hating the image of the EF-M 11-22mm

You and me, both!

 

[ColinJR]

Canon doesn’t seem inclined to ‘middle’ options for the RF mount. There are already budget options covering that range (RF 100-400, 600/11, 800/11). I think they’ll add to the high end, which is not yet filled out.

Edit: if a 500/5.6 would be such a ‘hot seller’, why wasn’t there one for EF? Perhaps Canon knows something you don’t? I’m not sure why people persist in the belief that because they personally want something hordes of other buyers must want it, too.

Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.