A new super telephoto lens will be announced soon

[Fbimages]

A 200-500mm f/4 + 1.4x would tempt me to sell my 100-400mm EF and 500mm f/4 EF as well as my Fuji kit if the weight is not miles off my current 500mm f/4. Loved the 200-400 +1.4x but i was missing the extra 100mm.

 

[Del Paso]

This post is specifically about a “expensive” premium telephoto that may be coming, and yet you come in here, hijack the thread making us listen to reasons why you hate it and what canon should be doing instead. I could care less if you can’t afford it. I’m looking to own a newer version of the premium lenses so I’m interested in it. I don’t need to here your ego rambling on about your displeasure for what canon is not doing for you.

Why don’t you patienlty wait for the thread that talks about the lens you’re interested in (like I did) or jump ship to another system if you hate it so much. I don’t care to listen to your whining.

A case of BadMoodyCat...

 

[roby17269]

You gave an excellent example of what I personally deem to be generosity and appreciation for their customers. Going above and beyond to show gratitude. Respect. Giving more than necessary when something arises as a form of thank you. Fujifilm listens to their customers in the forums and in general tries to let their community know they’re receptive to feedback at times. They offer more more firmware updates than the other companies do to extend the life of the product, or at least have done traditionally. Canon has been a bit stingy in these areas and in general seems to have a “you need us more than we need you” mentality in my experience. They’re the more arrogant of the lot, IMO—although Nikon has always been a little too high and mighty at times, only recently offering more for less in order to stay relevant with mirrorless. There are many ways a company can show gratitude for your business and offer a little generosity while still leading and profiting. Canon seems uninterested in those methodologies and that’s their right—but it definitely costs them something in the community.

I echo the previous poster about DJI: I have one of their drones and I sent it in after a crash and their service was great. Really positively impressed.

But I'd also like to give kudos to Canon: almost 2 years ago I fell on my R5 & RF 24-240 while skiing. I broke a rib (ouchie) and the lens was bent at the mount (more ouchie, not to mention my hurt pride. ). I sent the wounded beast to Canon and they repaired the camera for free under warranty. The service was quick and courteous. Great communication. And free shipping since I'm a CPS member.
Maybe Canon just did what they were supposed to do, but they did it well and effectively and made me feel confident that future (potential) incidents will be dealt with as well.

 

[birdman916]

A lot of 10 dollar words get thrown around in this forum. Check out the big brain on Brad. I wish I loved anything as much as people love writing dissertations on the business practices of camera companies. Any how. I don’t have anything to add on that front but I was wondering if you guys thought if the next lens was the 500 f4 is there anyway it could be lighter? I have the r5 and 100-500 and think it’s great but have flirted with getting a big boy Lens but the problem, outside of the financial aspect, is mobility. I am a birder first (although this is becoming less true lol) and I have been hesitant to get a big lens because I won’t be able to bird in the field as nimbly. In a perfect world I’d like a lighter prime lens but don’t know if that is theoretically possible. Thanks for any comments

 

[scyrene]

A lot of 10 dollar words get thrown around in this forum. Check out the big brain on Brad. I wish I loved anything as much as people love writing dissertations on the business practices of camera companies. Any how. I don’t have anything to add on that front but I was wondering if you guys thought if the next lens was the 500 f4 is there anyway it could be lighter? I have the r5 and 100-500 and think it’s great but have flirted with getting a big boy Lens but the problem, outside of the financial aspect, is mobility. I am a birder first (although this is becoming less true lol) and I have been hesitant to get a big lens because I won’t be able to bird in the field as nimbly. In a perfect world I’d like a lighter prime lens but don’t know if that is theoretically possible. Thanks for any comments

I think an RF 500 f/4 would certainly be lighter than the EF mark II; the mark III 400 and 600 were lighter than the mark IIs (the longer lens was nearly 25% lighter), so presumably whatever was done to effect that could be done to a new 500.

 

[Loswr]

A lot of 10 dollar words get thrown around in this forum. Check out the big brain on Brad. I wish I loved anything as much as people love writing dissertations on the business practices of camera companies. Any how. I don’t have anything to add on that front but I was wondering if you guys thought if the next lens was the 500 f4 is there anyway it could be lighter? I have the r5 and 100-500 and think it’s great but have flirted with getting a big boy Lens but the problem, outside of the financial aspect, is mobility. I am a birder first (although this is becoming less true lol) and I have been hesitant to get a big lens because I won’t be able to bird in the field as nimbly. In a perfect world I’d like a lighter prime lens but don’t know if that is theoretically possible. Thanks for any comments

In going from MkII to MkIII for both the EF 600/4 and 400/2.8 (the MkIII versions were modified with a permanent adapter as the current RF versions), Canon lightened them significantly, and also made them easier to handhold by shifting the center of mass close to the mount end of the lens. The 500/4 II never received a similar update, so I'd say that it's likely an RF 500/4 would be substantially lighter than its predecessor.

 

[birdman916]

I think an RF 500 f/4 would certainly be lighter than the EF mark II; the mark III 400 and 600 were lighter than the mark IIs (the longer lens was nearly 25% lighter), so presumably whatever was done to effect that could be done to a new 500.

Thank you sir. Then with that in mind I would like to say I hope the next lens is an f4 500 and as sure as Christ was on the cross, I’m gonna buy it!!

 

[AlanF]

A lot of 10 dollar words get thrown around in this forum. Check out the big brain on Brad. I wish I loved anything as much as people love writing dissertations on the business practices of camera companies. Any how. I don’t have anything to add on that front but I was wondering if you guys thought if the next lens was the 500 f4 is there anyway it could be lighter? I have the r5 and 100-500 and think it’s great but have flirted with getting a big boy Lens but the problem, outside of the financial aspect, is mobility. I am a birder first (although this is becoming less true lol) and I have been hesitant to get a big lens because I won’t be able to bird in the field as nimbly. In a perfect world I’d like a lighter prime lens but don’t know if that is theoretically possible. Thanks for any comments

The current EF 500mm f/4 weighs 3.2kg. The new Nikon 800mm f/6.3 has about the same diameter front element as a 500mm f/4 and weighs only 2.4kg. An RF 500mm f/4 could be shorter and lighter, perhaps 2-2.4kg, which I could carry at a pinch.

 

[birdman916]

The current EF 500mm f/4 weighs 3.2kg. The new Nikon 800mm f/6.3 has about the same diameter front element as a 500mm f/4 and weighs only 2.4kg. An RF 500mm f/4 could be shorter and lighter, perhaps 2-2.4kg, which I could carry at a pinch.

The 100-500 weight like 1.5 KG right?? Man if a new 500 weighed 2 kg that would be awesome. I guess it would certainly be a lot bigger in size. I wonder if my cotton carrier would work with it

 

[unfocused]

...I was wondering if you guys thought if the next lens was the 500 f4 is there anyway it could be lighter?...

The current EF 500mm f/4 weighs 3.2kg. The new Nikon 800mm f/6.3 has about the same diameter front element as a 500mm f/4 and weighs only 2.4kg. An RF 500mm f/4 could be shorter and lighter, perhaps 2-2.4kg, which I could carry at a pinch.

Another useful comparison, as previously mentioned is the 600mm III, which weights 7.71 lbs, vs. 7.02 lbs. for the 500mm II. So yes, a 500mm RF should be lighter. Of course, it will likely be quite a bit more expensive as well.

My personal opinion: I rented the EF 600III once and loved it. It was (barely) handholdable for me, although I preferred having it one a tripod. I once thought I would like to own the 500II, but now I think if I could afford a big white, I would pay the extra for the 600 RF.

 

[unfocused]

The 100-500 weight like 1.5 KG right?? Man if a new 500 weighed 2 kg that would be awesome. I guess it would certainly be a lot bigger in size. I wonder if my cotton carrier would work with it

Time out: The current 500mm II weighs 3.18 kg. I don't think it's realistic to think Canon could reduce the weight by more than 1/3 unless as Roger at lens rentals once suggested, they fill it full of helium.

 

[Rzrsharp]

1200mmF11

 

[Deleted member 378085]

Another useful comparison, as previously mentioned is the 600mm III, which weights 7.71 lbs, vs. 7.02 lbs. for the 500mm II. So yes, a 500mm RF should be lighter. Of course, it will likely be quite a bit more expensive as well.

My personal opinion: I rented the EF 600III once and loved it. It was (barely) handholdable for me, although I preferred having it one a tripod. I once thought I would like to own the 500II, but now I think if I could afford a big white, I would pay the extra for the 600 RF.

The 600iii does not weigh 7.71 pounds, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it’s lighter then the 500/4ii, it’s 6.8lbs

 

[usern4cr]

Time out: The current 500mm II weighs 3.18 kg. I don't think it's realistic to think Canon could reduce the weight by more than 1/3 unless as Roger at lens rentals once suggested, they fill it full of helium.

After I stopped grinning about "fill it full of helium", I wondered how much lighter it would really be? I was disapointed to read that helium only lifts 1 gram per liter. So I guess that I'll just have to enjoy Roger's wit on that one!

 

[unfocused]

The 600iii does not weigh 7.71 pounds, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it’s lighter then the 500/4ii, it’s 6.8lbs

You are absolutely correct. B&H lists it at 6.71 lbs. I accidentally typed 7.71. My bad.

 

[Deleted member 378085]

There have been a lot of patents and talk about new “big white” lenses from Canon, from the RF 200-500mm f/4L 1.4x to the RF 500mm f/4L IS USM. There is also the possibility of more lenses from the design team of the RF 600mm f/11 and RF 800mm f/11. Canon has admitted to more

See full article...

Interestingly enough, the 500mm F/4ii is showing “discontinued” on BHPHOTO now.

 

[birdman916]

Interestingly enough, the 500mm F/4ii is showing “discontinued” on BHPHOTO now.

Boom!! This is happening. Imma buy one pronto

 

[Loswr]

Boom!! This is happening. Imma buy one pronto

Maybe you have a different definition of ‘happening’. The EF 300/2.8 II was discontinued nearly a year ago, and there’s no RF version yet.

 

[birdman916]

Maybe you have a different definition of ‘happening’. The EF 300/2.8 II was discontinued nearly a year ago, and there’s no RF version yet.

I’m just excited and your over here being buzz killington. Don’t disrespect my dreams

 

[Loswr]

I’m just excited and your over here being buzz killington. Don’t disrespect my dreams

Now, my dream…my dream is an RF 300/2.8, preferably with a switchable 1.4x TC.