A timline for the Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM?

[Del Paso]

An earlier rumor stated a price of $15.999.

See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/

Seems "reasonable"...

 

[Del Paso]

Here in Germany, the price for the RF 100-300 is 12.000€. This is twice of the EF 300/2.8. So, since the EF 500/4 was about 10k€ i expect the RF 200-500/4 to be around 20k€.

No issue for German customers, since everybody in Germany drives a Porsche or a Maybach, earning millions working for Bayer or Siemens.
Believe me, I know it's true, it was on FOX TV!

 

[PinholeR5]

My 200-400mm is the go to lens for shooting soccer. Even in low light @5.6, many denoise programs can easily render outstanding images. However since the arrival of the RF 100-300mm, several folks have left the 200-400mm at home, and are putting a 1.4X TC on that lens, giving you a hand hold able 140 - 420mm F4. IMHO, Canon would get a bigger buying audience by creating a 600mm RF with an internal 1.4X (like Nikon). Bird folks should jump at that guy.

I am one of those who swapped the 200-400mm for the 100-300mm + 1.4xTC with youth soccer being the main application. The 200-400mm is awesome, but for youth soccer you end up close to the action and 200mm wasn't wide enough, so I'd have a 70-200mm on another body. With the 140-420mm range, I was able to cover everything with the single lens. Now that my son moved on to full-size fields and some of the venues are starting to make me stay a bit further away, the extra 100mm on the long end will come in handy and I won't mind the 200mm on the wide end too much.

My plan was for the 100-300mm to be a temporary solution until the 200-500mm arrives. If it comes with 1.4xTC, and is anywhere as sharp as the 100-300mm, it will replace my EF 600mm f/4 II. I'm keeping the 100-300mm, I like it too much. I've virtually stopped using the 70-200mm, despite the massive size/weight advantage it has.

 

[Chig]

My 200-400mm is the go to lens for shooting soccer. Even in low light @5.6, many denoise programs can easily render outstanding images. However since the arrival of the RF 100-300mm, several folks have left the 200-400mm at home, and are putting a 1.4X TC on that lens, giving you a hand hold able 140 - 420mm F4. IMHO, Canon would get a bigger buying audience by creating a 600mm RF with an internal 1.4X (like Nikon). Bird folks should jump at that guy.

I'd much rather have the 200-500 f/4 zoom than any prime for birding, the minimum focus distance and not being able to zoom out mean you miss too many shots.

 

[Chig]

Perhaps Canon will soon have the ultimate sports action trinity: 70-200mm f/2, 100-300mm f/2.8 and this 200-500mm f/4 and hopefully the variable 1-2x extender to pair with them

 

[mpmark]

I purchased the RF 600mm F4 cause I couldn't wait any longer for the initial rumour to come true. If this does eventually come I will have my 600 up for sale.

 

[Billybob]

Big surprise, weight and price are my biggest concerns with this potentially dream lens.

3Kg is pretty much the upper limit of handholdable for me, and I don't want a birding/wildlife lens that requires a tripod or monopod for use. Sub $10k would be irresistible, and even $13K would have me thinking very hard about whether I really want this lens.

However, it probably won't be an issue either way. I agree with earlier posters that it will probably be 3.5kg+ and more than $15k in cost.

 

[Chig]

If it has the built in tele, that'd be pretty sweet for birds compared to the 100-500. Weight is an issue, but if they could get it lighter than the 200-400, might still be usable.

I have my 200-800 for birds in flight but a 200-500mm f/4 would be great in the forest

 

[will4m]

Hoping it has a rear filter slot (like the EF 200-400 f/4 ... but unlike, unfortunately, the RF 100-300 f/2.8)

 

[frankchn]

Hoping it has a rear filter slot (like the EF 200-400 f/4 ... but unlike, unfortunately, the RF 100-300 f/2.8)

138mm filters here we go!

 

[john1970]

The weight of this lens is my concern as well. I hope they keep it similar in weight to the RF 600 mm f4 which is 3.1kg.

Hopefully available by Q2 2025 or sooner.

 

[candyman]

It would be a surprise if it comes with a 1.6 extender built in. Imagine a 800 f/6.4 at the long end. That would be the ultimate wildlife high quality lens.

 

[Jose Rubio Rodrigu]

Sí, y el RF 100-500 mm es inútil ya que no puedes tomar fotografías con un objetivo que tenga una apertura de 7,1 a 500 mm .

Supongo que si hablas así de este objetivo es por que no lo tienes o no lo utilizas correctamente, yo lo tengo dos años con la R7 y hace fotografías de muchísima calidad en todo su rango, incluso a AF 8 10 12 14.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Hoping it has a rear filter slot (like the EF 200-400 f/4 ... but unlike, unfortunately, the RF 100-300 f/2.8)

500 f/4 would be too big not to have one

 

[ncvarsity3]

Sooner or later it will arrive. I would consider this lens for a trip to Alaska in August 2025 so if Q2 2025 is correct that will be fine with me.

If you're going to buy and not rent, Alaska is a tax-free state. I saw a used EF 200-400 f4 for $5k when I was in Anchorage last year and I'm still kicking myself for not grabbing it.

 

[P-visie]

Supongo que si hablas así de este objetivo es por que no lo tienes o no lo utilizas correctamente, yo lo tengo dos años con la R7 y hace fotografías de muchísima calidad en todo su rango, incluso a AF 8 10 12 14.

It was a joke. The RF 100-500mm is a very good lens.

 

[AJ]

I'd much rather have the 200-500 f/4 zoom than any prime for birding, the minimum focus distance and not being able to zoom out mean you miss too many shots.

I'm thinking that for birds, you'll be at 500 mm most if not all of the time. I can see the 200-299 mm range being useful for outdoor sports but not for birding.
I agree with you that minimum focusing distance is a key parameter - e.g. hummingbirds

 

[justaCanonuser]

Here in Germany, the price for the RF 100-300 is 12.000€. This is twice of the EF 300/2.8. So, since the EF 500/4 was about 10k€ i expect the RF 200-500/4 to be around 20k€.

Yepp, every time you dial on that zoom your bank account drains a bit more

 

[john1970]

I'm thinking that for birds, you'll be at 500 mm most if not all of the time. I can see the 200-299 mm range being useful for outdoor sports but not for birding.
I agree with you that minimum focusing distance is a key parameter - e.g. hummingbirds

IMO if one adds a 1.4x TC to the mix you get a very useful 280 to 700 mm f5.6 lens where the 1.4x TC should minimally affect the picture quality.

 

[justaCanonuser]

IMO if one adds a 1.4x TC to the mix you get a very useful 280 to 700 mm f5.6 lens where the 1.4x TC should minimally affect the picture quality.

I agree, the 100 mm plus w/o TC lifts that zoom into a minimum range a birder needs. The EF 200-400mm f/4 was definitely 100mm too short für birding, but surely great for bigger wildlife.