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

[Chig]

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

Birds get super close at times and also want to zoom out for an environmental shots sometimes. I often use my 200-800 at 200mm

 

[kaihp]

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.

The image quality from the EF 200-400 is fine for my purposes with paired with either the internal 1.4x TC + external 1.4x TC or the external 2xTC alone. But when combining the internal 1.4x TC with the 2x TC, the images comes out as potatoes.
As ever, perception of image quality is very much in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.

 

[snudel]

I have had the same experiences. With the internal 1.4 converter or an external 2x converter, the image quality hardly decreases. However, as soon as I combine the internal with an external one (whether 1.4 or 2x) the image quality decreases dramatically and becomes totally soft.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have had the same experiences. With the internal 1.4 converter or an external 2x converter, the image quality hardly decreases. However, as soon as I combine the internal with an external one (whether 1.4 or 2x) the image quality decreases dramatically and becomes totally soft.

Stacking teleconverters usually doesn’t end well. It’s one of the reasons I’m not thrilled with the performance of my RF 2x…It’s about the same as the RF 1.4x stacked with the EF 1.4x on my 600/4 II, whereas the EF 2x is better than that.

 

[Red Dog]

I've used the 1.4x mkiii with the 200-400mm with the 1.4x engaged and I was more than happy with the results. A lot of the issues that can arise are more to do with heat distortion over long distances rather than the quality of the glass.

 

[kaihp]

I have the EF 200-400 f4 and its still a superb allrounder. Use it with the R3 for sports action and its my go to combination for soccer, cricket and motorcycle racing. Stick on a 1.4x mkiii extender and it gives great reach, in combination with the internal 1.4x, without any significant compromise in image quality.
If the 200-500 eventually comes, it'll be some beast, particularly if they can reduce the weight as I hand hold mine for sport and it does take a bit of effort.
Unfortunately I can see the price being in the 15k range when it eventually hits the shelves, so I'll likely have to wait a year or two later until a few used ones appear.

I have both the EF 200-400 and the EF 300/2.8 MkII. Got the 300/2.8 first and missed getting more reach and the versatility of the zoom, and ended up finding a pre-loved 200-400. Both are great lenses and have given me lovely memories and images. As mentioned several times by me and others here on CR, the 300/2.8 takes the 2x TC really well, as one of the few lenses.

For several years I mostly left the 300/2.8 at home, simply for the convenience and reach of the 200-400. Recently, I brought out both to do some panning shot testing, and was really taken by how small, light, and nimble the 300/2.8 feels when you're used to heaving the 200-400 around.

A 200-500 f/4 will have 56% larger front element (1.25 squared) so it's going to be hard to make the overall lens lighter than the 3.8kg of the EF 200-400.
My swag at the price here in Denmark is at least 150.000DKK (€20K).

 

[AJ]

Birds get super close at times and also want to zoom out for an environmental shots sometimes. I often use my 200-800 at 200mm

I use my Sigma 150-600 at 600 mm the vast majority of the time. Different folks different strokes. It's all good.

 

[justaCanonuser]

As ever, perception of image quality is very much in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.

That's true. I love Henry Cartier-Bressons ironic saying "sharpness is a bourgeois concept". And indeed, many of his street shots aren't exactly in focus but great art, because he catched just the right moment.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I've used the 1.4x mkiii with the 200-400mm with the 1.4x engaged and I was more than happy with the results. A lot of the issues that can arise are more to do with heat distortion over long distances rather than the quality of the glass. View attachment 219323View attachment 219324

I like in particular the first image. You sports photographers really live on the happy side of autofocus systems: bright contrast-rich colors, well defined contours of your motifs. Birders and wildlife shooters like me often struggle with much less well defined objects, so we really experience the strengths and limits of available AF systems

 

[justaCanonuser]

Birds get super close at times and also want to zoom out for an environmental shots sometimes. I often use my 200-800 at 200mm

Yes for sea birds on land, but not necessarily for other wild birds, in particular in areas where people hunt them. Feeding helps of course, but for vultures you need to carry a stinking dead body with you

 

[justaCanonuser]

A 200-500 f/4 will have 56% larger front element (1.25 squared) so it's going to be hard to make the overall lens lighter than the 3.8kg of the EF 200-400.

Canon's engineers can't create miracles, but to halve the weight of the original ef 600mm f/4 within two follow-up generations is almost a miracle.

 

[kaihp]

I like in particular the first image. You sports photographers really live on the happy side of autofocus systems: bright contrast-rich colors, well defined contours of your motifs. Birders and wildlife shooters like me often struggle with much less well defined objects, so we really experience the strengths and limits of available AF systems

Well, it seems that a lot of the amateur motorcycle racers like the all-black colour scheme, giving the AF system willy nilly to focus on
All black as in black on black fairings, black on black suits, crowned with a matte black helmet, black gloves and black boots.
If we're lucky the helmet isn't black but carbon fibre black (a less blacky black).

And people wonder how come there are so many picture of me riding my Yamaha USA yellow bike with matching suit

But you do have a point about predators like big cats. They deliberately have a camo colour scheme.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You sports photographers really live on the happy side of autofocus systems: bright contrast-rich colors, well defined contours of your motifs.

Not when it comes to high school sports where lighting is poor and uniform colors were not chosen with television broadcasts in mind.

 

[clarus]

That would be THE lens. It\'s the perfect combination of flexibility (like the RF 200-800) and image quality (more like the big primes). The fixed focal length of the supertele primes is a limitation. The 200-800 is just much too slow and image quality is what you get at this price point. I will immediately buy this lens as it becomes available and I can afford it which will never happen. Maybe.

 

[AlanF]

“Never eat more than you can lift” said Miss Piggy. I apply similar logic to lenses. The 200-800 is at my limits.

 

[kaihp]

Canon's engineers can't create miracles, but to halve the weight of the original ef 600mm f/4 within two follow-up generations is almost a miracle.

I had to look it up. The 600/4 Mk I was a whopping 5360g (11.8lbs), according to the-digital-picture.com.
The 200-400/4 is 3620g
The 600/4 MkIII is 'only' 3050g. Quite impressive.

Zooming will take add weight, but removing the switchable 1.4x TC will take some away.
I think the balance of the lens is more important that outright weight, but the asobinet diagram for the 200-500/4 1.4x indicates that there will be a fair bit of weight at the far end. So relatively heavy and "nose heavy". (Caveat: I did not compare it with the 200-400 optical diagram).

 

[P-visie]

I had to look it up. The 600/4 Mk I was a whopping 5360g (11.8lbs), according to the-digital-picture.com.
The 200-400/4 is 3620g
The 600/4 MkIII is 'only' 3050g. Quite impressive.

Zooming will take add weight, but removing the switchable 1.4x TC will take some away.
I think the balance of the lens is more important that outright weight, but the asobinet diagram for the 200-500/4 1.4x indicates that there will be a fair bit of weight at the far end. So relatively heavy and "nose heavy". (Caveat: I did not compare it with the 200-400 optical diagram).

The EF 200-400mm zoom has a similar diagram: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef428.html

I would gladly add 300-400 gram to the weight of the lens and have a lens with a built in extender since extending the focal length by flipping a switch is so much easier and faster than adding a teleconverter. And no risk of dust, rain or snow entering the camera or back of the lens.

 

[kaihp]

The EF 200-400mm zoom has a similar diagram: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef428.html

I would gladly add 300-400 gram to the weight of the lens and have a lens with a built in extender since extending the focal length by flipping a switch is so much easier and faster than adding a teleconverter. And no risk of dust, rain or snow entering the camera or back of the lens.

Thanks for the link.

I agree that adding a bit of weight for the extender could be a good compromise, especially since the weight is close to the body of the shooter. However, from the asobinet diagram, the extender seems to be located further into the lens than the 200-400 extender (I'm purely going on the visual separation of the elements). That might be the reason why the source are indicating that the 200-500 won't have a built-in extender like the EF 200-400.

In terms of weight distributions, the 200-400 have four 100mm element at the far end group, whereas the 200-500 diagram only shows two 125mm elements in the B1 (far end) group. There are more lenses in the second (B2) group - 7 vs 5 - and appear to be located closer to the first group.
It's going to be tricky to say if and how much weight the could save. With new material choices, less than the EF 200-400 should be possible (yes, please!).

With the EF's length of 366mm, the optical length of 410mm of the RF 200-500 seem to say that it's only a bit longer (I need to subtract the flange-sensor distance from the 410mm / add it to the EF lens length, right?)