An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]

[unfocused]

Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'

Because what you are looking for is not necessarily what others are looking for.

 

[unfocused]

Personally, I'd love to have a 200-500 f5.6. There are lots of other lenses to cover the 100-200 mm length and if I am shooting something that needs a 500 mm focal length, I'm unlikely to need anything shorter than 200 anyway. I'm also in no hurry because before I commit that kind of money to an RF lens, I want to see what direction the R system is heading, as I could not use it on my DSLRs.

 

[Loswr]

Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'

Because if Canon said it, it would sound even more asinine than you saying it.

 

[BillB]

Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'

Well, a lot of people are going to find a lot to like in what Canon puts out over the new few years, if experience is any guide. Why should Canon say there may be some people who won't like anything we produce for the next eight years?

 

[Hector1970]

100-400 MII is NOT a pus pull.

It sort of is if you loosen it. It’s a good design as it’s also twist.

 

[Jack Douglas]

My 2 cents worth. 500 is not really long enough for smaller birds in many circumstances. My former 300 2.8 2 was super sharp and I miss it a little but it seldom got used at 300. At 420 it has hardly any more useful except perhaps BIF, so the 1.4X was seldom used. 2X lived on the lens and the results overall were very decent but 600 was not really enough in many cases.

Having moved to 400 DO 2, the 1.4X becomes much more useful and is an option for BIF. Still, 2X lives on my lens and other than the F8, that pairing is great in most birding circumstances.

If 500 wasn't bigger and heavier I think that would be even better but I'm confident that 1.4X and 2X would be on the lens a lot because IMHO 500 is not enough. There is an advantage now since sensor resolutions allow more cropping but locking on a birds eye when the subject is too small in the frame, or even finding it, can be challenging. Of course there is also the challenge of finding subjects when the FOV is too narrow but this gets rectified to some extent by practice.

For me a super heavy lens is out of the question since it eliminates too many opportunities and turns into a burden hiking. I'm sure there are circumstances where a long lens/fixed tripod setup is fine but it's not for me since I prefer mobility.

Jack

 

[SUNDOG04]

Did Nikon finally tackle their problem with de-centered lenses in their 300 f/4 VR? See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/

Decentered lenses seemed to be really a problem with Nikon gear in the past years. My wife decided to get a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens and not a Nikon 500mm f/4 VR in 2012, after she read a rare and thorough lab review of long tele lenses in a German photozine. It revealed that most of their tested Nikon lens copies suffered from de-centered lenses. Canon's and Sigma's lenses in that review were all nicely centered. My wife was already unhappy about her latest Nikon gear from the digital age, because of a lot of failures she didn't ever experience with her older analogue Nikon gear, including her faulty Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S lens (needed two AF drive replacements so far). It turned out, that my Canon gear is much more durable and reliable, when used in rugged environments (birding, wildlife).

Wow, didn’t know that. I have had excellent reliability with all my gear and do trust it a bit better than I would with Nikon.

 

[amorse]

I'm not surprised there's a rumour of a super zoom. It makes so much more sense on RF than EF for Canon:

• Canon doesn't seem to want to make lenses slower than f/5.6 for EF considering focusing limitations (which could be necessary at the long end) - not an issue for RF
• There's loads of competition in the space for EF from Sigma and Tamron at very competitive prices - creating a lens in RF before those manufactures can navigate the RF mount protocols gives Canon a closed market where the considerable price may be more palatable

It may be a budget lens compared to other big white lenses, but I really doubt it will be cheap when compared to comparable lenses from Tamron and Sigma (as is tradition). I guess we'll see what kind of balance Canon can strike between IQ and price when there's no other RF super zooms. I'm sure it will be a killer lens in the end.

 

[Architect1776]

It sort of is if you loosen it. It’s a good design as it’s also twist.

All twist do the push pull if you do that. my 24-105 does that.

 

[Jasonmc89]

For me, the real question is will it be f5.6 or f6.3 at the long end..?

 

[Loswr]

For me, the real question is will it be f5.6 or f6.3 at the long end..?

Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...

 

[Kit.]

Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...

For "honest" 400mm, it's 71.4 mm bokeh ball vs 63.5 mm. The difference is not big, but could be noticeable without pixel peeping.

 

[unfocused]

My 2 cents worth. 500 is not really long enough for smaller birds in many circumstances. My former 300 2.8 2 was super sharp and I miss it a little but it seldom got used at 300. At 420 it has hardly any more useful except perhaps BIF, so the 1.4X was seldom used. 2X lived on the lens and the results overall were very decent but 600 was not really enough in many cases.

Having moved to 400 DO 2, the 1.4X becomes much more useful and is an option for BIF. Still, 2X lives on my lens and other than the F8, that pairing is great in most birding circumstances.

If 500 wasn't bigger and heavier I think that would be even better but I'm confident that 1.4X and 2X would be on the lens a lot because IMHO 500 is not enough. There is an advantage now since sensor resolutions allow more cropping but locking on a birds eye when the subject is too small in the frame, or even finding it, can be challenging. Of course there is also the challenge of finding subjects when the FOV is too narrow but this gets rectified to some extent by practice.

For me a super heavy lens is out of the question since it eliminates too many opportunities and turns into a burden hiking. I'm sure there are circumstances where a long lens/fixed tripod setup is fine but it's not for me since I prefer mobility.

Jack

To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.

 

[Cryve]

These look pretty sharp to me:

Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

Explore this photo album by O'Summer on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

You cant really tell from those pictures unless they are uploaded in full size. While most people are happy with a picture that looks good on the web, some people like to print big or just enjoy really sharp fotos. if the canon 200-500 is an L lens you should be able to expect even greater sharpnes than the 200-500. this is my sigma 150-600 sport on a canon 80d crop body. still i could use a little bit more sharpness. canon L 200-500 glass would provide that.

 

[stochasticmotions]

I'm sure the RF version of this lens will be fantastic....version II of the 100-400 is a great lens. Since there isn't a camera out yet that I would like to use in the RF mount I can wait and continue using the current one with my 5DS. Best news is my Sony 200-600 arrived last friday and I no longer need to worry if Canon is going to come out with something similar.

 

[Cryve]

I'm sure the RF version of this lens will be fantastic....version II of the 100-400 is a great lens. Since there isn't a camera out yet that I would like to use in the RF mount I can wait and continue using the current one with my 5DS. Best news is my Sony 200-600 arrived last friday and I no longer need to worry if Canon is going to come out with something similar.

What camera are you using the 200-600 on? how is the sharpness compared to other tele lenses you own?
im curious about how good sony is at the moment.

 

[stochasticmotions]

What camera are you using the 200-600 on? how is the sharpness compared to other tele lenses you own?
im curious about how good sony is at the moment.

I'm using it mostly on the A7III but will also use the A7RII. So far the autofocus on the A7III is excellent, definitely better than using the 100-400 with the teleconverter (and that was still much better than my Canon for tracking). I haven't had much of a chance yet to test the sharpness against the 100-400 (or the canon) but will try to in the next week or so before I head out to Vancouver Island and will hopefully get some real world use of it. First few shots seem better than either canon or sony 100-400 with 1.4 teleconverter which is my main use case. I doubt it will be quit as sharp as either native lens but we shall see if the difference is noticeable.

 

[Dantana]

To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.

Absolutely

And not just birders. Anyone who wants to cover a decent distance and not carry a boat anchor.

It's like the mysterious light, cheap, stable tripod. Or the elusive jackalope.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...

Yes definitely! What focal lengths are you referring to?

 

[SecureGSM]

Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...

A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective.
Or...

High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).