Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,701
11,750
There are lots of uninformed comments about the f/7.1 aperture of the 100-500mm lens being a serious drawback. It's a splendid lens: at the shorter focal lengths it has prime level sharpness; at 500mm, it outresolves both the 400mm DO II and 100-400mm II. It's very sharp at close distances, which was a weak spot with the 100-400mm. It also works unexpectedly well with the RF 2x at f/14, far better than the 100-400mm II with the EF 2xTCIII. A 70-400mm f/7.1 will be an absolute boon to those who want a lightweight zoom that gives reasonable performance, and will probably be affordable. I will buy one for my wife, who is finding the current zooms heavier each year - I can't handle the weight of a 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Sony 200-600mm.
 

OTMT

I'm New Here
Oct 28, 2020
12
8

CANON RF 16MM F/2.8​

The question is: will it wobble?
Probably not. Canon learned from the 15-35L. They will just limit the IBIS through firmware. Wider angles need less stabilization anyhow, so they can probably still eek 4-5 stops of stabilization even while limiting the IBIS to prevent wobble.
 
Aug 7, 2018
354
306
The 16mm f/2.8 would have to be very cheap, very light or very sharp to be an alternative to my 15-30 f/2.8 from Tamron, which has a very good image quality even in the corners.
 

Traveler

EOS R6
Oct 6, 2019
118
153
Canon, why are you doing that?!
I wanted ONE of my EF 70-300/5.6 OR EF 16-35/4 to be replaced (so I don't need to bother with changing the adaptor back and forth).
But that 2mm at the wider end of 14-35 would be amazing (if the filter is 77 mm) and 70-400 would be a dream – but I'm worried that the price would follow Sony's 70-300 G (~USD 1200). The EF 70-300 is half the price.
And, I would even consider the 16mm if it's lightweigh. It would be a perfect "just-in-case-I-need-a-wide-angle" lens.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
688
852
$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?

I don't really agree with you here. The 100-500 is the replacement for the EF 100-400 with extra 100mm on top. It's still around 5.6 at 400mm so nothing is lost. The crucial point here is the size and weight is very similar to the 100-400 and that was Canon's main focus with this lens. It meant to be a take everywhere super telephoto. The Sony 200-600 is 2kg, much larger and heavier so not the same category.

That being said, i think the 100-500 is quite overpriced compared to the excellent 100-400 II and no longer option available in Canon land (F11 lenses ignored).
 

Alam

EOS M50
Dec 24, 2019
31
17
400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
200-600 sounds nice in the paper , until I tried to carry it on hiking

Here's my complaints that brought me back to classic 100-400 :
Too big to fit in sling bag, end up in backpack and it take time to take and store it
Can't hang it on my neck since the weight choke me a
it restricts my maneuver, and kind of dumb to carry 100-400 along since the benefit is too small, better carry apsc and get that extra reach

If it doesn't fit in sling bag, or comfortable enough hanging on neck, better prime for telephoto imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: digigal and AlanF

Methodical

EOS 90D
Oct 27, 2013
100
19
If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.

With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.
Agree. Most of these comments typically come from those who have never used the lens.
 
Last edited:

Methodical

EOS 90D
Oct 27, 2013
100
19
$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?
Yeah, but who shoots the 600 at 500? Sounds like you should go to Sony since they are giving you what you want.
 

Methodical

EOS 90D
Oct 27, 2013
100
19
400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
It's great you have choices. It sounds like Sony is where you should be to get what you want since Canon is not doing it for you.
 
Aug 7, 2018
354
306
As I mainly use f/8 and f/11 anyway, f/7.1 would be okay for me. In the DSLR age small apartures meant bad autofocus and dark viewfinder, but both issues are resolved with the mirrorless cameras. Autofocus works great and the viewfinder gets as bright as you want it to be. Even the 800mm f/11 would be interesting to me.
 
Oct 31, 2020
184
215
I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:
  • RF: possible walk-around lense
  • Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

  • RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread…)
  • Sony: almost exclusively wild-life
The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.


I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing pears and apples. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…
 
Last edited:

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
234
134
Australia
WWW.photosbydlee.com
400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
I haven’t used the Canon 100-500mm but I did get to use the Sony for an afternoon on the A9II and it’s certainly a nice lens but VERY heavy! An hour of carrying that around and my back was aching. The RF may be slower but it’s also nearly 1kg lighter and smaller too so that’s where the increased price comes in.
 
Oct 31, 2020
184
215
When developing a lense the manufacturers don't only think about the current cameras adapted to it, but even more about future cameras and sensors. Between the release of a newly developed lense and its Verson II successor there are usually about 10 years time (more or less) sometimes even more. The regular camera cycle is about 3-max. 4 years for Mk II and Mk III three model.

So, when thinking about F7.1. one should consider the next two generations of sensors and their ISO capabilities. And to be honest: F7.1. is hardly an issue now and won't be an issue at all for the R´s XYZ Mk II in the future.

But their is a huge issue and threatens camera manufacturers more and more: the portability of great smartphone cameras AND luggage restrictions when travelling. Therefore, lenses need be small and F7.1. is a great compromise.

RF 100-500mm being the same size as the EF 100-400mm and keeping the 77mm filters while actually improving an amazing lense a little is absolutely genius! Even at F7.1...
 

BBarn

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 2, 2020
57
37
It will be nice if some of the new RF lenses are relatively small and light. The bigger R camera's are great, but the RP is wonderfully small for a FF, and feels best when used with smaller lenses like the 24-105 IS STM and the smaller primes. Plus, the need for smaller/lighter RF lenses will grow if Canon utilizes the RF mount for a small APS-C camera(s).

So here's hoping that some of the new RF lenses like the 14-35, 16, and 70-400 will be relatively small and light for their class.
 
Oct 31, 2020
184
215
I have had soooo many thoughts about the RF 16 F2.8mm.

+ a great Astro option without spending 2.K $.
+ group shots in darker surroundings
+ pair it with the RF 14-35mm F4 (hiking, travel option) while RF 16mm for cityscapes at night/ Astro.

On the other hand:
- I wish it was F1.8 (like the amazing 35mm F1.8)
- I was hoping for an absolute killer astro lense when the rumored 16mm F1/ F1.4 patents appeared, so I'm actually a bit disappointed.

I'd love it if is the same size as the 35mm F1.8. or smaller (if that´s possible). Given the right price I'll get one asap.

Canon: What are you doing to my bank account this?!?!!? Argh :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlee13

SilverBox

I'm not new here
CR Pro
Aug 30, 2018
38
47
Wow, so many people complaining about the extra 2/3 of a stop at the long end of the zoom range! Just put the EF100-400 on an RF adapter and stop kvetching. Not sure what the big deal is on a slow-at-the-long-end non-L zoom. I was shooting an event with the EF100-400 at 5.6 all day (cloudy), 1/200 shutter, iso never went above 400. I would be fine with iso 640 at half the weight and half the cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kupus and dlee13