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

Jun 18, 2013
5
2
I'm all for slow, smaller and lighter lenses.
I've lugged Canon DLSRs all round the world, on holidays, on work trips, from the 10D all the way up.
But increasingly I feel like a fool. My £500 Android, while not perfect really is very impressive. Not perfect yet, but impressive.
To the point where I sometimes wonder why even bother with all the hassle of carrying all the camera kit.
The only way camera manufactures can compete is smaller lighter slower lenses and then use software etc to correct the images
It's very telling that I can get 15mm super wide angle on my phone - yet for my RP there is no lens anywhere near that, aside from something that costs £2500+
Who is really buying all these huge, heavy and expensive optically perfect lenses?
It's not just the price, but the weight too - well maybe in USA where you can drive everywhere, but as soon as you deal with planes or trains etc, weight is a killer!
Maybe a handful of pros but even there many will have seen a lot of their work vanish over the last 18 months due to Covid lockdowns and won't be in a place to splash out on new gear.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
It's not just the price, but the weight too - well maybe in USA where you can drive everywhere, but as soon as you deal with planes or trains etc, weight is a killer!
I have traveled to many locations with a kit comprising a 1D X, 24-70/2.8L II, 11-24/4L, TS-E 17L with 145mm filters, and an RRS TQC-14 tripod. That all fits in a Lowepro Fastpak 250 (for the plane, the tripod goes in my Pelican luggage while my MacBook Pro goes in the laptop pocket of the backpack).
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
227
276
Not sure what you mean... The RF100-500mm is the replacement EF100-400 with 100mm tacked on. It is approximately f5.6 @400mm. I am glad that they added the extra 100mm even at the expense of ~2/3 stop difference. The choice is mine whether to limit the reach to 400mm/5.6 like the EF100-400mm or enjoy the extra reach at a higher ISO.... hint the latter one :)

I'll have to correct you that one, not true, the 100-500 is 6.3@400mm, it starts 6.3 at 363mm. Where as the 100-400 starts 5.6 at 312mm up to 400. So the 100-400 clearly brings in more light. Please don't assume and put up false information for others to read.
 

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
130
97
off-topic, I know, but I can't find a list anywhere: is anyone aware of a list of RF lenses INCLUDING the information whether they have a control ring? are the RF 400L and 600L the only ones without one?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
off-topic, I know, but I can't find a list anywhere: is anyone aware of a list of RF lenses INCLUDING the information whether they have a control ring? are the RF 400L and 600L the only ones without one?
All RF lenses except the new supertele lenses have a dedicated control ring. For the 400/2.8 and 600/4, the manual focus ring can be set to function as a control ring, if desired.
 
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).
As someone who owns the Sony 200-600, Sony 100-400, and Canon 100-400 II I can agree with most of the comments about the fact that the 200-600 is not really in the same league within the same ranges. Both the 100-400 lenses are fantastically sharp (and I have heard that the new 100-500 is on par at least). The 200-600 is better at 600 than either of the 100-400 lenses with a 1.4 teleconverter (which is my most used focal length), but the weight of the 200-600 is significantly higher. What I love about the 200-600 is that it is internally zooming which means I can move from 200-600 with a flick of my finger while shooting birds in flight, but that comes with the issue of having to carry a much longer lens in the bag.

The extra costs of the shorter lenses (and the 100-500) are worth it for those who need the close focus, excellent sharpness and smaller weight, but I can't discount the value that I get out of the 200-600 for $2000. I did not buy the 100-500 when I bought the R5 not because it wasn't a great lens but because it was quite a bit more expensive than the 100-400 (at least in Canada) and I can quite happily use the 100-400 and my 500 f/4 with the adapter with no real issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Is that Canon or the global supply chain issues? Office chairs I had ordered are delayed weeks because the manufacturer can’t get the metal needed for them. A bed we ordered was supposed to have been delivered already, but that was pushed to August.

Regardless of the reason, it’s annoying. I likely won’t use an RF 100-500 in earnest until I have an R3 in my hands, but I do have an EOS R and I am somewhat tempted to just buy the 100-500 sooner than later (they pop up on Amazon occasionally).
I'm sure it is global supply chain and rationally I know there is probably little that Canon can do about it, but I am an American so naturally I want what I want and I want it NOW.
 

BBarn

EOS M50
Nov 2, 2020
47
29
In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: neuroanatomist

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.
I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

The switching is a bit annoying. That was a bugaboo with the EF 70-300L, where the relative positions of the zoom and focus rings are swapped compared to other L lenses.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
235
426
In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.

Worth noting that, at least with the 24-240, you need to take the additional step of switching to manual focus in the menu as well for full time manual focus. You can, however, fine tune auto focus without the menu change. Just know that focus peaking will not be available without the menu change.

M6II is handy with an AF/MF switch on the camera body. Kind of wish they did that with the RP.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
I'll have to correct you that one, not true, the 100-500 is 6.3@400mm, it starts 6.3 at 363mm. Where as the 100-400 starts 5.6 at 312mm up to 400. So the 100-400 clearly brings in more light. Please don't assume and put up false information for others to read.
My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaPhoto and Joules

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
235
426
My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.

My understanding is that the 100-500 tops out at f/6.7 if you set your camera up for 1/2 stop increments instead of 1/3rd or 1 stop (which might show f/8 max at 500mm). The actual number in the patent is somewhere around 6.9 or so.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
My understanding is that the 100-500 tops out at f/6.7 if you set your camera up for 1/2 stop increments instead of 1/3rd or 1 stop (which might show f/8 max at 500mm). The actual number in the patent is somewhere around 6.9 or so.
It might be worth distinguising between what the display shows and at what focal length it jumps to the next displayed stop, versus the actual f number at a given focal length.

Now just imagine if they (RF 50, 85 f1.2) had IS.
I presume if they has IS, they'd be bigger, and with an element wiggling around off axis they wouldn't be as sharp. TANSTAAFL.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
766
516
But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.

I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.
It’s not “super dark”. Modern cameras focus quite well at that aperture, and the increased quality of higher ISOs makes it practical as does the excellent IS. The success of the 600 and 800 f11 lenses are some proof of that.
 
Oct 31, 2020
172
186
Did you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!
Did you hear Canon has a 28-70mm F2 and a freaking amazing 70-200mm F2.8? They're both one of the reasons why Sony is developing those two lense AGAIN just four and five years after they hit the market. And according to user comments on Sonyalpha rumors, the 70-200mm can't always keep up with 30FPS from the A1 for some reason...