Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 and new lens SKU and kit information

[Michael Clark]

So, why buy the 600mm DO f11 if you can shoot native with the 100-500 + crop AND it is unlikely the extenders will provide any benefit on the 600mm due to the f11 aperture?

Because the 600/11 and 800/11 are going to be a LOT cheaper than the 100-500, much less than a 600mm or 800mm f/5.6 lens.
If you are using the 100-400 II and 200-400/4 lenses, the 600/800 f/11 lenses are not meant for you.

 

[Michael Clark]

Why would only certain size cards be listed?
I am assuming that the write speed would be the same for sandisk extreme pro 64/128/256GB for instance. I am looking at 128GB size cards for the R5 so is Lexar the only choice (assuming that 8k/30 will be equal/higher speed than 5.5k/60)?

It's not uncommon at all for smaller cards of the same series to be slightly slower than the larger cards in that series. SanDisk SD cards have been doing this for years. So have Transcend.

 

[Danglin52]

Because the 600/11 and 800/11 are going to be a LOT cheaper than the 100-500, much less than a 600mm or 800mm f/5.6 lens.
If you are using the 100-400 II and 200-400/4 lenses, the 600/800 f/11 lenses are not meant for you.

Not sure I agree. The 100-400 II and 100-500 may be expensive, but they can replace multiple fixed focus lenses in the range and are extremely versatile with excellent IQ. The 800 (wouldn’t buy the 600 w/ the 100-500) MAY provide an option when the 100-500 + 1.4x TC or crop is not enough. Only testing will verify. The 200-400 is a great but very heavy lens. I bought a Canon factory refurb in 2016 and sold It last week after 4 years of use close to my original purchase price. I love the 600 III, but no factory refurb deals and I am not willing to tie up the cash and take the hit of full retail. i am hoping the 800 f11 will work for casual use and I can rent the f4’s for big trips. We will see when they are released.

 

[Joules]

Not sure I agree. The 100-400 II and 100-500 may be expensive, but they can replace multiple fixed focus lenses in the range and are extremely versatile with excellent IQ.

But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.

Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.

 

[SecureGSM]

But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.

Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.

Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).

 

[Danglin52]

But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.

Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.

It is a brave new world with the R system and it looks like Canon has punched it up a couple of levels. I would be surprised to see a sub $1,000 800mm lens because there will be nothing that can match even $1,500 @ f11 if it has good IQ and AF on an R5/R6. I can't see them delivering a crap*** lens for use on their new flagship camera. If they can deliver an f11 with good IQ even at $1,500-$1,800 I don't think anything will be able to match the IQ - even a 150-600 + TC. The 100-500 is a no brainer for me if it has similar build/IQ/AF to the existing 100-400 II since I will cover the majority of my shooting. I submitted a question to Rudy Winston during the Canon session about the IQ of the 100-500 and the rationale for f7.1. He didn't address the f7.1, but said "if you are happy with the quality and performance of the 100-400 II, you should be happy with the 100-500". I hope the lens is f5.6 @400mm and I can live with f7.1 400-500mm. I am disappointed they couldn't pull off an f6.3 or f8 for the 600/800. We will have to revisit when all the gear is out and tested. Bottom line is that I am going to pre-order and let the reviews make my decision. I am willing give up a little IQ if the lens saves me 5-6 lbs in the bag. I am planning a late September trip to GTNP/YNP and would really like to have all of this gear to test. I hope the gear arrives mid-September so I do a real world test and return anything that doesn't fit my needs. I would love a lightweight replacement of the 200-400 f4 (bumped to 200-500) but I doubt I can get lucky on a refurb and don't want to pay full retail for a big white.

 

[Joules]

Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).

But why use an STM AF, if budget isn't constrained that much? Even the RF 24-240mm has an USM AF drive, despite being so compromised in other aspects to keep it affordable (no FF image circle at wide end, performance in the corners, weight). That's a 900 $ lens.

I suppose if Canon continues to restrict the smooth viewfinder mode to RF lenses, that's enough of an incentive to buy native glass. But otherwise, I think the price has to be very low in order to make an f/11 prime a preferrable option over a third party zoom or first party zoom plus extender. Especially for a high resolution sensor like the R5.

 

[SecureGSM]

Sub

But why use an STM AF, if budget isn't constrained that much? Even the RF 24-240mm has an USM AF drive, despite being so compromised in other aspects to keep it affordable (no FF image circle at wide end, performance in the corners, weight). That's a 900 $ lens.

I suppose if Canon continues to restrict the smooth viewfinder mode to RF lenses, that's enough of an incentive to buy native glass. But otherwise, I think the price has to be very low in order to make an f/11 prime a preferrable option over a third party zoom or first party zoom plus extender. Especially for a high resolution sensor like the R5.

anything south of $2000 is a reasonable price for a 800mm Canon prime lens )
Let’s see what happens. At $1000 it will be an underselling it. But what do I know

Re smooth viewfinder onR5 potentially limited to RF lenses only: I do not see this being a requirement. 1Dx3 tracking in live view mode is silky smooth apparently With EF lenses.
I would not bet my house on it. However it is highly likely..

 

[Joules]

there will be nothing that can match even $1,500 @ f11 if it has good IQ and AF on an R5/R6. I can't see them delivering a crap*** lens for use on their new flagship camera.

That's the thing. I don't think these f/11 le ses are intended to be used with the R5 for anything but situations where the weight is critical.

f/11 means you'll basically throw out half the resolution in the R5 due to the diffraction limit at 24 MP.

There are good arguments for these lenses to be much more expensive than I believe. But the STM strikes me as an extremely odd choice in that case. I am biased though. I'm very happy with my 150-600 mm C which I use on an 80D. Sure, at the long end there is a drop in sharpness so that a R5 + 800mm f/11 would likely give a tiny bit more effective reach. And it would be lighter. But the flexibility of a zoom has its own advantages.

We'll see. In any case, I feel like these are very interesting lenses and it is exciting to see Canon explore new paths.

 

[Michael Clark]

But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.

Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.

I'm guessing they'll start out over $1,000, but not by much.

 

[Michael Clark]

Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).

The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.

 

[SteveC]

The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.

That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).

 

[stevelee]

That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).

They are both great lenses. I feel the same way. The only one I would add to that list is the 16-35mm f/4. I get plenty of good use out of almost all the rest of my EF lenses, but those are the ones that continue to amaze me.

 

[SteveC]

They are both great lenses. I feel the same way. The only one I would add to that list is the 16-35mm f/4. I get plenty of good use out of almost all the rest of my EF lenses, but those are the ones that continue to amaze me.

That's on my list. Right after I get the R5 with 24-105 L kit, that one is next.

Unless I decide to splurge on the f/2.8 instead. Yeah, it's another thousand bucks. Decisions, decisions.

 

[stevelee]

That's on my list. Right after I get the R5 with 24-105 L kit, that one is next.

Unless I decide to splurge on the f/2.8 instead. Yeah, it's another thousand bucks. Decisions, decisions.

With modern sensors I so rarely need an extra stop, so size, weight, and $1,000 would never seem worth it to me.

 

[David - Sydney]

Interesting.

Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?

Just curious, maybe I missed it, I do try to keep up and listen for the updates, but I"ve yet to see anything so mind blowing for PS or LR that I couldn't still do inCS6 and LR5 for the most part...

C

For me, the dehaze tool is awesome (when used appropriately). I think that you could do the same using a combination of other sliders but the way it slices through mist/clouds is great. For underwater shots, I use it with almost every shot.

 

[SecureGSM]

The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.

Yeah.... my point though is, that if even Sigma sold 100-400 C at nearly US$800, why would Canon sell 800/11 under $1000? It is way too cheap in my view.

 

[SteveC]

With modern sensors I so rarely need an extra stop, so size, weight, and $1,000 would never seem worth it to me.

I'd have to see what the weight and penalty is, for sure, preferably by handling both lenses A/B. Other than that, that extra stop might help a lot with astro-photography, otherwise I'd tend to agree.

 

[stevelee]

I'd have to see what the weight and penalty is, for sure, preferably by handling both lenses A/B. Other than that, that extra stop might help a lot with astro-photography, otherwise I'd tend to agree.

I would be inclined to think about a fast prime for astrophotography, but I don’t have one in mind. So I’d be more likely to apply the $1000 to that than to get the faster zoom. Or maybe I’d get a wider zoom or just break out my telescope. Or I could use the $1000 toward a better telescope. I haven’t used the telescope in the 10 years I’ve lived here, so probably not. There’s too much light pollution here anyway.

 

[koenkooi]

That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).

I traded in my 100mm non-L last year for the L version. I haven't regretted it. I was also surprised at the amount of money I got for it, more than half of what I paid for it 13 years earlier!
The big difference is smoother AF and having IS, I can't really spot any difference in IQ.