Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]

[docsmith]

200-500 f/4?

I was wondering what it would take for me to give up EF glass and buy my first RF. Weight , IQ, and price are still factors, but I have money waiting for something like this.

 

[H. Jones]

I would think a 1%er could afford one a month or more. I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need. 1% earners are on vastly different incomes than normal people.

This all seems like a very silly conversation. I make well more than that a year as a professional photographer and avid hobbyist and don't yet own a single big white in close to 10 years working in this business, by that logic I should have the whole line-up already.

 

[dilbert]

I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need.

You mean after they've paid the rent, car loan, and everything else, normal people have 12000 quid to spend on a camera lens? That's a strange definition of normal.

 

[CanonGrunt]

I’m keenly interested in new DO lenses! Suits my needs well.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Would much prefer that Canon come out with something similar to what Sony has done with the 200-600

Yeah, but please make it 250-750mm

 

[JustUs7]

I would think a 1%er could afford one a month or more. I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need. 1% earners are on vastly different incomes than normal people.

Taking some of the worlds finest bird photos and roaming alley mammals out of the back window of a studio apartment, but alas, no family or friends to share them with and no place to sit down. No money left to travel to use them. But there’s food, shelter, and many big whites!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

You mean after they've paid the rent, car loan, and everything else, normal people have 12000 quid to spend on a camera lens? That's a strange definition of normal.

Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.

Normal wage here starts at £18,000 to £26,000 per year with £500/month to rent for a 2-3 bed house, £160 council tax, and £200 to food, with £120 covering 4 weekly bus passes. A photographers wage should be way higher than that I should hope. The normal monthly expense for a person is £1000/month assuming they are living alone in a 2 bed house.

 

[MartinVLC]

If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable.

Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Taking some of the worlds finest bird photos and roaming alley mammals out of the back window of a studio apartment, but alas, no family or friends to share them with and no place to sit down. No money left to travel to use them. But there’s food, shelter, and many big whites!

We don't have studio apartments. You can rent a 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom house for £350 to £500 a month. Studio apartments maybe in a city, but I have never seen one.

 

[MartinVLC]

If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable.

Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?

OK, I just saw that the EF version of this lense costs 6500 Euro, so forget my comment ;-).

 

[Fischer]

I think it's a hide lens. When you aren't able to move and the animals are coming in at various ranges and you need to sit put. Shove it on a tripod with a gimbal and have a nice sit down with a flask of tea while happily photographing a bear as easily as a fox from the same distance.

I'm sure some people will be thrilled. Can see people bringing it on safari too. But I work too much hand holding.

 

[GMAX]

If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

This all seems like a very silly conversation. I make well more than that a year as a professional photographer and avid hobbyist and don't yet own a single big white in close to 10 years working in this business, by that logic I should have the whole line-up already.

If you needed one you would surely have one, even if it meant saving up a few years or not having a car. Many a wildlife shooter have a 300 f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 and perhaps even a 200-400 f/4.0. There isn't a one lens to rule them all and in many cases the only other option is second hand versions of these exact lenses. Though, you know, shooters of these lenses would likely balk at the cost of a 50mm f/1.2 and/or 85mm f/1.2.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?

It may be like the Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8, a way to up market a usually more 'affordable' super tele.

 

[AccipiterQ]

This is weird. If Canon will really sell the EF 400 mm 2.8 III and EF 600 mm 4.0 III with a permanently attached EF to RF adapter as their respective RF versions (as the Nokishita images suggest) that sends a message of Tele not benefitting from the change to RF.

Obviously, Canon doesn't do public roadmaps. But leaving it at that when in reality such designs are coming in the near future strikes me as odd

I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I'm sure some people will be thrilled. Can see people bringing it on safari too. But I work too much hand holding.

Aye, I don't think it is a hand hold lens. But it is a f/4.0 and going to a f/5.6 or f/7.1 can be ISO 12,800 instead of 6400, which can make or break an image you invested a lot of money to get to the location.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much

They could or are perhaps saving the fat 600mm f/4.0 DO which likely sacrifices a wee bit of IQ for a much shorter lens.

 

[swkitt]

Shorter and lighter 4/400 DO than the EF version ? I'm in.

 

[CanonGrunt]

I suspect the differences will be in IS / IBIS improvements. AF improvements probably. Everything else will be pretty much the same.

I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much

 

[Danglin52]

Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM sounds very impressive - but also large and heavy. Already the 200-400mm L seems unwieldy to me. Would not be a taker myself.​

The 200-400 was my all time favorite lens, but heavy. I am hoping that they will put this one the version III weight loss problem they did with the EF Big Whites. If they can cut this from 8lbs to 6lbs, it would be much more manageable. I don't know how much weight the extension to 500mm will add. I might go for the 400 DO if it does a good job with externs if they can't cut the weight on the 200-500. The 200-500 f4-5.6 w/ internal 1.4x TC @ 5.75 - 6.25lbs would be my dream lens for wildlife.