Canon officially announced the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM

[Fischer]

I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.

A 500mm f/4.0 makes more sense to me as it is still hand holdable for a few shots like the 400mm and has the added extra 100mm to make it a real "long" and fast lens. With the improved low light camera bodies the f/4.0 is not that bad and the bokeh is still excellent. I may well be buying an RF 500mm if they make it.

 

[Fischer]

Now if Canon does the same with the 300mm F/2.8 L IS II - I will regret selling mine early... a lot.

 

[xps]

The pictures do more or less look like the 600 F4 III with an RF mount attached. This is a relief - can stick with my 600 F4 II - which has the same if not slightly better resolution / optical quality than the newer lens. Can save my pennies for the R3 instead.

Yesssss, Sir, same experience. My EF 600 III feels a lot lighter, but sharpnes is not the same as on my older MK II lens. You can see it especially on fine details on feathers of the birds.
So, I will definitively wait for the next RF version.
BTW the lens looks like my EF III version, just with an grey adapter on. Maybe Canon mounted an fixed adapter on the MK III version....

 

[xps]

Canon, still missing 300mm, 500mm,.... (I hope they do not just put an fixed adapter on ist....)
and an competitor for the 200-600mm from sony. You would sell a lot of them.
Almost every Sony shooter I know, owns this light lens.
And the 100-500 is not equal to it. Sorry, but the missing aperture is visible.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If I look at the photos, it really seems they only put that fixed adapter on the old versions. They say autofocus s better with the RF versions because of a new motor or so, but even if I would by one today, would prefer the EF version that still works on EF cameras. It seems for very long focal length the RF mount does dot really make any new optical formulas possible, as there s no advantage in putting the first lens element even closer to the sensor.

 

[dolina]

Despite being a fan of this decision, it seems absurd to me that Canon decided to produce two lenses that are identical to the versions released in 2018, with no substantial difference.

It would have had more sense to develop a much needed updated version of the 500 f/4, IMHO.

I will wait to see, for the time being I'll keep my 300 II.

It’s a retrofit in response to the sony equivalents.

500 and 300 are not volume sellers so can stand to wait until next year

 

[Antono Refa]

When the EF 600 III and 400 III came out, there were expectations that the 500 III would follow shortly. Never happened. I suspect that Canon had the lens already designed and then held back to concentrate on RF lenses. I also suspect that the RF 500 will simply be that EF 500 III in an RF mount just like these lenses.

And why would Canon proceed with the 400 & 600 mkIII, and hold back the 500 mkIII?

Say Canon had a designed and ready for RF manufacturing 500 mkIII, why not make it and let photographers mount the 400 & 600 mkIII with adapters, rather than make new 400 & 600 mkIII for RF, and leave money on the table with the unmanufactured 500 mkIII?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

After reviewing the Sony 600mm f/4.0 vs the RF 600mm f/4.0, they are near identical in weight and very little difference in length. Perhaps redesigning a huge lens to save a inch isn't important when it is already lighter than the Sony and I believe much lighter than the Nikon (though that is getting a full Z redesign.)

I also don't think we'll see a new 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4.0 as these where always just 'cheeper' and less popular 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 lenses. I think they'll go the Nikon route with a 120-300mm f/2.8 that is way more useful in sports settings and for the 500mm they'll go their own way with a 200-500mm f/4.0 which can have value added stuff like a built in TC and equal IQ. These changes put them up to that £10,000 range.

 

[Bob Howland]

My lens fantasy is a 120-300 f/2-2.8 and 200-500 f/2.8-4 where the lens holds the f/2 or f/2.8 respectively until the lens reaches 200mm or 350mm. I don't know if such a lens is even possible. Add a 1.4X and 2X TC and I might even buy one.

 

[unfocused]

I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.

The 500mm f4 was popular because it was significantly cheaper than the 600mm f4, the 400mm f2.8 and the 200-400 f4. It was also lighter than the same generation versions of the other lenses. Given that the RF versions of the 400 and 600 are priced comparably to their EF versions, I would expect that the 500mm f4 would offer a similar price differential from the other three lenses, as well as being much lighter than the EF500 II. The 600 III can be hand held, although I wouldn't want to do it for long periods. The prospect of 500mm that is lighter and cheaper than the other three lenses would make it appealing to many people.

 

[rbielefeld]

I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.

I think this is a great encapsulation of how I feel. No control ring? That really will keep me from getting the RF 600. I love the control ring and right now I can use my 600 MkII EF with the control ring adapter and I love it. No incentive for me to buy this "new" RF 600.

 

[rbr]

I think this is a great encapsulation of how I feel. No control ring? That really will keep me from getting the RF 600. I love the control ring and right now I can use my 600 MkII EF with the control ring adapter and I love it. No incentive for me to buy this "new" RF 600.

I agree. I find the control ring extremely useful. I use mine to change the focus points (e.g. between spot, eye tracking, etc.) For me that is most important with big telephotos where I do that regularly on the R5. I would find it a step down to lose that at this point and would really miss it.

 

[AlanF]

Canon, still missing 300mm, 500mm,.... (I hope they do not just put an fixed adapter on ist....)
and an competitor for the 200-600mm from sony. You would sell a lot of them.
Almost every Sony shooter I know, owns this light lens.
And the 100-500 is not equal to it. Sorry, but the missing aperture is visible.

The 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is 0.8kg heavier and much longer than the RF 100-500mm, which puts it above the comfortable weight for a walk-around - hiking nature lens for me. Although if you follow forums, the 200-600mm looks very popular, and all your Sony friends own one, I never see one on my regular bird watching trips. The 100-500mm at f/7.1 is more than good enough for me.

 

[Dragon]

All these do is add an ef/rf converter that has a hole big enough for an rf TC and maybe a bit of tweaking to the IS algorithm to take advantage of the IBIS in the R5 and R6. The optics haven't changed from the EF III versions and they were the lowest IQ in the series in a while, particularly with TCs. Hopefully the performance with the RF TCs will be a little better.

 

[padam]

All those theories about the mark III EF / RF versions being a step back seem to be unfounded (at least in the case of the 400mm).
Sharpness seems to be about the same as the previous version, but when an EF III extender is mounted, performance seems noticeably better and of course it will improve further with the RF extenders.

 

[swkitt]

You have to remember that all those lenses in EF version are just perfect in terms of fast AF, IQ and design, and just as good as Sony or Nikon versions. All those big lenses are optimized and I don't think that anything can be improved a lot on them, apart from cutting size and weight by using DO technology.
So I don't really understand why people complain that the RF version look like the EF... if the EF is already perfect.
If you already have a EF, then perfect, just use the adapter. If you don't then just buy the RF directly. But asking for a new model - that will not be any better because that's where the technology stands for now -is just stupid, or a geek idea.
By the way the first 2,8/400 IS that is 30 years old still have the same image quality than the latest versions. Of course it's 1.5 kgs heavier but most people use it on a tripod anyway. Honestly nobody needs a better lens than the latest EF 400 and 600 to make better photos.
The only acceptable demand would be to have lenses smaller and lighter but for that we will all have to wait for the DO versions.

 

[Ahmed Hindawi]

I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.

I cannot agree more!

 

[Alan B]

 

[unfocused]

I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.

While it is a strange decision, I can only imagine that Canon surveyed the target professional audience for these lenses and found that the Control Ring was not necessarily a positive or at least that there was little interest in it.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If I look at the photos, it really seems they only put that fixed adapter on the old versions. They say autofocus s better with the RF versions because of a new motor or so, but even if I would by one today, would prefer the EF version that still works on EF cameras. It seems for very long focal length the RF mount does dot really make any new optical formulas possible, as there s no advantage in putting the first lens element even closer to the sensor.

Mirrorless shorter flange distance has little benefit in long focal length. So unlikely they could have made these lenses any smaller or lighter. There are new designs anyway with significant weight savings over the Mark II versions.

I'm more curious about what happened with the 600 F4 DO lens exhibited a few years ago.