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

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
595
683
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 totally agree! That silver "glued on" extension tube looks cheap and ugly. And these lenses are the only RF lenses without a control ring, even the $100 50mm STM has one.
Canon probably considered these lenses too cheap to have a control ring.
 

Nemorino

EOS R
Aug 29, 2020
137
164
I just had a short look at the German Canon homepage and noticed this description of the AF:
Der duale Fokusantrieb sorgt mit kompatiblen Kameras für einen schnelleren Autofokus.
"The dual focus drive delivers a faster AF with compatible cameras"

What could this mean? I compared the homepage of Canon USA and didn't find a similar term.

Speculation mode on:
*the control ring is missing because the connection of the RF mount is used to power the AF motor*:unsure:

*the R3 will deliver more power to the lens and improve the AF speed*:unsure:

It is just a thought and I'm not shure this is right.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,584
1,899
Hamburg, Germany
I just had a short look at the German Canon homepage and noticed this description of the AF:

"The dual focus drive delivers a faster AF with compatible cameras"

What could this mean? I compared the homepage of Canon USA and didn't find a similar term.

Speculation mode on:
*the control ring is missing because the connection of the RF mount is used to power the AF motor*:unsure:

*the R3 will deliver more power to the lens and improve the AF speed*:unsure:

It is just a thought and I'm not shure this is right.
It is an odd way of writing that. The dual focus drive just sounds like the type of AF motor already in use in the RF 100 2.8 and I believe also in the RF 70-200mm, we're they have two independently moving focus groups. They have it described in more detail further down:

"Der Fokusantrieb mit zwei Ring-USM-Motoren wird von einer Hochgeschwindigkeits-CPU und optimierten AF-Algorithmen unterstützt und sorgt damit für eine schnelle und leise Fokussierung"

"The dual focus drive with two ring-usm motors is supported by a high speed CPU and optimized AF algorithms allowing fast and silent focusing."

That could of course imply that the compatibility in question is concerned with the bodies CPU speed. But that seems odd to me, as I would have thought how exactly AF is executed is a function implemented in the lens.

Perhaps compatible just referred to the RF bodies in general, in contrast to EF bodies which are incompatible with these.
 

Canfan

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 17, 2019
64
60
Would be nice to have a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm 5.6 as well for comparision of nikons version.
DD5008A0-D6D4-4A3C-948D-9CC45E058DC6.jpeg
 
<-- start Taboola -->