Canon officially announces the development of the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, 1.4x and 2.0x extenders

[navastronia]

This is damned good news

 

[Optics Patent]

They protrude into the lens and IIRC the RF 70-200mm/2.8 has elements at the very back.

I see you are correct. Darn, I’ll just have to buy the 100-500!

 

[Pape]

Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?

 

[navastronia]

Any idea if this is an extending barrel?

 

[Maximilian]

Interesting to see that there are still 5 (five) lines free in the lens roadmap for 2020
Let's see if they'll be filled up and with what of the rumored stuff...

 

[Optics Patent]

Disappointingly the TCs lack the matte metal Finish at their rear that matches the R mount. The lenses and control ring EF adapter all have this.

What lenses will the TCs serve? Could there be a RF300 f 2.8 on the way?

 

[SteveC]

Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?

It could be a lock ring like the 100-400 LII has.

 

[Stuart]

http://image.canon/ - coming in April 2020

 

[koenkooi]

Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?

It’s a zoom lock, like the 100-400 has.

 

[6degrees]

Glad I waited, I was going to get the 70-200, but in truth the 100-500 (completely different lens, no argument there) is a better fit to travel alongside the 24-105L. Hoping for a 10-24L in the near future

Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L

 

[Daner]

f/holy hell it better be sunny out!

That combination works well enough even when it is moony out!

 

[Daner]

Disappointingly the TCs lack the matte metal Finish at their rear that matches the R mount. The lenses and control ring EF adapter all have this.

What lenses will the TCs serve? Could there be a RF300 f 2.8 on the way?

My question exactly. It seems odd to announce them at this point when they don't seem to be compatible with any currently available lenses. It will be interesting to see how well they work with the RF 100-500, and if they can be stacked.

 

[Daner]

7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..

Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.

I have used that exact combo for a while with my EOS R. 100-400 with the EF-RF adapter, or 140-560 with the 1.4 TC and the EF-RF adapter. We don't have specifications yet, but I am pretty sure that the RF 100-500 will be smaller and lighter than the 100-400 plus the adapter, while offering comparable light-gathering ability between 100 and 400, with additional reach. My primary question is whether it will retain the close-focus ability of the 100-400.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

My primary question is whether it will retain the close-focus ability of the 100-400.

The focus limiter suggests an MFD of 3.0 m, so apparently not. However the 100-400 has massive focus breathing, so if they've managed to improve on that it might not be quite as bad as the MFD implies.

 

[ozturert]

7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..

Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.

Your combo gives you 560mm f8, this lens will give you 500mm f7.1, without teleconverter. Not a huge difference, I'd say but you won't need teleconverter.

 

[Gazwas]

We're developing 7 lenses for release in 2020............ Yahoo!!

But they are all a secret and we're only telling you what one of them is.......... What??

 

[BurningPlatform]

That combination works well enough even when it is moony out!
View attachment 188653

It is always sunny on the moon, though, apart from the lunar eclipse.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Okay, I get that f7.1 isn’t a big deal for a mirrorless full frame camera, but for an “L” lens?

Doesn’t say “L” to me.

 

[epsiloneri]

It is always sunny on the moon, though.

 

[gzroxas]

Has anyone noticed that it seems like there are 4 rings? (Zoom, Focus, Control Ring and...?)