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

[Jasonmc89]

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

Tension

 

[Treyarnon]

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

Or buy the R5 - with 45MP, you won't need a teleconvertor.
From my experience with the 5Ds - cropping gives a better quality output than using a teleconvertor anyway.

 

[Sharlin]

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.

Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…

The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.

 

[Memdroid]

I hope the upcoming 2020 RF lenses include the 24mm and 35mm L primes!

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8

I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass

 

[HaroldC3]

The truth will be in the sales as to whether or not f7.1 was a poor decision.

 

[brad-man]

I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.

Ah, if only life was that simple. Most lenses do not behave in a linear fashion, though we won't know until it's released...

 

[Sharlin]

I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass

A 100–500mm f/5.6 would be much larger and more expensive than the current EF 100–400mm, with a 90mm front element required. I guess f/6.3 could've been doable.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass

Not at all. This lens is in the same size and approximate weight class as the 70-200/2.8L and the 100-400L. They all have the same aperture size and all take 77 mm filters; 25% longer (than 400) roughly corresponds to 2/3 stop. Or 2/3 of a 1.4x TC, if you like.

Ah, if only life was that simple.

Actually it is, in this case.

FWIW this is *exactly* what I wanted to see - slightly longer than the 100-400 but no (or very little) bigger.

 

[Gazwas]

Are we going to see a flurry of cheaper compact lenses now to pad the system out?

I'd sure like to see some fast primes (24, 35, 135) and and another f2 zoom first.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

To all those complaining about a slow L zoom, just pick any 2 of these 3: size, price, optical quality.

 

[blackcoffee17]

On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm. Not sure if this is good marketing for Canon.
I know that its just a bonus to have an extra 100mm of the weight and price is about the same as the EF 100-400.
But if Canon released a bit smaller 100-400 with 5.6 at long end, everyone would be happy.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Of course the biggie here, what are those extenders going to go on. Surely something brighter than the 100-500mm. As fun as a 1000mm f14 sounds.

Still hoping for a 200-500 f/5.6 for those that don't use the 100-200mm mark. But this 100-500 is something I can shove in my backpack with a gripped R5 and bring out everywhere. Bit slow for 'sunny' Scotland, but not even f/2.8 has saved me during much of the year. And we have something like 8 stops of IS, it won't freeze action, but should work fine on less timid animals.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…

The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.

I agree completely, plus you still have access to 100mm instead of 140mm. That matters to me as I need the reach for the racing event on the water and then try to capture the smiles as they paddle back into the dock.

However, they announced a 2x alongside this 100-500 as well, which puts it beyond f/11, what new tricks for focus limits might the new R5 have up it's sleeve?

 

[Optics Patent]

On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm. Not sure if this is good marketing for Canon.
I know that its just a bonus to have an extra 100mm of the weight and price is about the same as the EF 100-400.
But if Canon released a bit smaller 100-400 with 5.6 at long end, everyone would be happy.

Let’s list all the consumer oriented technology companies that follow the forums and give the customers what they say they think they want...

 

[snoke]

On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm.

Write comment on forum easy. Anyone do it.

Buy lens and take photo? Photographer do that, not write comment on forum.

 

[riker]

When we have 100-400 which can do 5.6 at 400mm, I don't see why 500mm with 7.1 makes any sense. Unless the 100-500 can also do 5.6 at 400mm (I doubt it) and is still not a gram heavier or bigger than the 100-400 and or optically better (doubt it again, 100-400 is excellent).

 

[koenkooi]

Let’s list all the consumer oriented technology companies that follow the forums and give the customers what they say they think they want...

It's like the quote people attribute to Henry Ford, "People would've said they wanted 'faster horses', not cars".

 

[riker]

Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…

The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.

Arguing about all this is kind of senseless until we see the aperture transition through the zoom range and the weight and size of the lens.
We have no idea if it can do 400/5.6 but I fear it can not. In case it can and just jumps to 7.1 above 400mm and they even managed to have it the same weight as the 100-400, I say it's good.
But if not, then I would be happier with just an RF version of the 100-400 which is an excellent lens, and who knows, maybe the RF version could even be lighter which would be MUCH appreciated.
And no, I do not use a 1.4X with my 100-400. Shooting at max f/8 which is actually at least f/11 if you also want it to be sharp is usually not something you want.
I disagree with your idea of having a builtin extender which you don't have to toggle on and off - it's an extender which you can't take off to get a faster lens or better IQ. Well, the whole concept of talking about a builtin extender is false I think. The only construct that can be referred to as a builtin extender is what we see on the 200-400. Otherwise we could talk about all the longer lenses as being the shorter ones with builtin extender. Silly. Just forget it.

 

[BurningPlatform]

I fixed the post.