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

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
313
346
UK
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.
Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.

Given the focal length I would have though f6.3 to be honest.
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.
thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
995
1,044
Scotland
thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture.

Regarding f/7.1 we don't know when it changes. If it is f/5.6 at 400mm(which I strongly believe), then the 500mm mode is just gravy. I would have liked a 200-500 f/5.6 L more, but I'll take this and see which focal lengths I use most before choosing which big L I get; 200-400mm f/4 is still my dream, but if all my picks on this at 400-500 when I know to get a 400 or 500 prime.
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,372
1,315
Turku, Finland
Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.

My point was that this one works as if it had a 1.25x one built in, compared to the EF 100–400. A max aperture of f/7.1 is exactly what you get when you extrapolate from 400mm/5.6 to 500mm. Except you don't have to toggle it on and off. Of course we don't yet know what the aperture will be at 400mm, so there's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,898
1,046
UK
www.flickr.com
Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.

As I said on the thread about the other x-f/7.1 zoom, I've shot tonnes of bird photos at f/10 (admittedly 1000mm), and rarely are we blessed with perfect light in the UK. So I just can't agree with people saying it's too dark. Incidentally, ISO 3200 is absolutely not the upper limit on current Canon sensors - or even a generation or two ago (I'm still using the 5D3 most of the time and would push to 12800 in extremis, ETTR). But in any case, f/7.1 is just 2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6, and only 1/3 of a stop slower than f/6.3, which a lot of budget-conscious birders seem to do fine with.

Who knows what other telephoto lenses they'll bring out for RF mount, but there's no such thing as a free lunch - you want long *and* wide, you'll have to pay more (and it'll be much bigger and heavier).
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,372
1,315
Turku, Finland
thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.

What? ISO 3200 is nothing, even on a crop body. Unless you meant ISO 32000 which is still perfectly usable in many cases on modern FF bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,455
331
Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.

Given the focal length I would have though f6.3 to be honest.

thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.

If this is the same size of the existing EF 100-400L II, then what do you expect? If it is f/5.6 at 400mm, then you could use it just like the 100-400L II with an extra 100mm with 2/3 stop of light loss. That is your choice, but at least the new design gives you that choice. The taking on/off TC solution is worse. Because when it's on, it reduces the f-stop for the entire zoom range.

So far, the RF telezooms are coming with something extra. The RF 70-200's "extra" is its smaller size and lower weight, and it looks like the RF 100-400's "extra" is an additional 100mm for the same size and smaller max aperture at the long end. If it retains f/5.6 at 400mm, then it's going to be a win for Canon. A smaller, lighter telezoom solution that is targeted against the 150/200-500s while still covering the 100-400 space. The x-600mm zooms are in a different class of lenses and are much larger/heavier than the 100-400.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
313
346
UK
What? ISO 3200 is nothing, even on a crop body. Unless you meant ISO 32000 which is still perfectly usable in many cases on modern FF bodies.
Iso 3200 on a crop body can be okay provided you don’t have to do much post processing. I’ve rarely gotten nice results from an image shot at that iso level before. 2000 seems to be my limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
313
346
UK
If this is the same size of the existing EF 100-400L II, then what do you expect? If it is f/5.6 at 400mm, then you could use it just like the 100-400L II with an extra 100mm with 2/3 stop of light loss. That is your choice, but at least the new design gives you that choice. The taking on/off TC solution is worse. Because when it's on, it reduces the f-stop for the entire zoom range.

So far, the RF telezooms are coming with something extra. The RF 70-200's "extra" is its smaller size and lower weight, and it looks like the RF 100-400's "extra" is an additional 100mm for the same size and smaller max aperture at the long end. If it retains f/5.6 at 400mm, then it's going to be a win for Canon. A smaller, lighter telezoom solution that is targeted against the 150/200-500s while still covering the 100-400 space. The x-600mm zooms are in a different class of lenses and are much larger/heavier than the 100-400.
I agree if it’s f5.6 at 400mm the it’ll be spot on. Gotta move through f6.3 yet though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
96
142
Houston
I’d agree for a typical 70-200 but the 6” RF70-200 is so handy as a near normal lens that the 100-500 won’t provide.

“Both”
I agree, they are not the same lens category, and I am likewise attracted to the compact form factor of the 70-200. Ideally I would like to have both. But, and I am probably not the only one in this position, with new RF lenses costing more than $2,000 each (hoping for rebates from Canon, otherwise it is more than $2,500), and no second-hand market for the coming 1-2 years, one has to make choices. I have budget this year for one L zoom, and maybe one non-L prime (35mm?), so my preference would be to replace my EF 100-400 Mk1, and wait to see what comes in the form of more affordable and compact and maybe IS mid telephoto primes before deciding on the 70-200 next year.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
As I said on the thread about the other x-f/7.1 zoom, I've shot tonnes of bird photos at f/10 (admittedly 1000mm), and rarely are we blessed with perfect light in the UK. So I just can't agree with people saying it's too dark. Incidentally, ISO 3200 is absolutely not the upper limit on current Canon sensors - or even a generation or two ago (I'm still using the 5D3 most of the time and would push to 12800 in extremis, ETTR). But in any case, f/7.1 is just 2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6, and only 1/3 of a stop slower than f/6.3, which a lot of budget-conscious birders seem to do fine with.

Who knows what other telephoto lenses they'll bring out for RF mount, but there's no such thing as a free lunch - you want long *and* wide, you'll have to pay more (and it'll be much bigger and heavier).
Although a Canon user and fan I have to say that these f/6.3 3rd party lens users enjoy 600mm instead of 500mm and this is a significant difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63 and AlanF

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,586
2,947
Looking forward to Roger's take and Bryans comparison with the 100-400 ii. This won't be for me as my 100-400 is very new but I'm hoping it will make a lot of shooters happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB
Feb 13, 2020
1
1
I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.
Before you take the bet I think it's worth pointing out that the max aperture calculated between 100mm and 500mm won't be linear in the way you suggest. Otherwise by this logic you could calculate 7.1*100/500 to get a 100mm max aperture of F1.42, which clearly won't be the case. Assuming it is linear between the two points (100mm F4.5 and 500mm F7.1) -- which probably isn't the case -- then at 400mm it would be F6.45. So, I wouldn't take the bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,063
2,333
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.


Yes I will. Trust me on that one.
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,063
2,333
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.

This is what I was hoping for so 700mm would come at F8 like 560 does now. That would be doable.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
176
63
Is it just me, or does the RF 100-500 look narrower than the EF 100-400?

I'm betting that it isn't f/5.6 at 400mm; if it were, I would have thought it would be f/6.3 at 500mm, not f/7.1.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
316
335
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?

300 f2.8 and 500 f4 were not updated in the last round of big white EF updates and weight loss program. They may have he'd off because they couldn't get a significant weight reduction, but my thought has been that those will be the first Big Whites for the RF mount. I am guessing those are both good sellers for Canon.