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

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
316
334
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.

L also references build & IQ. If it is f5.6 @ 400mm and not much larger/heavier, I will take this over the 100-400 any day if it has the same/better IQ. The advantage is that I don't have to carry a teleconverter to get out to 500mm and am still at f7.1 instead of f8. Yes, I know I give up 60mm, but I will also have 40+mp to crop. Not a bad trade off. Combine that with better ISO performance of the new sensor and should be a net win.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
603
365
This is smallest super tele canon making . There must be one with 7cm lense for weak nerds,older peoples and smallish japanese photographers.
They can make another 200-600 f6,3 for strong guys :) or 200-800 f8 or 200-500 f5,6
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,454
331
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.

The filter size for the 100-400L II is 77mm. So 400/5.6 = 71.4mm. 500/7.1 = 70.4mm, which is comparable to the 400/5.6 ratio. 500/6.3 = 79.4mm. If this 100-500 is the RF version of the EF 100-400L II, then it can be f/5.6 at 400mm depending on how it is designed. However, it can not be f/6.3 at 500mm unless the lens diameter grows significantly.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
493
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.
If the new lens is sharper than the 100-400 and has better IS and better AF, then it will be better. Otherwise, pretty much samo samo except for the extra reach. The 70mm objective is the same, so essentially the same light gathering ability. Don't forget the linked IBIS, which probably won't be there for the 100-400, so I suspect the new lens will offer several stops more stabilization with an R5 or R6. Anything faster would have been unwieldy unless it was totally made of plastic and that is not the case here because this is an L lens. Actually, this lens with an R5 (assuming 45 MP) gets you to an APS-c crop that is equivalent to 1200mm FF with a 1.4 TC. I think that kind of answers the 7D III question.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
603
365
i been thinking they should make RF to EF converter, you already got Ef to RF so they would make together nice extension tube :p
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,705
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.
Get yourself a better teleconverter. I see a clear increase in resolution with one of my two 1.4xTCIIIs on my 100-400mm II but not the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63 and slclick

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,705
If the new lens is sharper than the 100-400 and has better IS and better AF, then it will be better. Otherwise, pretty much samo samo except for the extra reach. The 70mm objective is the same, so essentially the same light gathering ability. Don't forget the linked IBIS, which probably won't be there for the 100-400, so I suspect the new lens will offer several stops more stabilization with an R5 or R6. Anything faster would have been unwieldy unless it was totally made of plastic and that is not the case here because this is an L lens. Actually, this lens with an R5 (assuming 45 MP) gets you to an APS-c equivalence of 1200mm with a 1.4 TC.
?? A 500mm lens + 1.4xTC on a 45 Mpx FF camera gives an equivalence of reach of a 515mm on a 90D. Basically, a 700mm lens on a 45 Mpx FF gives a very similar field of view and resolution to a 500mm on a 90D or M6 II.
 

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,134
209
My biggest question is what several others here already seem to be asking: what is the aperture at 400mm? If it is any dimmer than f5.6, that would represent only a “compromise upgrade” from the EF version - which would be out of line with the other options to this point...

However - there are supposedly 5 other unannounced lenses coming. Wasn’t a 70-400 4.5-5.6 rumored on this site a few weeks ago? Hopefully if not this one, another L tele-zoom lens offers f5.6 at 400mm.
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
231
278
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 will also be keeping my 100-400ii, the 1.4x should be much impoved on the new R5 body based on the focusing no longer through PDAF
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,060
2,332
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.


I have an EOS-R and a 5D4 and a 7D2. Would be very hard to justify just for this lens given the images the others can produce. Also given that this lens is a non-starter on my other bodies.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,705
Sony's new 1.4x and 2xTCs work very well. I would hope that new Canon R TCs tailored for the R lenses would be similarly improved.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The arithmetic is correct but it doesn't mean the lens follows that. If it does, good.

Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500.

Granted, lens design has subtleties, and there would presumably be issues introduced (possible mechanical getting that telescope distance - I'd cringe at a three-part telescope). But it's hard to imagine that the change would require reducing the aperture at 400mm. That's the last solution the designer would be allowed by the boss to revert to.

As an aside, one hopes that the RF mount enables other benefits in image quality and product configuration. I now assume that the magnificent RF 70-200 that won me over to Canon late last year was essentially the 100-400 adapted to those specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
733
880
My biggest question is what several others here already seem to be asking: what is the aperture at 400mm? If it is any dimmer than f5.6, that would represent only a “compromise upgrade” from the EF version - which would be out of line with the other options to this point...

However - there are supposedly 5 other unannounced lenses coming. Wasn’t a 70-400 4.5-5.6 rumored on this site a few weeks ago? Hopefully if not this one, another L tele-zoom lens offers f5.6 at 400mm.

I bet it's 6.3 at 400 and 7.1 by 420. I'm still into it and can absolutely see myself buying one, especially if it comes in under $1,800.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I say, let the ISO or IS/IBIS make up for the lack of light (depending on the situation and how much action is in the frame). Give me a petite, L-grade, do-all telezoom I can pair with the 85/1.2 and (coming) 35/1.2. Add a single 14 to 20mm prime, and I have a 4-lens kit that takes me from the ultra wides all the way to 500mm.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
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.

I believe the 3.0m focus distance indicated is not the MFD. That's the "don't hunt up close" distance for the switch (3.0m-infinity, vs "full")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
968
1,031
Scotland
Strange how Canon felt the need to make this one the development announcement and not a big white. It is exciting to see what those converters will be used for. I was really expecting rf-ef converters first.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The truth will be in the sales as to whether or not f7.1 was a poor decision.

Maybe that's why they didn't call the 200-400 f4 with switchable 1.4x TC a "200-560". Because then they'd have to utter the "f5.6" number that psyched some buyers into thinking it was a slow consumer lens.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
146
47
The filter size for the 100-400L II is 77mm. So 400/5.6 = 71.4mm. 500/7.1 = 70.4mm, which is comparable to the 400/5.6 ratio. 500/6.3 = 79.4mm. If this 100-500 is the RF version of the EF 100-400L II, then it can be f/5.6 at 400mm depending on how it is designed. However, it can not be f/6.3 at 500mm unless the lens diameter grows significantly.
Do we know that the RF 100-500 has the same filter size as the EF 100-400? I was suggesting it looked narrower to me, so not only could it not be f/6.3 at 500mm, but I was speculating that it's a narrower aperture than f/5.6 at 400mm also.