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

Ruiloba

80D + EosR
Feb 13, 2020
16
23
Spain
And what I argued is that the max aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm is consistent with f/7.1 at 500mm. A max aperture of f/6.3 at 500mm would correspond to f/5 at 400mm, which is larger than 100-400L II.
As a Tamron 150-600mm G2 user, i tell you that i have a 400mm 5.6 and as soon as i zoom in more it jumps to 6.3 so yes.. 500mm 6.3 is posible with 400mm 5.6... It doesn't have to become a 400mm f5
 

Codebunny

EOS R1
Sep 5, 2018
575
538
So I did some exposure checks. A 'lovely' day in Scotland I got ISO 1000 1/200 F5.6 or ISO 1600 1/200 F/7.1, that'll be enough to get a stationary animal. To get action stopping light levels it would need to be f/4 or f/2.8 at 500mm before I get to ISO levels that destroy a image.

Personally it is more annoying that is has a variable aperture and that is a normal zoom and not the reverse zoom like I had on the 24-70(That lens was lovely in that is started on the useful end and expanded when you zoomed out to 24mm)
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
You know... I wouldn't want to use this for trying to capture people, but between this 100-500 and the 24-105 you'd have a pretty killer 2-lens landscape kit.
That's what I'm thinking.

I also want to add the RF 15-35 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for when I need them, and the 85 1.2 DS for portrait work.

Of course, with all that investment in glass, I have nothing left over for new bodies, so all of the new goodness on that front will have to wait a bit longer. (First-world problems)
 
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?
Sony A9 does f/16 PDAF so you never know. 70-200/2.8 can't accept the TCs as there is no physical space. The 2x on the 100-500 at f/14 makes little sense (although I do occasionally shoot my 200-600 with 2xTC for 1200 f/13). There has to be a super-tele prime coming in the remaining 5 lenses (note on the roadmap the TCs are counting towards the 9 promised for 2020). Patents exist for 500/4 and 600/4. I'd be betting on the 500/4 coming first as EF 600/4 is recently updated. 500/4 with TCs up to 1000 f/8 and slapped on a 40-45MP EOS R would be birding heaven to me. So why did I just drop $20K on new Sony glass and bodies?? Well I need something to cure the GAS until July ;)

This lens only makes a 100-400 redudant IF (and that is a big IF) it is still f/5.6 @ 400mm. Then it is only a bonus as already pointed out many times. But if it is already f/6.3 or f/7.1 @ 400 then it is a compromise in some ways compared to the patent for the RF 70-400. But still could be a good lens to have. The Sony 200-600 is f/6.3 by 300mm already so I don't think we can really say what this lens will be at 400 yet and it doesn't necessarily follow some basic ratio math.

I shoot my 200-600 with 1.4TC more than 50% of the time and that puts me at f/9. Believe it or not with IBIS and IS combined, f/7.1 or f/9 isn't as much of a hinderance as one may think. There are so many people already using 100-400 with 1.4TC and being at f/8. Well lose 60mm and gain 1/3 light and this lens is still useful. I'd still prefer a 200-600 design like Sony's. That lens has been a joy to use for me all be it is large and heavier but non-extending and a super short zoom throw are huge advantages I find that make up for the resulting length and weight penalties.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Southstorm and Pape

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,513
171
66
The duplication of lenses for RF from EF poses some questions for us as photographers. Im a self professed equipment geek but even I have to question when Im heavily invested in expensive EF lenses some of which are not that old how far I "add" to my collection in the RF mount. I currently own the holy trinity in EF, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS USM II, EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM, EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM, EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM etc. Then in RF for the EOS R I currently have the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM (used as a walk about lens). Ive the EF-RF adaptor which adds depth using the EF lenses on the EOS R but is completely usable.
What we have been "teased" so far makes the EOS R5 very desirable and definitely a contender to replace my trusty 5DS, but can I justify spending £ 7,100 / $ 9,175 to "replace" my holy trinity on top of the camera body cost which is more than likely in the UK to be circa. £ 3,500 at launch giving a combined total of £ 10,600 / $ 13,780. Will I get a meaningful jump in the results Im getting? its questionable and in the cold light of day makes me think Canon still needs to pursue a DSLR that offers many of the features the EOS R5 will have.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Do you actually know much about lens design? If you do, I'll be happy to learn from you. Please show us a ray diagram of how pulling the objective lens forward makes a 400mm into a 500mm.
I’m not a lens designer, and you might reread the post to see the qualifications I noted. As a thought experiment consider that the motion from 399-400 does not likely hit a optical limit that prevents the continued motion from 400-401 from giving the results I predict.

I’m baffled by the tone of your post. Was there something inappropriate I said?
 

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,115
189
The more I read, I really believe the 100-500 is the RF equivalent of the EF 100-400 II. The IQ of 400-500 should be better than a 100-400 II + 1.4x TC II since the lens is engineered to reach that length without the additional elements in a teleconverter. I actually thought we would see an RF 70-400 (pickup on the short end), but hey surprised me going the other direction. The RF 100-500 fills that general purpose long telephoto range. I do not think we will see a RF 70-400 or RF 100-400. This leaves an opening for Canon to deliver a higher end 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 focused on sport and wildlife photographers - somewhere between the 100-500 and big whites. I don't know if this is sound logic or wistful thinking.
In the EF world we've got 70-300 and 100-400 (with the latter being 1/3 stop faster at 300mm). I say, why not 70-400 and 100-500 in this case? At least by offering this choice, ALL folks that want an EF 100-400 replacement in the RF world aren’t forced to accept f7.1 as a compromise (or any consequential light loss throughout the range as a result). This lens would make more sense to me in that aspect - a general 70-400 4.5-5.6 and this 100-500 which gives RF shooters a native 500mm without needing a TC or $8K worth of funds. 7.1 helps keep it within EF 100-400 dimensions for easy handholdability.

But since Canon only chose to confirm the existence of the 100-500, we can only speculate at this point. Among the lenses currently known to us, I admit I have a hard time figuring out where this fits. And I say this as someone who thinks they’ve absolutely been killing it with RF lens releases to date...
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,658
884
I guess that Canon wanted to have a relatvely "compact" telephoto zoom at a reasonable (for a Canon) price. We have to admit that photos show it to be very compact (obviously at the 100 setting). This gives it the advantage of a travel wildlife zoom. But I would love to have the option of either a f/5.6 or f/6.3 f-stop or a 600mm focal length.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
He did say that, yes.

But he went beyond "they could do that" to "they DID do that." He asserts that the lens will be f/5.6 at 400mm, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. He's asserting his opinion as fact.

Now I agree that IF it turns out to be f/5.6@400mm, then the complaints are groundless, and they really did just extend the range without compromising what was already there. But others think it's possible that it's going to be f/6.3 at 400, in which case the now-old 100-400 L II can do 400mm better than this lens can, and it's not an improvement. We can't tell either way at this point, so saying it WILL be one way or the other is a groundless assertion.

So, contrary to your assertion that he made no assertion, he did make assertions.

(Note: I actually usually like Optics Patent's attitude; he regularly calls people out for arguing that something is useless because they personally don't want it, for instance. But in this particular case, he's jumped to what, for all the world, looks like an unwarranted conclusion and argued on that basis (an argument that would be good IF the conclusion were warranted). People are calling him on it. He can either demonstrate he's actually got good reason to believe what he says...or continue to take the heat.)
Thank you for the kind words. I must note that you put things in quotation marks and attribute them to me that I didn’t write. I wonder if you might edit your post to get the quotes correct. I consider that a greater error than if I mislabeled a prediction or speculation as a certain fact (and I welcome you calling me on that).

There‘s a flame war apparently because I made (what I intended to be) a prediction of what would happen if one conducted a technical experiment. It fit my assumption that the designers would want to address all the worries we’re hearing about aperture by avoiding making it slower at 400.

I might be wrong, but the gents who disagree haven’t yet suggested why my guess is wrong. I’m here to learn, and respect a good ray tracing diagram as much as the next guy, as they have occasionally arisen in my day job for decades.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,658
884
Sony A9 does f/16 PDAF so you never know. 70-200/2.8 can't accept the TCs as there is no physical space. The 2x on the 100-500 at f/14 makes little sense (although I do occasionally shoot my 200-600 with 2xTC for 1200 f/13). There has to be a super-tele prime coming in the remaining 5 lenses (note on the roadmap the TCs are counting towards the 9 promised for 2020). Patents exist for 500/4 and 600/4. I'd be betting on the 500/4 coming first as EF 600/4 is recently updated. 500/4 with TCs up to 1000 f/8 and slapped on a 40-45MP EOS R would be birding heaven to me. So why did I just drop $20K on new Sony glass and bodies?? Well I need something to cure the GAS until July ;)

This lens only makes a 100-400 redudant IF (and that is a big IF) it is still f/5.6 @ 400mm. Then it is only a bonus as already pointed out many times. But if it is already f/6.3 or f/7.1 @ 400 then it is a compromise in some ways compared to the patent for the RF 70-400. But still could be a good lens to have. The Sony 200-600 is f/6.3 by 300mm already so I don't think we can really say what this lens will be at 400 yet and it doesn't necessarily follow some basic ratio math.

I shoot my 200-600 with 1.4TC more than 50% of the time and that puts me at f/9. Believe it or not with IBIS and IS combined, f/7.1 or f/9 isn't as much of a hinderance as one may think. There are so many people already using 100-400 with 1.4TC and being at f/8. Well lose 60mm and gain 1/3 light and this lens is still useful. I'd still prefer a 200-600 design like Sony's. That lens has been a joy to use for me all be it is large and heavier but non-extending and a super short zoom throw are huge advantages I find that make up for the resulting length and weight penalties.
Having a wide range of white teles (300/2.8,,400/4.500/4) I can say with certainty that I wouldn't "upgrade" them to an RF version. They are very useful in the EF mount. I would only be tempted by a 600DO lens.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,397
265
As a Tamron 150-600mm G2 user, i tell you that i have a 400mm 5.6 and as soon as i zoom in more it jumps to 6.3 so yes.. 500mm 6.3 is posible with 400mm 5.6... It doesn't have to become a 400mm f5
What size are the filter threads for the 100-400L II and the 150-600mm G2? The 100-400mm uses 77mm filters and the 150-600 uses 95mm filters. Still think the RF 100-500 can be f/6.3 at 500mm if it has 77mm filters like the 100-400?
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Actually he isn't "talking ballpark." He is not offering opinions, he is making assertions. When you make an assertion you run the risk of being called out. How is that snotty?
Brad, you said "I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm" I said "I'll take the bet," and gave some of my presumptions and technical speculations below as to why (you call these "assertions" to justify what others describe as a snotty response). You call these assertions to justify "calling me out." Is this a playground bully battles I've stumbled into? Are there alpha nerds I'm threatening with technical speculations? Here what I wrote that seems to have triggered you - emphasis added:

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.


If seeing my actual words causes you to reassess anything you posted, please let me know.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The duplication of lenses for RF from EF poses some questions for us as photographers. Im a self professed equipment geek but even I have to question when Im heavily invested in expensive EF lenses some of which are not that old how far I "add" to my collection in the RF mount. I currently own the holy trinity in EF, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS USM II, EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM, EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM, EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM etc. Then in RF for the EOS R I currently have the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM (used as a walk about lens). Ive the EF-RF adaptor which adds depth using the EF lenses on the EOS R but is completely usable.
What we have been "teased" so far makes the EOS R5 very desirable and definitely a contender to replace my trusty 5DS, but can I justify spending £ 7,100 / $ 9,175 to "replace" my holy trinity on top of the camera body cost which is more than likely in the UK to be circa. £ 3,500 at launch giving a combined total of £ 10,600 / $ 13,780. Will I get a meaningful jump in the results Im getting? its questionable and in the cold light of day makes me think Canon still needs to pursue a DSLR that offers many of the features the EOS R5 will have.
The best advice I hear is that lenses tend to be assets that retain their value better than digital camera bodies, which are essentially disposable and depreciate to near-zero. That means your EF lenses will serve you well on the existing body.

Options:
1. Boring and sensible. Keep things as they are, and save up for a change. The longer you wait, the better and cheaper your options will be and the more options and information you'll have.
2. Fun. Sell EVERYTHING now (except maybe ones you truly need and for which there is no RF option). But the R5 and the start of your new copllection (I did this with my switch from Nikon late last year and it was fun). You'll have a smaller collection you might love better, plus the fun prospect for adding equipment as new options are released.
3. Hybrid. Buy the R5, keep the EF lenses, and sell and replace one at a time as budget permits. Be sure to get the control ring adapter. That adds an RF feature to all of your EF lenses (and looks better on the camera than the basic black one).
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,100
6,482
I’m not a lens designer, and you might reread the post to see the qualifications I noted. As a thought experiment consider that the motion from 399-400 does not likely hit a optical limit that prevents the continued motion from 400-401 from giving the results I predict.

I’m baffled by the tone of your post. Was there something inappropriate I said?
Given your self-designation as "Optics Patent", I, and clearly more of us, had the impression that you are an expert on optical design. I was surprised by your arguments that just moving the objective lens forward on the 100-400mm would be sufficient to increase its focal length to 500mm and other comments that the lens could be f/7.1 at 500mm and f/5.6 at 400mm . So, I wanted to know whether indeed you do have lens designing experience. Thank you for answering that you do not and dispelling any myth that you do have specialist knowledge. As you described the zoom as having an "objective" lens, which telescopes have but camera lenses do not, I did suspect that your lens experience maybe more in telescopes.

The Sigma 150-600mm C has a 95mm diameter front lens, which gives f/6.3 at 600mm. That aperture is wide enough to give f/5.6 at 500mm and f/4 at 400mm (within the 5% limits allowed by lens descriptions - the 400mm DO II has a 95mm front lens for example). Yet, the lens remains f/6.3 from 600-400mm. Zoom lens design is far more complicated than for simple refracting telescopes. If Canon lens designers manage to have the RF 100-500mm at 400mm to be f/5.6, then kudos to them.
 

Aaron D

Hey!
Jul 21, 2016
215
193
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
So, contrary to your assertion that he made no assertion, he did make assertions.
I admit I didn't catch the unsupported assertions when I first read that post. I was reacting to AlanF's delivery. I'm really worn thin for tolerance to 'snotty'. I appreciate the thoughtful, respectful tone that so many posters maintain in this blog. And I hate to see snotty or snarky (or whatever you'd call it) go unchallenged. I enjoy this distraction, reading these posts.

And, yes: off topic! Apologies!
 

Bert63

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
775
1,560
Sounds like that for a lot of us this falls short of what we were hoping for.

I understand and agree with all of the points made, I was hoping to see something that took what the 100-400 II offered and make it better - another 100mm without giving up the light.

For a person like me who shoots their 100-400 II at 560 99 percent of the time on a variety of different camera bodies this lens might not be for us - we'll have to wait and see. I get that I'm only giving up 60mm over the 100-400mm combo, but given the circumstances I shoot in up here in northern Washington, the use of a tele is most likely going to go out the window with the new lens.

BIFs with a tele at F8 with crap sky and light can be discouraging enough. Trying to do the same at F11 is a gut punch.

Not to mention I'd be restricted to using the EOS-R with this new lens which poses its own interesting challenges for BIFs and the like. hehe.. Still love her though.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,616
1,467
The best advice I hear is that lenses tend to be assets that retain their value better than digital camera bodies, which are essentially disposable and depreciate to near-zero. That means your EF lenses will serve you well on the existing body.

Options:
1. Boring and sensible. Keep things as they are, and save up for a change. The longer you wait, the better and cheaper your options will be and the more options and information you'll have.
2. Fun. Sell EVERYTHING now (except maybe ones you truly need and for which there is no RF option). But the R5 and the start of your new copllection (I did this with my switch from Nikon late last year and it was fun). You'll have a smaller collection you might love better, plus the fun prospect for adding equipment as new options are released.
3. Hybrid. Buy the R5, keep the EF lenses, and sell and replace one at a time as budget permits. Be sure to get the control ring adapter. That adds an RF feature to all of your EF lenses (and looks better on the camera than the basic black one).
I'm probably going to go with #3, personally--except I might not bother to replace in some cases.

I do wish the control ring adapter came in the kits instead of the plain one. Or as an option. I'd happily pay $100 more for the kit if it came with the control ring adapter, and that's the difference in price between the two when sold separately.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
260
214
Only if it is f/5.6 at 400mm, and we don’t know if that is so. I agree that it will be a nice lens to walk around with.
So all those folks walking around with a Sigma 150-600 (either variety) are doing the impossible? (They are both f/6.3 at 400). If AF and IS work better and DR and noise are also improved, how is 1/3 of a stop the end of the world?