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

[erader]

If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.

oh please quit making sense. these guys just wanna cry about something to keep the nikonians company

 

[Aaron D]

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.

Put me down for a 50 and a 28mm f/2 or f/1.8 --similar to the RF 35 mm! That would be plenty fast and plenty expensive. I'm saving up for the R5s and the new RF 17mm TSE.......

 

[SecureGSM]

oh please quit making sense. these guys just wanna cry about something to keep the nikonians company

It won’t be at F5.6 at 400mm. It will be at F6.3 or slower. Otherwise it will be the size of 100-400 girth and weight
Look at sigma and tamron 100-400/xx - 6.3 lenses. That’s a design prototype But scales up to 100-500. And those 100-400 lenses are dirt cheap.

 

[brad-man]

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.

Lens designing is what he does at night in front of a keyboard...

 

[SecureGSM]

Lens designing is what he does at night in front of a keyboard...

And how would you know? Are you roommates?

 

[Aaron D]

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.

No need to get snotty, man. He's talking 'ballpark'. On a rumor blog.

 

[Dragon]

?? 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.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my use of "equivalence". I was comparing to full frame and allowing that the R cameras can take an APS-C slice (in this case about 17.5 MP). The 90D is in a different league (I have one), but it is also on the noisy side at pixel level and higher ISOs (not a criticism, but rather just a consequence of such small pixels). The 17.5 MP aps-c area of the R6 should have noticeably better pixel level noise than the 90D. It probably won't be quite as croppable, but if the new AA filter used in 1dxIII is also used in the R5, then some of that ground may be gained back. I would expect at least 7D II equivalence in the ability to crop with much better DR and some better S/N at high ISO and I think that explains the absence of a 7D III. The early specs show the R5 as having a faster capture rate at FF than the 7DII at APS C with a mechanical shutter and double the rate with an electronic shutter. That means the historical readout rate advantage of APS-c is gone unless you hypothesize a 7DIII with a 1DXIII shutter and that would probably cost as much as the R5. Certainly for capturing fleeting subjects (like birds), being able to capture the FF area is a huge advantage. I have found this to be totally true of the 5DSr which has essentially equal pixel level resolution to 7DII, but without high frame rate of the R5. For those wanting 90D reach, the R5s will still likely have at least 10fps with mechanical shutter, but with a pixel level noise penalty due to the small pixels. Either one will be killer for BIF shots.

 

[Pape]

RF 70-200 is here 3000E so rf100-500 maybe 3200

If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.

About 10% more expensive than RF 70-200 i guess

 

[brad-man]

No need to get snotty, man. He's talking 'ballpark'. On a rumor blog.

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?

 

[jolyonralph]

Perhaps Canon should have sold this as the "RF 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 with 1.25x extension functionality"

All the gear warriors who are so upset at the shame of buying an f/7.1 lens would then be quiet.

 

[Aaron D]

He is not offering opinions, he is making assertions.

He said "...all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do..."

Is nobody getting enough fiber in their diet?

 

[SteveC]

He said "...all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do..."

Is nobody getting enough fiber in their diet?

He did say that, yes.

But he went beyond saying that they could do that, to, in essence, that 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.)

EDIT: rephrase without misleading quote marks.

 

[yodani]

The Sony 200-600mm is the big contender here... price, aperture, weight.... 500mm on full frame is short for wildlife, I hope the aps-c is coming to the R series...

 

[ColinJR]

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.

 

[SecureGSM]

Perhaps Canon should have sold this as the "RF 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 with 1.25x extension functionality"

All the gear warriors who are so upset at the shame of buying an f/7.1 lens would then be quiet.

Is it F5.6 at 400mm end though? Slim chances.

 

[gzroxas]

Tension

Thanks! I have never used these kinds of lens so I didn’t know it was a thing!

 

[Bonich]

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.

You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x. But you will have the chance for zooming in 20% beyond, just not f8.
If this lens is optically as expected from an RF this will be my walk and shoot for wildlife, ...
A bigger lens will never get this usage, i.e. the 200-400 f4 is far too heavy and bulky for this.

 

[AlanF]

You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x. But you will have the chance for zooming in 20% beyond, just not f8.
If this lens is optically as expected from an RF this will be my walk and shoot for wildlife, ...
A bigger lens will never get this usage, i.e. the 200-400 f4 is far too heavy and bulky for this.

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.

 

[ozturert]

Yes I will. Trust me on that one.

I think you didn't get my point. With the new lens, without teleconverter you get a comparable reach and aperture against 100-400mm + 1.4x. 500 v 560mm isnt't too much. You can still attach 1.4x to 100-500mm, of course. I think EOS R can AF down to f11, I'm sure R5 will do it too.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Ho-hum. I bet if this was a 100-600 or a 200-600 L zoom people would be whining about the weight & price instead.