Canon Officially Announces the RF 20-50mm f/4L IS USM PZ

[blackcoffee17]

I see!
A 10-800mm !

Only if it's under 500g not bigger than the 24-105

 

[Sporgon]

Quite an interesting lens. Add this to an R5 and RF 70-200 f/4 and you have a full kit for just 1.77 kgs (4 lbs). That would make a big difference when hiking out to get the shot. My current 5Ds with say 24-70 L and 70 -300 L is 1.7 lbs heavier ! Ouch and I’m getting older

 

[Del Paso]

Quite an interesting lens. Add this to an R5 and RF 70-200 f/4 and you have a full kit for just 1.77 kgs (4 lbs). That would make a big difference when hiking out to get the shot. My current 5Ds with say 24-70 L and 70 -300 L is 1.7 lbs heavier ! Ouch and I’m getting older

This is exactly what I thought when ordering this little zoomlens. A perfect equipment for cities (if a 24 or 17 TS-E is included).

 

[scyrene]

Quite an interesting lens. Add this to an R5 and RF 70-200 f/4 and you have a full kit for just 1.77 kgs (4 lbs). That would make a big difference when hiking out to get the shot. My current 5Ds with say 24-70 L and 70 -300 L is 1.7 lbs heavier ! Ouch and I’m getting older

When I'm "hiking" I wouldn't generally take a lens shorter than the 100-400

 

[Del Paso]

When I'm "hiking" I wouldn't generally take a lens shorter than the 100-400

This is also my dilemma, when hiking : 70-200 or 100-500.
Most often, the 100-500 wins because "you never know..."

 

[Sporgon]

When I'm "hiking" I wouldn't generally take a lens shorter than the 100-400

You could exchange RF 70-200/4 for the RF 100-400 and still be around the same lightweight 4 lbs for the lot. Does make sense if you dislike being a pack mule

 

[scyrene]

You could exchange RF 70-200/4 for the RF 100-400 and still be around the same lightweight 4 lbs for the lot. Does make sense if you dislike being a pack mule

Hmm but 400mm is usually the shortest focal length I want

I used to carry a ridiculous amount of gear, but now if it doesn't fit into a regular backpack then it stays at home.

 

[Sporgon]

Hmm but 400mm is usually the shortest focal length I want

You’re not compensating for something are you ?

 

[roby17269]

This is also my dilemma, when hiking : 70-200 or 100-500.
Most often, the 100-500 wins because "you never know..."

I do not have this dilemma since I do not have a 70-200
But I genuinely love hiking with the 100-500. It's the perfect lens for Alpine mountains, assuming you're ok with panoramas....
Weight is about right for me, IQ and AF speed are great and I like that it doubles up as almost-macro as needed.

All the mountains / skiing images here were taken with the 100-500
Shameless self-plug

 

[Del Paso]

I do not have this dilemma since I do not have a 70-200
But I genuinely love hiking with the 100-500. It's the perfect lens for Alpine mountains, assuming you're ok with panoramas....
Weight is about right for me, IQ and AF speed are great and I like that it doubles up as almost-macro as needed.

All the mountains / skiing images here were taken with the 100-500
Shameless self-plug

I agree!
Never a real mountain hike* (Alps, Dolomiti) without the 100-500. It successfully replaced my beloved EF 100-400 L II.
* Means for me: 15-35, 60 macro (Leica R adapted), 24 TS-E, 70-200 and 100-500 + 2 R 5 II bodies. Funny how quickly one gets used to the weight!
PS: I also like your portraits !

 

[roby17269]

I agree!
Never a real mountain hike* (Alps, Dolomiti) without the 100-500. It successfully replaced my beloved EF 100-400 L II.
* Means for me: 15-35, 60 macro (Leica R adapted), 24 TS-E, 70-200 and 100-500 + 2 R 5 II bodies. Funny how quickly one gets used to the weight!

Wow that's way too much weight for me! I bring maybe a second lens (usually 35 1.4) and a Mini 5 Pro drone with me and I am already overly loaded

PS: I also like your portraits !

Thanks It is rare nowadays that my daughter collaborates... These were taken with the 100-500 or the 85 1.2

 

[scyrene]

You’re not compensating for something are you ?

For my distance to the birds, yes!