Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
11,012
3,431
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
One of the more popular “big white lenses” from Canon was the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x. It was never a reach to assume Canon would make an RF follow-up to that lens. It also shouldn’t surprise anyone that Canon would do a redesign of the lens instead of a simply modifying the existing design

See full article...
 
Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
I wonder about weight and cost.
The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.
You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,043
This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
I wonder about weight and cost.
The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
They can do a 200-400 that is a lot lighter than the current one.
The front element in a 200-500 has to be much bigger, although it will switch to electronic manual focusing, which in itself will save weight, not including the technical advancements made in optical design. Manufactures have shifted weight more and more rearwards with their latest super telephoto designs. So it will be much easier to handhold, even if it does not weigh a lot less on a scale.
Price will be sky-high indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,528
23,224
You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.
There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 7, 2013
5,799
8,924
Germany
There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.
Same thoughts here.
Though, I am always interested in what is technically possible and how will it perform.
But price, weight, etc. will take me out of the market for that kind of super tele as well...
 
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 27, 2015
1,068
1,307
Northeastern US
Sounds like an ideal lens to take on a safari. Since for me, that’s pretty much the only used case where this lens would be preferable to the 100–500 or 600/4, rental would be the best option if I want to use one.
I agree, but I still question the weight of the lens. If I am on a game drive for 3-4 hrs with other individuals do I want to be dealing with such a large an heavy lens? Personally, I would prefer an ultralight 300 mm f2.8 or 500 mm f4 / f4.5 DO designs with built in 1.4x TCs or even a 200-600 mm f5.6-f6.3 similar to the Sony offering.

I was always intrigued by the Canon EF 200-400 mm f4 L, but the weight of ~8 lbs was a big turn off for me and I doubt a 200-500 mm f4 would be lighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
38
Pune
The 300-700 is not a thing.
It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.
That's a real shame 300-700 f5.6 with TC wont exist, as that would make it a great wildlife lens at "reasonable" price(even a 300-700 5.6 without TC would be a great lens for wildlife).
 
Upvote 0
This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
I wonder about weight and cost.
The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
 
Upvote 0