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

[Nadoor]

Then perhaps you should have listed 200-400 instead of 100-400. The confusion is due to your error, or lack of homework if you prefer. Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.


Plus, as I already mentioned the 300-700 is not a separate lens, it's the 200-500 with the TC engaged. Speaking of doing your homework, try reading the actual patent and that would be clear. There's a reason the source for this CR article lists them as examples 4 and 4', not examples 4 and 5.

I did mean the 200-400 and yes it's 11K. Going from 400 to 500 is a big deal keeping the lens at a constant F4. So if this lens sees the light if day then it will be accordingly priced. In the patent it says a 300-700/5.6 with 1.4x so I believe it's for another optical design which again may never see the light of day. The point I am making is that Canon RF lens pricing is very high and the majority of us cannot afford them. The new 800 is almost 5k more than the EF version

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You smoking hatter's salt?

RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.

I am guessing that was a typo and is meant to be 100-400 f/4 x 1.4.
The price still seems to be a bit exaggerated to make a point.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

100-500 F4 1.4x. Can be yours for only $12,000!!

I would expect such a lens to cost more than that.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 500mmf4 LIS is legendary in the Wildlife stills world for being super practical, light and hand holdable. The 200-400 F4 was a nikon invention and dominated the sports stills areana and Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife. Too heavy for the mear 400mm.
However, this new 200-500mm f4 with tele makes a lot of sense. However it's going to be a lot heavier, larger and way more expensive than the current ef 500mm f4 LIS II. If I was in the market for a £12K white lens I would give this some serious consideration along with a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS III

 

[koenkooi]

The 500mmf4 LIS is legendary in the Wildlife stills world for being super practical, light and hand holdable. The 200-400 F4 was a nikon invention and dominated the sports stills areana and Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife. Too heavy for the mear 400mm.
However, this new 200-500mm f4 with tele makes a lot of sense. However it's going to be a lot heavier, larger and way more expensive than the current ef 500mm f4 LIS II. If I was in the market for a £12K white lens I would give this some serious consideration along with a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS III

The current EF500L is from before Canon sent the superwhites on a diet, right? So it might be possible that a theoretical 100-500 F4L would weigh the same or only slightly more as the EF500L.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife.

Not compared to this:

 

[neuroanatomist]

I did mean the 200-400 and yes it's 11K. Going from 400 to 500 is a big deal keeping the lens at a constant F4.

Obviously, but again…the original error was yours.

In the patent it says a 300-700/5.6 with 1.4x so I believe it's for another optical design which again may never see the light of day.

No, it doesn’t. Thus the comment about doing your homework, which you evidently didn’t do despite your demand that others do so.

In the CR article (which is a blog post about another blog post about the actual patent), a 300-700/5.6 1.4x is listed separately, yes. That’s an error on CRguy’s part. Even so, look at the details…did it occur to you to wonder how the 200-500/4 and the 300-700/5.6 have the exact same overall length of 410.05 mm? A miracle of physics that Canon added 200mm onto the long end without the lens being longer? Lol.

You could have clicked the link to the source (asobinet), or gone further and read the actual patent (by searching the patent number “2022185663” on the Japan patent lookup tool), either of which would make it clear that there is no 300-700 + 1.4x in the patent. There is a 300-700/5.6 exemplified, which is the 200-500/4 example with the 1.4x engaged. There’s also a 300-560/5.6, which is the 200-400/4 with the TC engaged (all of those values are rounded from the actual focal lengths in the patent, as is typical).

You can continue to believe there is a 300-700 + 1.4x in the patent, just as you can believe the earth is flat, but neither belief is supported by facts.

The point I am making is that Canon RF lens pricing is very high and the majority of us cannot afford them. The new 800 is almost 5k more than the EF version

Oh, is that your point? The RF 50/1.8 is $150, and that seems fairly affordable. Sure, high end lenses are expensive. Does that surprise you? Water is wet, too. The RF 600/4 is $13K. That’s $1K more I paid for my EF 600/4 II a decade ago, and given inflation the RF lens is significantly cheaper ($12K in 2012 is $15.5K in 2022).

Yes, the RF 800/5.6 launched at $5K more than the EF version (the price on the EF went up $1K, so the difference was $4K when the RF version launched). Of course, the RF version weighs a lot less and is noticeably better optically (my 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is optically better than the EF 800/5.6).

I’d say that for the majority, $13K for a single camera lens is no more affordable than $17K or $20K. Honestly, if that difference puts a lens out of reach for someone, I believe that person would be unwise buying any of those lenses.

Fortunately for the majority who cannot afford to spend $13K or $17K for a ‘great white’ supertele lens (or those having the wherewithal but lacking the ability to physically manage the size/weight), but still want the reach, Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture. Choice is good!

 

[scyrene]

This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here

Neuro and Alan have covered it well but I'll just add my bit. The 600 f/4 is probably the best regarded long lens but it is extremely expensive, and although hand holding is quite possible, it will be limiting in terms of how long and how far you can carry it. But in many situations it won't do appreciably better than what you have already.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.

It's a cliché but the most important aspect to producing best quality bird images is how close you can get to your subject. Fieldcraft and luck trump equipment. Coming to it as a birder, I'm sure you know that already

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture

On the low end of super-telephoto, Canon offers the RF 100-400, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.
Those lenses plus the R10, R7, and R6 have made sports and wildlife accessible to many more people.
Granted people were using the 90D with Tamron and Sigma lenses but this is on a different level.
I still do hope that Canon brings out those patented mirror lenses that have AF and IS.
The high-end goes from 400 to 1200 mm but there are still a few lenses missing.
Those lenses exist in EF versions so I am not sure those need to be a priority.
What is really missing are more mid-tier lenses like the RF 100-500 L.
The RF 100-400 to the RF 100-500 L is an achievable upgrade for more folks than the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 are to the 600 f/4 and 800 f/5.6.
Although, if we factor in the used market then there are plenty of mid-priced super-telephotos out there.
At the same time, there is not a viable used market everywhere.

 

[AlanF]

Fortunately for the majority who cannot afford to spend $13K or $17K for a ‘great white’ supertele lens (or those having the wherewithal but lacking the ability to physically manage the size/weight), but still want the reach, Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture. Choice is good!

The RF 100-500mm does take TCs surprisingly well. I was shocked, in the pleasant sense, about the performance with the 2xTC at 1000mm f/14 on the R5, it resolves as well as the 800mm f/11. The 2x should be relatively even better on your R3 with its bigger pixels.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.

I have seen plenty of folks with both the RF 100-500 and RF 800 f/11.

 

[AlanF]

've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.

I was writing my last post as yours was being posted, and this reiterates. I use the 800/11 and also the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x, and find them of similar resolution at 800mm vs 1000mm (they both have the same size front element). When I travel, the zoom plus TC covers just about all of my wild-life needs and the 800/11 stays at home. (Unless travel in the UK by car and can fill it with gear).

 

[scyrene]

I have seen plenty of folks with both the RF 100-500 and RF 800 f/11.

Fair point, and if I had the money for a 100-500 I'd not get rid of my 800, although that's partly because the latter isn't worth very much (they already sell secondhand here for 20-30% below RRP). But coming from the other direction, I'm not sure it makes as much sense.

 

[Ian K]

Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!

Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?

Good luck with that on a Safari. I'm sure the lions would enjoy you zooming.

I used the EF 200-400 on a 7D Mark II on safari and it was a dream. Something close you can pull back to 200mm (or switch to by EF 100-400 on 5D), something small and far away throw the TC and push to 560mm. I'm certainly not claiming out of the jeep to get closer.

 

[AlanF]

Good luck with that on a Safari. I'm sure the lions would enjoy you zooming.

I used the EF 200-400 on a 7D Mark II on safari and it was a dream. Something close you can pull back to 200mm (or switch to by EF 100-400 on 5D), something small and far away throw the TC and push to 560mm. I'm certainly not claiming out of the jeep to get closer.

I don't think throwing a TC would stop a lion. Mind you, a well-aimed 200-400/4 would pack a weighty punch.

 

[birdman916]

I appreciate everyone that responsed ti my questions

 

[Curahee]

The 300-700mm would be absolutely awesome. Out of my budget but for those needing reach for wildlife and flexibility of a zoom and not stuck with one focal length this would be amazing.
Now make the 300-700mm without the 1.4X in a non-L for us mere mortals, listening Canon?
With no 3rd party lenses allowed start making exciting affordable lenses as well. Thank you.

 

[Nemorino]

The 300-700 is the 200-500 with inserted extender as the diagram in the linked article shows:

Looks like an internal zoom with a lot of glass in the front.

 

[AlanF]

The 300-700mm would be absolutely awesome. Out of my budget but for those needing reach for wildlife and flexibility of a zoom and not stuck with one focal length this would be amazing.
Now make the 300-700mm without the 1.4X in a non-L for us mere mortals, listening Canon?
With no 3rd party lenses allowed start making exciting affordable lenses as well. Thank you.

What @Nemorino is getting at, as @neuroanatomist did earlier, is that the 300-700mm without the TC is the 200-500mm.

 

[AlanF]

The 300-700 is the 200-500 with inserted extender as the diagram in the linked article shows:

Looks like an internal zoom with a lot of glass in the front.

That is right. Canon and Sony managed to decrease the weight of the 600/4 and 400/2.8 primes by reducing the number of the large front elements, which has the added bonus of moving the centre of gravity closer to the camera. This zoom is going to be quite a monster to hand hold.