Hmmm... The 100-300, 1200 f/8, 5.2 VR, 28-70, 600/800 f/11s, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 aren't innovative? Nevermind the top shelf optical performance of most of the RF lineup.
It was never a particularly "loved" lens. The Nikon versions were way cheaper and not a lot different in terms of image quality. It was cheaper to buy a pro Nikon camera body and a mint used Nikkor 200-400mm and still save a lot over the Canon version. The Canon version has it's fans, but they are few and far between.
Honestly, IMO for several of these the answer is no they aren't. Nikon came out with a 120-300/2.8 a few years ago, Sigma has had one for almost 20 years, and an extra 20mm on the wide end isn't much of an innovation. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are mainly just the EF MkIII versions with an adapter bolted on, and the RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are those same lenses with a bespoke 2x TC added in along with the bolted-on adapter. Not a whole lot of innovation there, either.
That's a really good and reasonable argument, and I am proud of you that you can control your GAS.
... this sounds very much like trolling, because the highlighted argumentation seem pretty much false, as others like @Canon Rumors Guy already did prove the opposite.
Absolutely yes. If you haven't tried them, you might not realise how good they are as well as being small and light. I strongly suspect that with continued developments in computing and technology, big lenses will become obsolete.
100-500 vs. its 100-400 predecessor. As in RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM vs. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II. The former is 500/7.1 at the long end, the latter is 400/5.6 at the long end. 70.4mm vs. 71.4mm iris diaphragm diameters, respectively (and with rounding they're probably not even that different).
