Canon readies the RF 200-500 f/4L IS with the discontinuation of the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

[Emyr Evans]

I am pretty much interested in dimensions and weight of this lens.
I am surely not interested in the price, knowing that it is far from any budget justifiable for me

Will be over 3Kg, too heavy for me.

Shame, as they probably could have got a Mark III 500mm prime down to 2.4Kg. That's just about hand-holdable for me.

 

[Maximilian]

Enough said.

Hopefully.
Everything else from you was more or less wasted energy and produced too much CO2

Wow, I just looked at your images. No wonder you are fiercely defending f/11 lenses. You couldn't make a good photo if your life depended on it.

No, you didn't keep your promise. Poor decision

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Wow, I just looked at your images. No wonder you are fiercely defending f/11 lenses. You couldn't make a good photo if your life depended on it.

I think the moderators need to step in now.....this is one of the most shameful and poisonous posts I have ever seen on this forum. You should be disgusted at yourself.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Will be over 3Kg, too heavy for me.

Shame, as they probably could have got a Mark III 500mm prime down to 2.4Kg. That's just about hand-holdable for me.

I suspect that Canon have an "internal eyes only" lens road map that has been working a long game. I suspect that the RF lenses were on this road map and were influencing the EF linage long before any of us were even aware of the RF developement. I think the secrecy of this road map was essential back then but less so now. The fact that the EF 70-200 f2.8 mkIII was just a coatings update to the MkII...making way for the innotave RF version (all of these features could easily have been made on the EF mount. The fact that Canon never addresses the EF 50mm f1.2 L replacement...but bought out it's effective answer in the RF mount are just two examples.
The fact that there wasn't a ef 300mm f2.8 mk II or a ef 500mm f4 mkIII shouts volumes too. I suspect that the RF 100-300 f2.8 and RF 200-500 f4 were on this map an long time ago and shaped the direction of big white lens developement.
While I agree that the 200-500mm f4 will probably be heavier and bulkier than the ef 500mm f4 II, it will be an exceptional optic. Canon do not drop the ball often and lenses like the EF 50mm f1.2 L are rare. I suspect the weight of the RF 100-300 F2.8 and 200-500 f4 will be addressed in about 5 years time with the mkII version

 

[Mod_1]

It's posts like yours that put me off this forum. Do you really go around spewing out this kind of stuff?
I really don't know why this forum attracts this poor behaviour. Are you a left over from the DPreview forums?

He has been banned from CR for using inappropriate language and comments.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sony has a 200-600mm for $2000. Will the Canon 200-500 be lighter, cheaper, or otherwise better than the competition?

There would be no competition unless you want to compare it against the Nikon F 180-400 x 1,4.
The RF 100-300 f/2.8 costs the same as the Nikon F 120-300 f/2.8, is much lighter and much better for IQ and AF if that is any indication.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It is an interesting strategy to replace the EF300/2.8 with a zoom and potentially now the 500mm/4.

I do not think that works out cost wise.
I think primes would be much cheaper.
I am not sure how many people have the EF 200-400 f/4 and the EF 500 f/4 but I expect it too be cheaper than that combo.
I suspect that lens would more often be paired with a 600 f/4.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A 'true replacement" is whatever Canon defines it to be

The R50 is clearly a replacement for the M50.
The R10 is clear;y a replacement for the 10D even though it is a much different camera.
The R7 is clearly a replacement for the 7D even though it is more like the 90D.
The R6 and R5 are less controversial.
Lenses are not so straightforward and Canon is not always forthcoming about what replaces what.
I do not think it is safe to assume that there will never be an RF 300 f/2.8.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm convinced that the only people complaining about the 100-500 are people who have never used it.

Many people just see f/7.1 and are turned off by it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I could not order any accessories yesterday.
Today they are back.
https://cweb.canon.jp/cgi-bin/ef/accessary.cgi?select_body=EF200-400LIS

 

[Mackman]

The RF 100-300/2.8 is 75 mm / 3” longer than the EF 300/2.8 II. If that’s true for the RF 200-500/4 compared to the EF 500/4 II, the new RF zoom will be longer than the 600/4. Probably a bit heavier, too. We’ll find out when/if the lens is announced.

That would be unfortunate. The main reason I'm interested in the 200-500 is that it will fit into smaller backpacks more easily than the 600mm for those short haul flights with smaller overhead bins.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That would be unfortunate. The main reason I'm interested in the 200-500 is that it will fit into smaller backpacks more easily than the 600mm for those short haul flights with smaller overhead bins.

Canon filed a patent for a 200-500/4 (without TC) that suggests a lens length of ~470mm / 18.5”. That’s about the same length as the RF 600/4.

 

[EricN]

Many people just see f/7.1 and are turned off by it.

No available option is good enough for some people.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No available option is good enough for some people.

And for others, no available option that doesn't start with an 'S' is good enough.

I bet DPR is already full of praise for the newly-announced Sony 16-35/2.8 GM II that costs the same as the Canon 15-35/2.8L even though the latter is wider and has IS. At least the Sony is lighter.

 

[EricN]

The Sony costs $100 more, so it must be better! Why can't Canon make F1.4 because f1.2 is too expensive?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Many people just see f/7.1 and are turned off by it.

I especially like when people think that 400mm 5.6 is OK but 500mm 7.1 is too dark.

 

[blackcoffee17]

And for others, no available option that doesn't start with an 'S' is good enough.

I bet DPR is already full of praise for the newly-announced Sony 16-35/2.8 GM II that costs the same as the Canon 15-35/2.8L even though the latter is wider and has IS. At least the Sony is lighter.

840g vs 547g. Pretty big difference.

 

[neuroanatomist]

840g vs 547g. Pretty big difference.

True. The Sony 16-35/2.8 weighs about the same as the Canon RF 14-35/4 IS. Personally, I'd choose the extra 2mm over the extra stop of light (actually, I already traded the extra stop for lighter weight and IS when going from the 16-35/2.8L II to the 16-35/4L IS).

I wonder how the Sony lens will handle coma and astigmatism? This new lens may be good for astro, assuming Sony's bodies have stopped eating stars. I also wonder if it will require digital correction of barrel distortion.

 

[TonyB_FL]

IMO, the 100-300 and 200-500 are being pushed out now for use at the upcoming Olympics in 2024. I think we'll see more gaps filled in once Canon has their pro gear for the Olympics sorted and released. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the first inventory will be focused towards the hands of those Canon photographers that will be covering these events.

 

[frankchn]

840g vs 547g. Pretty big difference.

Part of that is probably explainable by the fact that the 16-35 GM II doesn't have IS. Probably not a big deal for a wide angle lens, but IS is still good to have.