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

[neuroanatomist]

Probably not a big deal for a wide angle lens, but IS is still good to have.

Came in handy for some shots on a summer trip, using the R8 so no IBIS.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is an exceptionally sharp lens and it’s AF speed and accuracy are also one of Canon’s finest

 

[blackcoffee17]

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.

Me too. F4 + a bright wide-angle prime for special occasions, like night sky or astro.

I feel like Canon missed an opportunity to make the 14-35 a little longer, maybe 14-50 F4. That would have made it the perfect travel lens and even a high-end standard zoom for APS-C.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is an exceptionally sharp lens and it’s AF speed and accuracy are also one of Canon’s finest

It takes the TCs very well, too. I can’t see myself using it with the 2x, but 140-420mm f/4 will make a great lens for field sports/events.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I feel like Canon missed an opportunity to make the 14-35 a little longer, maybe 14-50 F4. That would have made it the perfect travel lens and even a high-end standard zoom for APS-C.

I suspect that not making a high end standard zoom for APS-C is an intentional part of Canon’s strategy. They want to push those interested in high end lenses into full frame bodies.

 

[David - Sydney]

The R7 is clearly a replacement for the 7D even though it is more like the 90D.

The 90D replaced the 7Dii. They had the sales figures and didn't decide to make a 7Diii even though some vocal 7Dii clamoured for it. The R7 - by nomenclature if nothing else - is the high end APS-C body whether it is replacing the 7Dii or the 90D. As I said... A 'true replacement" is whatever Canon defines it to be

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.

Canon makes some announcements but prefers to "surprise" us. They have an internal roadmap for bodies/lenses for sure.
Maybe a RF300/2.8 will be released in the future but logic would tell us that other "gaps" should be filled first if EF lenses are to be discontinued.

 

[FrenchFry]

It takes the TCs very well, too. I can’t see myself using it with the 2x, but 140-420mm f/4 will make a great lens for field sports/events.

Are you willing to elaborate? I was considering getting the 2x for the 100-300 since it takes the 1.4x so well. I have not used the 2x TC before and would welcome any feedback you have on the combination.

 

[EricN]

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.

Distortion doesn't look as bad as I guessed

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you willing to elaborate? I was considering getting the 2x for the 100-300 since it takes the 1.4x so well. I have not used the 2x TC before and would welcome any feedback you have on the combination.

Certainly. Apologies for any confusion, I wasn’t suggesting the performance with the 2x is lacking. My primary use for supertele focal lengths is birds, and for that I have the EF 600/4 II that I usually use with the 1.4x, because 600mm isn’t quite long enough. But if I need 600mm, I’d use the prime and not the 100-300 + 2x.

I did post a comparison here:

RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Post your images from Canon's fifth 'great white' RF lens and first big white RF zoom, which is also the first big white lens to be designed for RF from the ground up (the first four were adapter±2xTC 'bolt-ons' of the EF 400/2.8 III and 6004/ III, at least from an optical standpoint). This...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[DhlcadR6]

Distortion doesn't look as bad as I guessed

Corners are softer than I expect. Making it not viable to use wide open. Might as well go for f4 instead. Cheaper and equally effective.

 

[DhlcadR6]

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.

My 2cents. Canon restructure the line up so it's not 1-to-1 equivalent to DSLR-era.

R100 = 1000D. See you when I get new passport photos; (
R50 = M50 & x00D
R10 = xxD mix x60D/x50D
R8 = RP & R in-between, taking components from previous mid-high-end cameras and reasonably dumb it down
R7 = xxD & 7D-series in-between
R6 = 7Dx 5Dx Mix
R5 = 5D 5Ds in-between
R3 = 1Div 1DXx in-between

 

[FrenchFry]

Certainly. Apologies for any confusion, I wasn’t suggesting the performance with the 2x is lacking. My primary use for supertele focal lengths is birds, and for that I have the EF 600/4 II that I usually use with the 1.4x, because 600mm isn’t quite long enough. But if I need 600mm, I’d use the prime and not the 100-300 + 2x.

I did post a comparison here:

RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Post your images from Canon's fifth 'great white' RF lens and first big white RF zoom, which is also the first big white lens to be designed for RF from the ground up (the first four were adapter±2xTC 'bolt-ons' of the EF 400/2.8 III and 6004/ III, at least from an optical standpoint). This...

www.canonrumors.com

Thank you so much! I appreciate the input! My birding lens is the Nikon 800mm, so I was considering the 2x to fill in more of the sizeable gap between the 100-300 and the 800.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It takes the TCs very well, too. I can’t see myself using it with the 2x, but 140-420mm f/4 will make a great lens for field sports/events.

In your context, it almost replaces three lenses. A 70-200 /f2.8, a 300mm f2.8 and a 400mm f4. That's impressively versatile.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

logic would tell us that other "gaps" should be filled first if EF lenses are to be discontinued.

I have yet to find logic in the order of RF lens releases.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was considering getting the 2x for the 100-300 since it takes the 1.4x

I heard that you will need to stop down to f/8.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Corners are softer than I expect. Making it not viable to use wide open. Might as well go for f4 instead. Cheaper and equally effective.

Their f/4 has similar problems wide open.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I heard that you will need to stop down to f/8.

I heard that the moon is made of green cheese. Fortunately, I know better than to believe everything that I hear.

 

[EricN]

I heard that the moon is made of green cheese. Fortunately, I know better than to believe everything that I hear.

I slid of the flat earth and hit my head on a moon with no American flag. Now I believe everything.

 

[roby17269]

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.

AFAIK some time ago they've added the option for uncompressed RAW files, which solves the issues you mention. The downside was (not sure if that's still true) that their RAW files were big, since they did not implement lossless compression, at least initially.
Now, the reason why the option for uncompressed RAW files was not there from the beginning is well beyond my old brain to fathom

 

[roby17269]

I suspect that Canon have an "internal eyes only" lens road map that has been working a long game.

I am pretty sure that every manufacturer has internal roadmaps that are not published outside. Those roadmaps are usually updated regularly, so getting a hold of one may not be very valuable unless it is the latest current one. I appreciate it when manufacturers release roadmaps publicly, but none of them does that regularly and I have to question whether the public roadmaps are identical to the internal ones (at the time of release) or are tweaked versions used as a marketing tool in the hope to entice new customers / excite existing ones.

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

The secrecy of internal roadmaps is not a necessity, it is a business decision. Some companies are more forthcoming than others for different reasons.
But, in general, the more the market leader a company is, the less forthcoming they tend to be. I do not have any data to say whether being secretive with roadmaps is a good or a bad thing from the manufacturer's perspective. I do understand it is frustrating for customers. I know I would be happier knowing that the mythical RF 35mm f/1.2L is on the roadmap!

I agree with you that Canon had started investing in RF and divesting from EF long before they announced the "birth" of RF. And exotics have particularly long development times due to the time it takes to prepare and test the larger elements.