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

[Mackman]

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).

Ah, my mistake, thanks.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

The 28-70/2 is certainly innovative. The 5.2mm VR is innovative, albeit for a niche market. Most of the RF L-series lenses are modest improvements on already excellent lenses. An extra 1-2mm on the wide end of UWA zooms. IS added to the 24-70/2.8 (where IBIS is present on most bodies). 70-200 zooms with extending designs and materials making them smaller and lighter. 25% more focal length on the 100-500, but the same physical aperture as its 100-400 predecessor.

Personally, I think the most significant RF lens innovations are in the consumer range, particularly in designs that can keep the costs of those lenses low. The 600/11 and 800/11 are innovative, as are the RF 100-400, 15-30, and 16/2.8...in all cases bringing those focal lengths for FF bodies well down into the affordable range while maintaining really good IQ.

Can't be good!
Not made by Sony.
PS: it' your fault that I now plan to buy an R3, I always thought: too big, don't need, too expensive.
But: I played with it...ergonomically sensational!

 

[usern4cr]

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).

Technically, the 70.4 and 71.4mm diameters are for the (virtual) entrance pupil. But by the time that light goes through the front lenses and reaches the iris/diaphragm it is drastically shrunk in size as it is well on its way to being focused, so the diaphragm diameter is much smaller than that. It's not a big deal, just semantics. 70.4 and 71.4mm values are indeed the important thing to consider when making lens comparisons.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Technically, the 70.4 and 71.4mm diameters are for the (virtual) entrance pupil. But by the time that light goes through the front lenses and reaches the iris/diaphragm it is drastically shrunk in size as it well on its way to being focused, so the diaphragm diameter is much smaller than that. It's not a big deal, just semantics. 70.4 and 71.4mm values are indeed the important thing to consider when making lens comparisons.

Yes, with most long telephoto designs the entrance pupil is at or close to the front element.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Personally, I think the most significant RF lens innovations are in the consumer range, particularly in designs that can keep the costs of those lenses low. The 600/11 and 800/11 are innovative, as are the RF 100-400, 15-30, and 16/2.8...in all cases bringing those focal lengths for FF bodies well down into the affordable range while maintaining really good IQ.

But how will people know what a good photographer I am if my lenses aren’t all white with red rings?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But how will people know what a good photographer I am if my lenses aren’t all white with red rings?

Just use them on an R3, or if not that then add a grip to your standard-sized body. Bigger cameras take better pictures. Egad, I just realized that must be why Canon outsells Sony, their cameras are bigger!

 

[AlanF]

Yes, with most long telephoto designs the entrance pupil is at or close to the front element.

Whatever the entrance pupil, the maximum amount of light that can get into the lens is given by the area of the front element times the photon flux.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Whatever the entrance pupil, the maximum amount of light that can get into the lens is given by the area of the front element times the photon flux.

I was going to ask how one measures photon flux, then I recalled my early lessons in physics and used google. I was unable to get confirmation that the particular device would work for that application, but I did learn that my local auto parts chain has a sense of humo(u)r.

https://www.oreillyauto.com/flux-capacitor

 

[AlanF]

I was going to ask how one measures photon flux, then I recalled my early lessons in physics and used google. I was unable to get confirmation that the particular device would work for that application, but I did learn that my local auto parts chain has a sense of humo(u)r.

https://www.oreillyauto.com/flux-capacitor

It's measured in Einstein units. I suspect there are a few attoEinsteins around.

 

[kaihp]

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.

The EF 200-400mm is also a weighty beast. Because of the usefulness of the zoom, I had almost ceased to use the 300/2.8 II until recently. When I used them back-to-back the difference in size and weight was pretty significant (even if I have to stick an extender on the 300).

With the RF 100-500mm, I will probably keep the 300 over the 200-400 (there's no way I will get an RF 100-300).

 

[neuroanatomist]

PS: it' your fault that I now plan to buy an R3, I always thought: too big, don't need, too expensive.
But: I played with it...ergonomically sensational!

Sorry not sorry.

 

[rontele7]

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

Or will it be substantially more expensive, and substantially heavier, and substantially less practical?

Knowing Canon, it will be the latter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

Or will it be substantially more expensive, and substantially heavier, and substantially less practical?

Knowing Canon, it will be the latter.

Is that Sony lens a constant f/4? I didn’t think so.

Canon has a 600mm lens that has been selling for as low as $600 recently. Is the Sony lens
substantially more expensive, and substantially heavier, and substantially larger? But... it's f/11... so now aperture matters, right? Mmmmmmkay.

Go back to your cave, little troll – the grownups are having a discussion.

 

[David - Sydney]

This replacement lens would explain why the EF500/4 hasn't been replaced in RF land. It is an interesting strategy to replace the EF300/2.8 with a zoom and potentially now the 500mm/4. The optical reviews will determine if it is sharp enough wide open as a true replacement though.

 

[David - Sydney]

Various subsidiaries around the globe have stopped importing EF lenses, most notably Canon Australia.

We expect all EF lenses to wind down by the end of 2024. Though there should still be inventory of EF lenses for quite a while.

That is a big call but then again not entirely unexpected. It was just a matter of when. Still, it was less than 18 months ago that Canon said:
A Canon spokesperson told us: "The reports stating that Canon has ended manufacturing of EF lenses are not true. While we are indeed expanding our lineup of RF lenses as the global market shifts toward mirrorless products, we continue to value our customers who use EF lenses."

I wonder what that means for lenses like the EF8-15/4 that B&H has on "back order"

I would have thought that EF lenses without RF replacement would remain especially the niche ones EF8-15/4, wide angle primes, TS-E, MP-E, EF180 macro, 200/2, etc. Not to mention the EF-S wide angle zooms with no replacement in RF-S and the oft mentioned 50/1.4. It will be a big Canon "surprise" if all are announced in RF.

Will there be a rush to buy EF lenses? probably not. There was no announcement of discontinuation for the bunch last year but there were a bunch of media reports on it highlighting it for doomsday preppers.

 

[fogleman]

This replacement lens would explain why the EF500/4 hasn't been replaced in RF land. It is an interesting strategy to replace the EF300/2.8 with a zoom and potentially now the 500mm/4. The optical reviews will determine if it is sharp enough wide open as a true replacement though.

Well, as a point of comparison, the new 100-300 is extremely sharp. Basically optically perfect even with a 1.4x on it, wide open. I suspect the 200-500 will perform similarly.

Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

The optical reviews will determine if it is sharp enough wide open as a true replacement though.

How do you define ‘true replacement’? By many accounts, the EF 600/4 III falls just short of the EF 600/4 II in terms of wide open sharpness. Is the MkIII not a true replacement for the MkII?

 

[rontele7]

Is that Sony lens a constant f/4? I didn’t think so.

Canon has a 600mm lens that has been selling for as low as $600 recently. Is the Sony lens
substantially more expensive, and substantially heavier, and substantially larger? But... it's f/11... so now aperture matters, right? Mmmmmmkay.

Go back to your cave, little troll – the grownups are having a discussion.

Perhaps you are new to photography – the difference between 500mm and 600mm is substantial, and the difference between f/4 and f/6.3 at those focal lengths is meaningless. The background will look identical.

You bring up the f/11 lens – one of the biggest jokes in the industry. I know you mentioned being new, but even still, you should know that f/11 at 600mm necessitates absurdly high ISO's, making it an effectively useless lens.

Sony has won this battle years before Canon even entered the race. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[mbike999]

This is a dream lens...but at 16K, [insert some overused joke about kidneys or selling the first born here]

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps you are new to photography – the difference between 500mm and 600mm is substantial, and the difference between f/4 and f/6.3 at those focal lengths is meaningless. The background will look identical.

You bring up the f/11 lens – one of the biggest jokes in the industry. I know you mentioned being new, but even still, you should know that f/11 at 600mm necessitates absurdly high ISO's, making it an effectively useless lens.

Sony has won this battle years before Canon even entered the race. You just don't want to admit it.

Perhaps you are new to photography, it's hard to tell since you apparently haven't shared even a single image here. In fact, the difference between f/4 and f/6.3 is noticeable at 600mm, often more so than the difference between 500mm and 600mm. I say this as someone who typically shoots birds at 840/5.6 (600/4 + 1.4x), because 600mm is often not long enough, but I do use the bare lens and also the 100-500 on occasion, and I've compared them both formally and in field use.

Funny how you suggest the background blur at f/4 and f/6.3 is 'identical', when that difference is 1.33-stops compared to the 1.67-stops between f/6.3 and f/11. Perhaps you are new to either logical discourse or math...or both. As for ISO, at f/11 many of my bird images would be at the absurd values of 1000-2000, making your point effectively useless. As for the lens itself, the many excellent images posted with the 600/11 and its 800/11 brother, quite a few right here on this forum, make it clear that you're clueless about these matters.

See what you did? You crawled back out of your cave and managed to embarrass yourself even further. Well done!