Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM Z ?
- Thread starter Stefanvd
- Start date
Haven’t seen anything solid about a version like that. Canon tends to keep internal zooms primarily for their super-tele primes and some cine lenses. An internal zoom 100-500 would be excellent for balance and sealing, but I imagine it’d be huge and pricey compared to the current one.
Upvote
0
The RF 100-500mm is balanced enough as it is, being relatively light and short with no heavy front pulling it down. Those heavy, long Sony 200-600mm and 400-800mm with internal zooms need to be balanced. A permanently extended version because of internal focussing would remove its current plus of being convenient for packing for travel of being short when zoomed out. I'm off to the states for a short trip and am packing in hand luggage the RF 100-500mm and leaving my preferred birding lens of the RF 200-800mm at home because of its extra length and weight aren't worth the hassle for a non-safari trip. (The RF 100-500 attached to the R5ii and my wife's RF 100-400mm on the R7 fit side by side into a padded bag that will go under a cabin seat as an additional free carry on).
Upvote
0
I hope not, it would mean sacrificing compactness!
And, according to the LensRental experts who have repaired many extending/non-extending lenses, the extending ones aren't more dusty. Despite popular or internet-"expert" driven belief.
My own extending lenses tend to confirm this fact!
Edit: This applies to well-made (sealed) lenses, EF L or RF L , Olympus, Nikon etc...for instance.
Besides, internally focusing lenses have moving lens-groups, thus also moving/pumping air.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And as WEX always have for their used prime as well as zooms "... light dust throughout the optics, although this will not affect image quality in any way." Their list of used RF 100-500mm are mainly described as having "very light dust...", up with the primes.
Upvote
0
Let's face it. There's very little of consequence to humanity from the prejudices concerning lenses but unfortunately the mindset reflects real prejudices in society where it really does matter.
Upvote
0
Good points, Alan. Makes sense about the balance and portability-especially for travel. I hadn’t considered how an internal Zoom meeting would lose its compact advantage when packed. I guess Canon really did strike a solid middle ground with the current design.
Upvote
0
Thanks to everyone for the wonderful replies. To those who have the 100-500mm L; how is it to go zoom from 100 to 500mm? That's my main interest in a Z version; when comparing the 70-200mm L vs. the Z the amount of rotation needed is only slight on the latter. That interests me! Being able to use TC's without losing focal length is a nice bonus when/if I go to full-frame as opposed the R7 APS-C I'm using currently.
I'm not worried about the 100-500mm being a 'dust pump', because fortunately it's certainly not. Perhaps there is nothing to worry about with the current model?
I'm not worried about the 100-500mm being a 'dust pump', because fortunately it's certainly not. Perhaps there is nothing to worry about with the current model?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
