Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM confirmed, likely in Q4 [CR3]

[danfaz]

 

[Del Paso]

I'm getting the notion that there's an absence of reading comprehension.
I'm sorry but I cannot teach that.

Maybe I don't have so bigly a brain?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I don't have so bigly a brain?

You’re not the one posting nonsense.

 

[Del Paso]

You’re not the one posting nonsense.

I know, of course...
I just wanted to use "bigly". Don't ask why...

 

[unfocused]

Perhaps we need @HarryFilm to explain things.

 

[Del Paso]

Perhaps we need @HarryFilm to explain things.

Yes, we'd gain access to mysterious strategic optical innovations for the secret weapons of the Canadian Army. I too miss his deep knowledge and wisdom!

 

[Dhido]

Lol ... So much ignorance!

 

[Czardoom]

Lol ... So much ignorance!

You're new here and decide it somehow best to insult the forum users. Interesting.
You present information that is incorrect. The various IS modes of Canon cameras that have the 3 modes is well established and comes with the direction sheet of these lenses and has done so for years. That same info is no doubt on the web.

From the "CANON INTERCHANGEABLE LENS INSTRUCTIONS" sheet:

Image stabilizer mode selection switch
MODE 1: Corrects vibrations in all directions.
MODE 2: When you take a panning shot either horizontally or vertically, corrects vibrations at right angles to the direction of panning.
MODE 3: Corrects vibration only during exposure.

Whether the information you got was wrong, or you misinterpreted it is not really relevant. That you continually try to somehow prove that you are correct, when you are not, is unfortunate.

 

[AlanF]

That you continually try to somehow prove that you are correct, when you are not, is unfortunate.

It's only too common.

 

[Dhido]

You're new here and decide it somehow best to insult the forum users. Interesting.
You present information that is incorrect. The various IS modes of Canon cameras that have the 3 modes is well established and comes with the direction sheet of these lenses and has done so for years. That same info is no doubt on the web.

First of all, replies are in response to "insults headings towards me initiated by those who think that the conventional is irrefutable and can not be other ways around but to be followed strictly step by step. So let me tell you, you are wrong too.
I am not wasting my time breaking down your copy & paste because I know what I'm talking about.
Is it fair to ask if being knew forbid someone from expressing his/her opinions until one's gain seniority?
P/s... if you ever get to discover what I'm bringing, you'll be more than amazed.

 

[Del Paso]

You are right!
We are all amazed at your deep knowledge and science.
In case Rudy Winston retires, please do apply. Sony, Nikon and Panasonic will be more than happy!

 

[Dhido]

Disturbing your camaraderie has not been my intention at any time, and if that has been the case, I apologize and limit myself to reading so as not to offend or annoy anyone. Thanks for the brief moment!

 

[danfaz]

I apologize and limit myself to reading so as not to offend or annoy anyone

Here's the thing. You brought up a subject and folks were trying to understand your comments and help you out. You didn't like the answer, so you "quoted" Rudy Winston (there was no actual quote) with a statement that contradicts Canon's own manuals. You were even asked to provide a timestamp in the YouTube video you linked, so it could be seen by all where Rudy talked about the 3 types of IS. Yet you did not.
Then you resorted to insults when people genuinely could not understand some of your comments. It's not a good way to introduce yourself to a forum.

...initiated by those who think that the conventional is irrefutable and can not be other ways around but to be followed strictly step by step

In the case of how the three types of IS work, it is not a case of "thinking conventional is irrefutable." but rather simple facts. Facts provided by Canon.
If Canon had changed the way IS works in their telephoto lenses, that would have been a significant announcement or marketing point. We wouldn't have heard about via a supposed email from Rudy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here's the thing. You brought up a subject and folks were trying to understand your comments and help you out. You didn't like the answer, so you "quoted" Rudy Winston (there was no actual quote) with a statement that contradicts Canon's own manuals. You were even asked to provide a timestamp in the YouTube video you linked, so it could be seen by all where Rudy talked about the 3 types of IS. Yet you did not.
Then you resorted to insults when people genuinely could not understand some of your comments. It's not a good way to introduce yourself to a forum.



In the case of how the three types of IS work, it is not a case of "thinking conventional is irrefutable." but rather simple facts. Facts provided by Canon.
If Canon had changed the way IS works in their telephoto lenses, that would have been a significant announcement or marketing point. We wouldn't have heard about via a supposed email from Rudy.

There are some people who simply cannot admit when they’re wrong. Instead, they behave ODDly – obfuscate, deflect, deny. I find it sad and rather contemptible, but you can’t force people to behave reasonably.

 

[birdman916]

I’ve been planning to buy a big lens so I rented an f4 600mm Ef ii yesterday and got some shots. The lens was rented for a week but I already took it back because it was just too heavy and bulky. I was trying to figure the lens out and it was 5pm 100 degrees when I was shooting in harsh light but I did think I got some nice shots and it got keepers out of situations by 100-500 would not. I was wondering do you guys think this rumored 200-500mm will be as big as the ef 600mm f4 ii . It wasn’t totally the weight but the bulkyness made it tough to bird with it and my other gear. I like to bird and don’t want to be forced to use a tripod. What I may want may be impossible. Reach and low f stop but light enough to still bird and not use a tripod. I’m hoping maybe this lens will be the sweet spot!

 

[Czardoom]

I’ve been planning to buy a big lens so I rented an f4 600mm Ef ii yesterday and got some shots. The lens was rented for a week but I already took it back because it was just too heavy and bulky. I was trying to figure the lens out and it was 5pm 100 degrees when I was shooting in harsh light but I did think I got some nice shots and it got keepers out of situations by 100-500 would not. I was wondering do you guys think this rumored 200-500mm will be as big as the ef 600mm f4 ii . It wasn’t totally the weight but the bulkyness made it tough to bird with it and my other gear. I like to bird and don’t want to be forced to use a tripod. What I may want may be impossible. Reach and low f stop but light enough to still bird and not use a tripod. I’m hoping maybe this lens will be the sweet spot!

Total change of direction, but if you are looking for a zoom, with lots of reach, weighs less than 2,000 grams, has a constant f4.5 aperture, then take a look at the Olympus (now OM System) 150-400mm lens and an OM-1 camera. Obviously not something you would just buy on a whim, but something you might want to research. Lens is $7500 US and hard to get, OM-1 can be purchased used for $1,700 or less. Lens has a built in 1.25x TC as well.

 

[birdman916]

Total change of direction, but if you are looking for a zoom, with lots of reach, weighs less than 2,000 grams, has a constant f4.5 aperture, then take a look at the Olympus (now OM System) 150-400mm lens and an OM-1 camera. Obviously not something you would just buy on a whim, but something you might want to research. Lens is $7500 US and hard to get, OM-1 can be purchased used for $1,700 or less. Lens has a built in 1.25x TC as well.

Sounds pretty nice. Didn’t know this existed! Thank you

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was wondering do you guys think this rumored 200-500mm will be as big as the ef 600mm f4 ii

If the RF 100-300 f/2.8 is any indication then it should be slightly bigger and heavier then the EF 500 f/4.

 

[john1970]

As others have noted, likely a bit heavier and a bit longer than the EF 500 mm f4. While I am interested in the lens I am a bit concerned about its overall length (and to a lesser extent the weight). The RF 100-300 mm f2.8 was 2.6" longer than the EF 300 mm f2.8 II lens. The EF 500 mm f4 II lens is 15.1" in length so a RF 200-500 mm zoom is likely going to be around 17.5" in length which is very close to the length of the 600 mm f4. Once one adds the rear lens cap and the front lens cap you are likely looking at needing 19" of space in a bag. Usually I like to carry large glass in a Think tank Airport Advantage XT, but its limit is 18". Would fit in a Guragear 30L backpack, but that is not ideal for me.

 

[birdman916]

As others have noted, likely a bit heavier and a bit longer than the EF 500 mm f4. While I am interested in the lens I am a bit concerned about its overall length (and to a lesser extent the weight). The RF 100-300 mm f2.8 was 2.6" longer than the EF 300 mm f2.8 II lens. The EF 500 mm f4 II lens is 15.1" in length so a RF 200-500 mm zoom is likely going to be around 17.5" in length which is very close to the length of the 600 mm f4. Once one adds the rear lens cap and the front lens cap you are likely looking at needing 19" of space in a bag. Usually I like to carry large glass in a Think tank Airport Advantage XT, but its limit is 18". Would fit in a Guragear 30L backpack, but that is not ideal for me.

Wow yeah that seems like a lot. I want the sweet spot where I can bird wherever and not feel encumbered by the lens being too big to get in the way of my binoculars etc and stop my birding which can change directions pretty quickly. Perhaps I’ll keep the 100-500 and just spend lens money on an r1