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

[AlanF]

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

The RF 100-500mm is a compromise between versatility and weight/size that ultimately is the best for some of us.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

I wonder what Canon will do in terms of DO Primes.
People were drooling over the EF 600 f/4 DO prototype.
600 f/11 is not really the same thing.

 

[john1970]

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

I would definitely keep the 100-500 mm lens. At 3 lbs it is a very versatile lens that covers a very useful focal range. I still hope that Canon produces a 500 mm DO lens which was rumored about a year ago. Would be really cool if Canon used DO in the upcoming 200-500 mm f4 lens that would be a very nice combo in terms of less mass and useful range.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

still hope that Canon produces a 500 mm DO lens which was rumored about a year ago. Would be really cool if Canon used DO in the upcoming 200-500 mm f4 lens that would be a very nice combo in terms of less mass and useful range.

I could see Canon making a 500 DO but I would not bet on f/4.
There is no way that I see Canon making a 100-500 f/4 DO but I can understand why one would be so desirable.

 

[AlanF]

I could see Canon making a 500 DO but I would not bet on f/4.
There is no way that I see Canon making a 100-500 f/4 DO but I can understand why one would be so desirable.

What f-number would you expect for a 500 DO? Having used the excellent Nikon 500/5.6 PF equivalent of a DO, as it good as it was, I far prefer the 100-500/7.1 as the extra 2/3rds stop and miniscule, if any, better IQ of the prime are far outweighed by the zoom and mfd advantages of the zoom. But, 1 2/3rd stop of an f/4 does have more of an edge, especially with TCs.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

What f-number would you expect for a 500 DO? Having used the excellent Nikon 500/5.6 PF equivalent of a DO, as it good as it was, I far prefer the 100-500/7.1 as the extra 2/3rds stop and miniscule, if any, better IQ of the prime are far outweighed by the zoom and mfd advantages of the zoom. But, 1 2/3rd stop of an f/4 does have more of an edge, especially with TCs.

I could see Canon making a 500 f/4.5 just to one op the Nikon 400 f/4.5 albeit at a higher price.

 

[AlanF]

I could see Canon making a 500 f/4.5 just to one op the Nikon 400 f/4.5 albeit at a higher price.

Interestingly, having made successful 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF lenses, Nikon have gone back to classical non-DO for the 400/4.5.

 

[john1970]

Interestingly, having made successful 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF lenses, Nikon have gone back to classical non-DO for the 400/4.5.

The Nikon f4.5 is an interesting lens and lightweight at 2.7 lbs. A few lightweight telephoto primes would be nice to have in the Canon lineup. There are rumors of a 500 mm f4.5/f5 DO prime, but who knows.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Interestingly, having made successful 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF lenses, Nikon have gone back to classical non-DO for the 400/4.5.

True, but they went all out with the 800 PF f/6.3

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A few lightweight telephoto primes would be nice to have in the Canon lineup

Compare Canon RF 800mm f 11 IS STM Lens vs Canon RF 600mm f 11 IS STM Lens

Compare Canon RF 800mm f 11 IS STM Lens vs Canon RF 600mm f 11 IS STM Lens

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[john1970]

Compare Canon RF 800mm f 11 IS STM Lens vs Canon RF 600mm f 11 IS STM Lens

Compare Canon RF 800mm f 11 IS STM Lens vs Canon RF 600mm f 11 IS STM Lens

www.bhphotovideo.com

Let me rephrase: A few lightweight telephoto primes with decent apertures (f5.6 or faster) would be useful. I appreciate Canon making the 600 and 800 mm f11 lens for the masses, but I am looking for lenses with reasonably fast apertures.

 

[scyrene]

Let me rephrase: A few lightweight telephoto primes with decent apertures (f5.6 or faster) would be useful. I appreciate Canon making the 600 and 800 mm f11 lens for the masses, but I am looking for lenses with reasonably fast apertures.

There only ever were a couple that fit that description though - the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6 (and maybe one could include the 200 f/2.8 at the shorter end). Anything longer at f/5.6 or wider is going to be pretty bulky and expensive (eg 600 f/5.6 is basically 300 f/2.8 plus an extender) and anything narrower (like an 800 f/8 which I quite like the idea of) doesn't suit your requirements. Given the extra zoom options in this segment now, plus the overall market contraction, I doubt we will see anything that will satisfy your terms.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There only ever were a couple that fit that description though - the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6 (and maybe one could include the 200 f/2.8 at the shorter end). Anything longer at f/5.6 or wider is going to be pretty bulky and expensive (eg 600 f/5.6 is basically 300 f/2.8 plus an extender) and anything narrower (like an 800 f/8 which I quite like the idea of) doesn't suit your requirements. Given the extra zoom options in this segment now, plus the overall market contraction, I doubt we will see anything that will satisfy your terms.

It is rather interesting that Nikon seems to be going with both super-telephoto zooms and primes.
Having built-in TCs in their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 adds more versatility.
If Canon comes out with their patented 1.0-2.0x Extender that would completely outshine those in versatility.

Canon still has comically large gaps between the 600 f/11 and 600 f/4 and also the 800 f/11 and 800 f/5.6.
Canon could use something like the 180-600 and 800 f/6.3 PF.
They sure have the patents and the expertise.

 

[scyrene]

It is rather interesting that Nikon seems to be going with both super-telephoto zooms and primes.
Having built-in TCs in their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 adds more versatility.
If Canon comes out with their patented 1.0-2.0x Extender that would completely outshine those in versatility.

Canon still has comically large gaps between the 600 f/11 and 600 f/4 and also the 800 f/11 and 800 f/5.6.
Canon could use something like the 180-600 and 800 f/6.3 PF.
They sure have the patents and the expertise.

I wonder how big those gaps are though, in reality. From our consumer perspective it's tempting to think there's space for eg an 800 f/8 or a 600 f/6.3 (whether primes or zooms) but there are already about as many 400mm+ RF options than there ever were for EF (not counting third party for obvious reasons).

I also think it is interesting that we hear a fair bit of "Canon must release lenses to compete with competitors' mid-range supertelephotos" but there's little acknowledgment that those other manufacturers lack anything like the 800 and 600 f/11 - and I would say the existence of those lenses is an indication of Canon's approach in this area (which is a bit different to Nikon's). They've got several budget options (including the RF 100-400) and several high end options, and if a -500mm zoom is released as rumoured then I would imagine that is it until we get to generation II lenses (if we ever do).

Just as an illustration of how well served we are, or a different perspective on the "gaps", there are already five ways of getting 800mm on the RF system, the two 800mm primes (f/5.6 and f/11), and by mounting a 2x extender on the 400 (giving f/5.6), the 100-500 (giving ~f/11 or the 100-400 (giving f/16).

 

[AlanF]

I wonder how big those gaps are though, in reality. From our consumer perspective it's tempting to think there's space for eg an 800 f/8 or a 600 f/6.3 (whether primes or zooms) but there are already about as many 400mm+ RF options than there ever were for EF (not counting third party for obvious reasons).

I also think it is interesting that we hear a fair bit of "Canon must release lenses to compete with competitors' mid-range supertelephotos" but there's little acknowledgment that those other manufacturers lack anything like the 800 and 600 f/11 - and I would say the existence of those lenses is an indication of Canon's approach in this area (which is a bit different to Nikon's). They've got several budget options (including the RF 100-400) and several high end options, and if a -500mm zoom is released as rumoured then I would imagine that is it until we get to generation II lenses (if we ever do).

Just as an illustration of how well served we are, or a different perspective on the "gaps", there are already five ways of getting 800mm on the RF system, the two 800mm primes (f/5.6 and f/11), and by mounting a 2x extender on the 400 (giving f/5.6), the 100-500 (giving ~f/11 or the 100-400 (giving f/16).

Agreed, but just a very minor point, whatever you hear to the contrary, the 100-500mm is f/6.3 at 400mm. However, at 1000mm f/14 with the 2xTC it is even better than the 800/11 on the R5 but not, in my experience, on the R7.

 

[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.

Just put $100 down on the lens. Could some of the canon guys or even yourself tell me the negatives of this lens. I’d be shooting non canon for the first time in my life so there is that. How does it compare to a “big white” not factoring in stuff like weight and size

 

[birdman916]

Do you guys think the 200-500 will weigh more then the 400 2.8f. I’m thinking maybe that getting the 400 2.8 with a. 1.4 tc may be the say I’m leaning. Will he heavier and bigger that my 100-500 but not that much more it seems. Probably much better images but the ability to still bird and hand hold

 

[AlanF]

Just put $100 down on the lens. Could some of the canon guys or even yourself tell me the negatives of this lens. I’d be shooting non canon for the first time in my life so there is that. How does it compare to a “big white” not factoring in stuff like weight and size

This isn't the best site for discussion of Olympus or M4/3, and you would better be asking questions in a specialist forum. In case you don't get any replies, here is the personal view of a birder who shoots Canon.

I've never used Olympus but have thought carefully about adding one for many years for my birding photography with telephotos, but I always decide against. The OM-1 and the new 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO Lens are superb pieces of kit and make a great stand-alone system but they don't complement or really add to what I have already; R7, R5, RF 100-400mm and RF100-500mm.

Firstly, in terms of reach, the R7 and OM-1 have virtually the same pixel densities, equivalent to ~80 Mpx FF. The 150-400mm with 1.25xTC kicked in has f/5.6, only 2/3rds of a stop faster at 500mm than the 100-500mm at f/7.1. Not only is that a small difference, it's neutralised by the larger sensor of the R7 that is worth 2/3rds of a stop!

Secondly, when it comes to BIF, the R5 is ranked higher than the OM-1 on the site that measures these, and more importantly, I couldn't handle 400mm on a M4/3, which is equivalent to 800mm field of view on my R5 for fast birds. I would have to zoom out to 250-300mm, and this would more than negate any reach advantage - 250mm on a 20Mpx M4/3 sensor has the same fov as 500mm on a 45 Mpx R5, but only the reach of 326mm. And, the wider f/4.5 is negated by the smaller sensor.

Other people may have different views and the OM-1 is the best for them, but not for me with my current Canon gear. And, if a higher resolution R5 comes out, it will be even less so.

 

[kaihp]

Do you guys think the 200-500 will weigh more then the 400 2.8f. I’m thinking maybe that getting the 400 2.8 with a. 1.4 tc may be the say I’m leaning. Will he heavier and bigger that my 100-500 but not that much more it seems. Probably much better images but the ability to still bird and hand hold

If I remember correctly, Andy Rouse (UK wildlife photographer) is using the OM1 and a 100-400mm. He raves about it, but then again he been doing that (ie raving) about all the gear he's had over the years.

 

[birdman916]

This isn't the best site for discussion of Olympus or M4/3, and you would better be asking questions in a specialist forum. In case you don't get any replies, here is the personal view of a birder who shoots Canon.

I've never used Olympus but have thought carefully about adding one for many years for my birding photography with telephotos, but I always decide against. The OM-1 and the new 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO Lens are superb pieces of kit and make a great stand-alone system but they don't complement or really add to what I have already; R7, R5, RF 100-400mm and RF100-500mm.

Firstly, in terms of reach, the R7 and OM-1 have virtually the same pixel densities, equivalent to ~80 Mpx FF. The 150-400mm with 1.25xTC kicked in has f/5.6, only 2/3rds of a stop faster at 500mm than the 100-500mm at f/7.1. Not only is that a small difference, it's neutralised by the larger sensor of the R7 that is worth 2/3rds of a stop!

Secondly, when it comes to BIF, the R5 is ranked higher than the OM-1 on the site that measures these, and more importantly, I couldn't handle 400mm on a M4/3, which is equivalent to 800mm field of view on my R5 for fast birds. I would have to zoom out to 250-300mm, and this would more than negate any reach advantage - 250mm on a 20Mpx M4/3 sensor has the same fov as 500mm on a 45 Mpx R5, but only the reach of 326mm. And, the wider f/4.5 is negated by the smaller sensor.

Other people may have different views and the OM-1 is the best for them, but not for me with my current Canon gear. And, if a higher resolution R5 comes out, it will be even less so.

What a legit reply(not being facetious!) thank you for taking time out of your day to write that. I guess I’ll just wait for the 200-500mm and dealt with it being bulky