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

[hollybush]

Why would a Canon shooter be waiting for a lens like the Sony 200-600mm when they have the 100-500mm, which is as good, if not better, in so many ways?

I have the 100-500mm, so yes, I did know about it.

It’s 1/3 stop slower at 500mm than the Sony is at 600mm. While I haven’t used the Sony, I would expect it to be easier to handle (that is, point at the subject and zoom in and out) than the Canon, despite its extra weight, because it’s an internal zoom.

But the biggest difference for most people, at least here in Australia, will be that the Sony is half the price.

Canon knows where the profits are best made. And we have no idea what lenses are in the pipeline. They can only design and produce so many new lenses a year. Why don't people understand that not every lens is for them.

A bit of an odd comment considering most of my post was pointing out that this new lens was indeed, not for me, but for other people, and I even named who those people might be. I went on to ask whether they might *not* know where the profits are. Plenty of big companies don’t.

 

[AlanF]

I wonder if we'll see variants, e.g. 1.4x+2x, 1x+2x, 1x+1.4x? Certainly a 1x+1.4x+2x would be ideal, but I'm not sure if that's feasible.

For a zoom, I think the 1x and 2x options cover the greatest range, and then the 1.4x is the irrelevant. The 1.4x might have better IQ than the 2x, but the extra reach makes it more worthwhile for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For a zoom, I think the 1x and 2x options cover the greatest range, and then the 1.4x is the irrelevant. The 1.4x might have better IQ than the 2x, but the extra reach makes it more worthwhile for me.

I'd opt for the 1x+2x, at least for the 100-300/2.8. Canon knows how many of each EF and RF TC they've sold, and I expect that will factor into their decision on which would be more popular paired with a 1x. But if I had to guess, I'd say 1.4x vs 2x is a moot point since I suspect they'll make a 1.4x+2x switchable.

While I think we would both prefer a 1x + something else, a 1x needs optics to preserve infinity focus in what effectively becomes an extension tube, and that means some IQ loss compared to the bare lens (which was not the case for the 200-400 + 1.4x, since the 1.4x was part of the native design and could be disengaged without an optical penalty). I don't see Canon doing that, personally.

 

[mpmark]

Ignoring the weight and price, I suspect it won't have a decent magnification ratio like the 100-500L and RF100-400 either.

Close focus or macro type photography is not what the large white lenses are ever designed for. They are designed to collect lots of light for distant subjects.

 

[MiJax]

" Fear not, there will be a nice teleconverter solution coming for both the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM and the Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM"

How is this any different from the existing 1.4x and 2x TC's? Is there going to be a new set of RF TCs?

I'm assuming this means they will offer a defeatable external TC. So it would be a normal bayonet mount with a 1.4 or 2.0x that can be turned off. Or maybe even a TC that can go from 0x to 1.4x to 2.0x. Not sure how I would feel about that, but it would be a stop gap for the next 8-10 years that the super telephotos get refreshed on.

 

[Del Paso]

IMO, one should think about kidney mass production.

It will be interesting, how this lens will perform in size and weight.
And I am sure I don't want to know the price

I've forgotten who once said it (Rolls Royce???): if you ask about the price, you can't probably afford it.
PS: I'm asking about the price.

 

[JohnGerlach]

I will definitely buy this lens as soon as I can. I have the RF 100-500mm f/7.1 now and it works well for me. But have a faster lens would help me a lot with my wildlife photos and give me more teleconverter options. I like the idea of using a 1.4x teleconverter and having a 700mm f/5.6, and should I try a 2x tele, then I would still have a doable f/8 lens speed. I do hope it will focus close, at least down to six feet for hummingbirds and warblers. This painted bunting arrived on a dark and light rainy day. More lens speed would have been nice to have.

 

[AlanF]

I'm assuming this means they will offer a defeatable external TC. So it would be a normal bayonet mount with a 1.4 or 2.0x that can be turned off. Or maybe even a TC that can go from 0x to 1.4x to 2.0x. Not sure how I would feel about that, but it would be a stop gap for the next 8-10 years that the super telephotos get refreshed on.

I don’t think a 0x TC would have much use on a telephoto.

 

[john1970]

Thanks for the heads up. It's described better in the source that Canonwatch used https://asobinet-com.translate.goog...-lens/?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB
It has to be very wide to take the internally swivelling lenses. If they have a TC designed like this, it would give a choice of two focal length multipliers when inserted, say 1.4x or 2x, or even 1x or 2x etc.

Thank you for posting a more complete description. Will be interesting to see what eventually it becomes. A 1x, 1.4x, 2x would be ideal, but I do not know if such a converter is feasible.

 

[masterpix]

Canon’s EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II is going to be a zoom for the RF mount first. We have confirmed that a Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM will likely be coming in Q4, or perhaps in Q1 of 2024 ahead of the Canon EOS R1. The Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM will

See full article...

Well, it all comes to the matter of two factors: cash and back. The 100-500 is much slower and lighter, the 200-500 will be much faster but heavier. (both on the back and the pocket). I wish I could get 11-24/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 200-500/4 cover the whole range, but who knows, the burden on the back and pocket is... what it is.

 

[Gladiola]

Time for me to finally get a child to be sold for this.

 

[jeff89]

Canon has given us both an 800mm and a 600mm DO lens (I have both). They are the lightest and cheapest lenses around with that kind of reach and they work very well. I get that you may not like f/11, but it works a lot better than you might think, so the question is just where and how wide is the "forgotten middle". Neither the Sony nor Nikon solutions you mention are particularly cheap, so you are talking "upper-middle" which may be a pretty narrow slice. Canon has the numbers, so they know how the market is divvied up. I suspect one of their highest goals is to bring in more entry level customers and then to raise those to, if you will, "lower middle", because that is likely where the most revenue opportunity lies. They have to please the very high end, because even though it may not actually bring in that much revenue, it sets the company image and that is critical for the rest of the market. You will likely see something that fits your fancy, but it may not be at the top of the "to do" list for Canon.

I shot the Thunderbirds practicing one day, they had to be at a couple thousand feet and half mile away, the sharpness at that distance was amazing, would have helped if I had it on plane auto track instead of humans, I'm sure!

 

[birdman916]

I will definitely buy this lens as soon as I can. I have the RF 100-500mm f/7.1 now and it works well for me. But have a faster lens would help me a lot with my wildlife photos and give me more teleconverter options. I like the idea of using a 1.4x teleconverter and having a 700mm f/5.6, and should I try a 2x tele, then I would still have a doable f/8 lens speed. I do hope it will focus close, at least down to six feet for hummingbirds and warblers. This painted bunting arrived on a dark and light rainy day. More lens speed would have been nice to have.View attachment 209098

This photo is incredible. I have the 100-500 and r5 and don’t think I’ve every had a photo this good wow! Can I ask your distance from the bird, settings etc

 

[Tony5787]

Seems like maybe that patent for a 1-1.5x-2x extender from a few years ago might be a reality soon, very exciting! Just hope it won’t only be compatible with these zooms and that the RF 400 and 600 will be able to take it as well. I just ordered the 400 finally after literally years of debating back and forth between getting one to replace my 600 IS II or sticking with the 600. If I can throw an extender on the back to go from 400 f/2.8 to 560 f/4 to 800 f/5.6 without taking the lens off the body that’s a dream come true.

 

[SwissFrank]

Yes more expensive ones, remember the price for the 2x Teleconverter of the 1200/f8?

no? what happened?

 

[SwissFrank]

Ignoring the weight and price, I suspect it won't have a decent magnification ratio like the 100-500L and RF100-400 either.

we need some Canon extension tubes, stat!

 

[SwissFrank]

Canonwatch posted a patent that likely applies to the TC: Canon Variable TC

Thanks, I've never seem anything like that before, wild.

 

[SwissFrank]

Not to sound like a negative Nancy, but what exactly is “high demand” for the niche 100-300 lens? 100 units? 500 units?

I wonder what the demand would be for a 14, 24, 35 L Prime. Guess they have to leave something for users waiting and wanting more.

Hi Tony,

I think every sports photog will want the 100-300 AND the 200-500. That must be 20,000 photogs in the world right there. Sports is a big buck business and I imagine there are deep-enough pockets for it.

Similarly there are lots of pro portrait photogs who MUST have an 85/1.2 AND a 135/1.8.

And lots of reporters who MUST have the trinity (I'd argue f/4 these days: 14-35, 24-105, 100-500).

I shot a huge number of photos with my EF14/2.8 MkI in the 90s, and owned the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 as well, though didn't use them much. (Actually I had a Leica M6 0.58x with the 35/1.4ASPH and did all my night shooting with that in the film era.)

But what commercial photog just has to have these big apertures at these wide angles of view? Architecture and travel photogs are probably happy with the 14-35/4, no? Just as the "modern 300/2.8" is actually a 100-300 zoom, you could argue that the "modern 14/2.8" is the 14-35/4. Unless you're shooting closer than like 8", the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at 14mm is invisible. And you can already hand-hold the 50mm/1.8 a second EASILY, and ISO 2500 is butter-smooth, so it's not like we need f/1.4 or f/2.8 to keep our shutter speeds up and film speed down.

Now, by 28-35mm, f/1.4 starts to really look different than f/2, which is why I got the 28/1.4 and might consider the 35/1.0 or 1.2. I get the appeal of these lenses. But I'm not shooting them professionally. MAYBE wedding photogs? MAYBE? Or maybe not? I'm really excited by the 35/1.x but I'd also guess the vast majority of customers would be hobbyists and artists as opposed to working photogs.

 

[SwissFrank]

I think Canon understands that 14, 24 and 35 L primes are not a high priority item since;
A) Many existing photographers will already have these lenses in the EF versions and will use them with an adapter.
B) Many photographers that do not have them, but want them, will buy new or used EF versions of these lenses and will use them with an adapter.

The RF versions of many lenses are HUGELY improved over their predecessors. YES, there will be many people who use these EF lenses for fun and experimentation, but I think the people who can afford an R5 also will be getting the RF primes when they come out.

 

[SwissFrank]

But Canon is still behind my expectations.

Yes, but we have to make allowances for Covid, the screwed-up supply chains, and the big issue that sales are down 90% from the peak. I think we're pretty lucky that they're still making new lenses as fast as they are!