I'll put my money on the new 200-500mm f/4 being at least as sharp as the old EF 200-400mm at 560 f/5.6, especially as the 1.4xTC does degrade the image to some, albeit small, extent. The reason why the RF 600 f/4 and the EF 600mm f/4 III not being as sharp as the older 600 f/4 II appears to lie in the middle optics being made smaller and further back in the lens. This type of design wasn't done in the new RF 100-300mm f/2.8, which is spectacularly sharp. I bet it will be nearly as sharp as the old EF 500mm f/4.
It's a full stop faster at the long-end without any degradation from a teleconverter or the need to switch it on or off, having a bigger 2.5x zoom range instead of 2.0x, not sure how that's directly comparable.
That’s a shame on the sharpness, I sold my 500mm F/4ii which was fantastically sharp and got the RF 600mm F4 as well, I’m happy to see it’s just as sharp with my R5. Yes the weight saving is beautiful. It’s even lighter then my 500 was.
I was just talking to an independent camera dealer, and he was saying Canon is on a "growth" push with their dealers. Your thinking was basically his response to the Canon rep... "howabout you make the stuff masses of people will actually purchase so we don't feel handcuffed?"
I’m sure for a company canon’s size will have multiple design personal/departments working on different lines of canon lenses at the same time. I guess there will always be people frustrated with what they haven’t released yet
Funny you say that. I bought my daughter a titanium frame back in 2000. It was about $1400 (Dean). The frame is still perfect. Good thing as the price of titanium has skyrocketed. From what I understand, most titanium comes from Russia. That frame now is thousands of dollars.Sadly, this is also the price of some high-end mountain bikes.
Since Covid, many prices have gone crazy.
As I've remarked in other threads, Canon has been less than innovative seems to be targeting either the high end or entry level offerings. I tried the RF 600. Yes, it was lighter weight than my EF 600 II though its sharpness, as you observed was not as good as the older versions. At $13k, it's $2.5k cheaper than the Nikon with the built in 1.4 TC though its wider, longer, and about the same weight. The 200-500 will be interesting, and I imagine it will be sharp, though I don't know if it will be $16k interesting? Sure, some sports and nature photographers might welcome the zoom f/4 lens, in place of a faster 400 f/2.8. I am curious as to the size/weight and wonder if that went into the equation as to why they didn't include a TC (perhaps the dual TC isn't ready for prime time?) The rest of us will be relegated to older and soon to be unsupported EF primes or the wonderful but wonky 100-500 f/4.5-7.1.
No one wants my 500 f/4 at any price including resellers. It's an amazing lens (bare) and still has great sharpness with a 1.4x tc.
