Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM update [CR2]

[GMCPhotographics]

I think that one of the issues that Canon had with their EF version of this lens was timing. It came to market quite late (compared to Nikon) and it was burdened by trying to be better, hence the internal teleconverer.
When the EF was launched at quite an eye wateringly expensive price (that’s a lot of R&D to re-coup), there were a lot of great condition used Nikon versions about and then Nikon discounted their new copies. The EF version was larger, heavier and a lot more expensive in comparison.
I think Canon are incapable and unwilling to make a poor man’s big white (500mm f5.6), even though it would sell in far higher volumes.
The RF mount version is going to have a hard time selling at £13K, regardless of how light or sharp Canon can build it. Especially when I see unloved (low use) S/H EF copies selling in the £4k region.

 

[scyrene]

Unless Canon makes 700 lenses there will always be gaps to complain about but it makes it easier to complain when Nikon or Sony have lenses that would fit in those gaps.

But do people (presumably on other forums) complain about Sony/Nikon lacking competitors for eg the 600/800 f/11 and RF 100-400? Canon has opened up supertelephoto focal lengths for the masses in a way that wasn't possible 5+ years ago.

 

[EricN]

But do people (presumably on other forums) complain about Sony/Nikon lacking competitors for eg the 600/800 f/11 and RF 100-400? Canon has opened up supertelephoto focal lengths for the masses in a way that wasn't possible 5+ years ago.

I looked on a Sony Fakebook group. They are mostly posting insulting each other about the photos they share or say things like "I sold a 105 f2.8 one to one macro for a 70-200 f4 half macro."

 

[scyrene]

I have seriously considered the RF 100-500 f7.1 LIS. However, it's cost is considerable and so is the new RF 1.4x TC, which I would likely need to purchase too. I already have ef mount 1.4x III and 2x TC III converters. So another will only be used with the RF 100-500. That means running three Teleconverters!

I like the reduced weight and slightly smaller size (comparatively, without the ef-rf adpater). But on balance, i'm sure the EF 100-400mm F5.6 LIS II is the lens for me in this range.

Just fwiw secondhand RF teleconverters are coming onto the market, or you might get a deal - I got the 2x for half price when purchased with a lens (the 100-400). They are prohibitively expensive @ RRP though!

 

[EricN]

I think Canon are incapable and unwilling to make a poor man’s big white (500mm f5.6), even though it would sell in far higher volumes.

I'm thinking it's might not be as popular as you imagine, because at least some of the people wanting to save money would prefer a good copy of a used older model f4 for a similar (or lower) price.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm thinking it's might not be as popular as you imagine, because at least some of the people wanting to save money would prefer a good copy of a used older model f4 for a similar (or lower) price.

Yes, that's a very valid point. Canon has to balance the S/H market availability.
However, Canon doesn't make any money on S/H gear so their ethos will be to raid the S/H market with new items in the same price point. Canon did this very effecively with their DSLR range. The 6Dmkii was basically a 5Diii, effectively raiding the S/H value of the 5Diii. I suspect this is the real reason why Canon are releasing so many mkII/MkIII versions of kit that are very similar to the previous version. When i look at the S/H value of my EF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II, it's fallen massively to almost laughable levels compared to the mkIII version which is nearly identical. Another example are the 600EX RT flashes, the mkII's are pretty much the same thing...but the used prices of the mkI have spiralled.

 

[shadowsports]

GMCPhotographics said:
I have seriously considered the RF 100-500 f7.1 LIS. However, it's cost is considerable and so is the new RF 1.4x TC, which I would likely need to purchase too.

Purchase both, you won't look back

I purchased my RF 100-400 when it was on sale new, my RF 1.4x TC refurb from Canon and my RF100-500 new on sale from B&H. I saved plenty and am enjoying all 3. The TC works with both lenses, they perform admirably, actually the RF100-500 is a supah top performer, and I love how light it is. If you have an R series camera, these 3 items offer a significant value proposition and top performance. The RF100-400 continues to surprise me. If I were a pro, I'd buy the RF200-500 which I'd love to own. For now, the RF100-500 is enough for me.

 

[AlanF]

GMCPhotographics said:
I have seriously considered the RF 100-500 f7.1 LIS. However, it's cost is considerable and so is the new RF 1.4x TC, which I would likely need to purchase too.

Purchase both, you won't look back

I purchased my RF 100-400 when it was on sale new, my RF 1.4x TC refurb from Canon and my RF100-500 new on sale from B&H. I saved plenty and am enjoying all 3. The TC works with both lenses, they perform admirably, actually the RF100-500 is a supah top performer, and I love how light it is. If you have an R series camera, these 3 items offer a significant value proposition and top performance. The RF100-400 continues to surprise me. If I were a pro, I'd buy the RF200-500 which I'd love to own. For now, the RF100-500 is enough for me.

@GMCPhotographics is evaluating the RF 100-500mm vs keeping his EF 100-400mm II. Having used all these lenses extensively, I think I can say he he will be able to do just as about as well keeping his old lens, which is still one of the best.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But do people (presumably on other forums) complain about Sony/Nikon lacking competitors for eg the 600/800 f/11 and RF 100-400? Canon has opened up supertelephoto focal lengths for the masses in a way that wasn't possible 5+ years ago

Sony is kind of strange.
They have been pushing the a9 for sports and wildlife when it first came out but did not have the lenses to match.
That is changing but below the a9 there is nothing capable of sports and wildlife at all.
The R50 even has respectable wildlife performance.
Nikon also has no cameras below the Z 8 and no lenses like the ones you mentioned.
I know plenty of Nikon users who switched to Canon for that.
People who were into more affordable sports and wildlife could not have been on Sony to begin with.

 

[AlanF]

Sony is kind of strange.
They have been pushing the a9 for sports and wildlife when it first came out but did not have the lenses to match.
That is changing but below the a9 there is nothing capable of sports and wildlife at all.
The R50 even has respectable wildlife performance.
Nikon also has no cameras below the Z 8 and no lenses like the ones you mentioned.
I know plenty of Nikon users who switched to Canon for that.
People who were into more affordable sports and wildlife could not have been on Sony to begin with.

This site carefully analyses the performance of various cameras for birds in flight - well worth a read.

The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

It has quite a few Nikon and Sony models at the top of the lists (Z8 not tested yet) such as:

 

[GMCPhotographics]

@GMCPhotographics is evaluating the RF 100-500mm vs keeping his EF 100-400mm II. Having used all these lenses extensively, I think I can say he he will be able to do just as about as well keeping his old lens, which is still one of the best.

Thanks AlanF,
My Evaluation is a bit on hold at the moment. I scored a great P/X deal on my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS for a mkII...so there's a burning hole in my bank account at the moment. My next lens purchase is likely to be a swap of my venerable EF 24-70mm f2.8 L (mk1) for a mkII and then I can start to think about a longer zoom. I'll need it for trip to Sri Lanka around Easter 2024, so I have a bit of time yet.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks AlanF,
My Evaluation is a bit on hold at the moment. I scored a great P/X deal on my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS for a mkII...so there's a burning hole in my bank account at the moment. My next lens purchase is likely to be a swap of my venerable EF 24-70mm f2.8 L (mk1) for a mkII and then I can start to think about a longer zoom. I'll need it for trip to Sri Lanka around Easter 2024, so I have a bit of time yet.

Whether or not you need to buy an RF 1.4x TC for the 100-500 as well may depend on the body you are using - see my recent thread. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...r5-with-the-rf-100-500mm-and-extenders.42731/
I find mine adds very little in terms of resolution on my R5. On the other hand, I am just about to take it out on the R7 to catch a bird on the other side of a lake.

 

[EricN]

Yes, that's a very valid point. Canon has to balance the S/H market availability.
However, Canon doesn't make any money on S/H gear so their ethos will be to raid the S/H market with new items in the same price point. Canon did this very effecively with their DSLR range. The 6Dmkii was basically a 5Diii, effectively raiding the S/H value of the 5Diii. I suspect this is the real reason why Canon are releasing so many mkII/MkIII versions of kit that are very similar to the previous version. When i look at the S/H value of my EF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II, it's fallen massively to almost laughable levels compared to the mkIII version which is nearly identical. Another example are the 600EX RT flashes, the mkII's are pretty much the same thing...but the used prices of the mkI have spiralled.

Those are good points. It's an interesting topic.

 

[shadowsports]

@GMCPhotographics is evaluating the RF 100-500mm vs keeping his EF 100-400mm II. Having used all these lenses extensively, I think I can say he he will be able to do just as about as well keeping his old lens, which is still one of the best.

Alan,
It absolutely is. Heavier now by comparison, but still a wonderfully sharp, tank-built type of a lens. In it for the long haul.

 

[AlanF]

Alan,
It absolutely is. Heavier now by comparison, but still a wonderfully sharp, tank-built type of a lens. In it for the long haul.

It's only marginally heavier by 90g - the RF lens often has its weight quoted without the tripod ring. Working weight of RF 100-500mm = 1610g, EF 100-400mm II 1700g (see the-digital-picture. However, you have to add the EF-R adapter. Compared with the Sony and Nikon 600 zooms, they are both lightweights.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This site carefully analyses the performance of various cameras for birds in flight - well worth a read.

The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

It has quite a few Nikon and Sony models at the top of the lists (Z8 not tested yet) such as:

View attachment 211439

Maybe I am underestimating the number of people using the more affordable Sony cameras for BIF but that could be because I do not know very many and those cameras just do not seem designed for it.
Other than the a1, Sony maintains a higher percentage at a much lower FPS.
All I care about is the number of shots in focus overall.
It does not matter to me if there are more out-of-focus shots when I get more in-focus shots.
It would be tough to calculate because, for instance, when the R7 misses more than a few shots it misses a lot.
Also, a lot of that has to do with the settings and comes from experience with the camera.

 

[AlanF]

Maybe I am underestimating the number of people using the more affordable Sony cameras for BIF but that could be because I do not know very many and those cameras just do not seem designed for it.
Other than the a1, Sony maintains a higher percentage at a much lower FPS.
All I care about is the number of shots in focus overall.
It does not matter to me if there are more out-of-focus shots when I get more in-focus shots.
It would be tough to calculate because, for instance, when the R7 misses more than a few shots it misses a lot.
Also, a lot of that has to do with the settings and comes from experience with the camera.

I always take @arbitrage very seriously when it comes to reviewing for BIF and bird photography in general. He has tried out the Sony A7R5 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1785163/9#lastmessage and whereas the R5 is just about up with the A1/R3/Z9 for AF, the A7R5 isn't, though it is still good. Some of these naysayers about the R5 don't realise what a leap forward it was for Canon.