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

Jan 22, 2012
4,497
1,361
It would have been nicer to have a built in TC. I do not buy the 'will add weight' argument. The weight gain would have been of very little percentage increase.
On the other hand, I am happy that the 100-300 does not have a built-in TC. The 100-300 is for the mid tele shots while the 200-500 is for telephoto work and a TC would have been nicer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,496
23,076
It would have been nicer to have a built in TC. I do not buy the 'will add weight' argument. The weight gain would have been of very little percentage increase.
On the other hand, I am happy that the 100-300 does not have a built-in TC. The 100-300 is for the mid tele shots while the 200-500 is for telephoto work and a TC would have been nicer.
"The last straw that broke the camel's back" isn't an old saying for nothing.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,496
23,076
Incidentally, here are a couple of shots at f/11 (EF 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII). Shutter speeds for both are 1/2500 s, ISOs are 2000-2500 (which was no problem on my 1D X and even less so on my R3). I would not call a lens limited to f/11 a novelty.

View attachment 210567View attachment 210566

Of course, like any lens the 800/11 can only produce results based on the skill of the person holding the camera.
It really was one of the dopiest of comments here, as well as being compounded by some of the rudest and most ill-founded other personal remarks, that the 800 f/11 is only a novelty lens. An 800 f/6.3 might be the go-to lens of a birder whose only point of reference is the local osprey haunt - among the easiest of birds to photo. Any 800mm would not be my go-to lens as that focal length combined with a long mfd makes it rather specialised. As you have said, I have produced some nice photos with mine, and I use it when I know I need more length. But, my go-to lenses, prime or zoom, are shorter because of their much greater versatility (and that included in the past the Nikon 500/5.6). As for the need of high iso, you can really ramp it up for longer focal lengths. Here's a Kestrel in flight taken on a very dull day where I used iso 32,000 at a shutter speed of 1/3200s with the 800/11 on the R5.

(Incidentally, my avatar of a Beeeater in flight was taken with an 800/11 - although my previous one of an Osprey with a flounder was with a 7DII and 100-400.)

309A8462-DxO_Kestrel_Hovering_iso32k_gif0-denpvaut.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,345
13,268
It would have been nicer to have a built in TC. I do not buy the 'will add weight' argument. The weight gain would have been of very little percentage increase.
According to Canon, for the 100-300/2.8 it was about both weight and size. Based on the patent, the 200-500/4 is the same length as the RF 600/4 (longer than the RF 800/5.6). Those lenses are already at the edge of fitting in an airline-regulation carryon. My 600/4 II is slightly shorter than the patent-based lens length of the 200-500, and here it is in a carryon:

IMG_9001.jpeg

A built-in TC would make the 200-500/4 something like 50mm / 2” longer, meaning it wouldn’t fit in a standard carryon. I suspect that factors into Canon’s decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,496
23,076
According to Canon, for the 100-300/2.8 it was about both weight and size. Based on the patent, the 200-500/4 is the same length as the RF 600/4 (longer than the RF 800/5.6). Those lenses are already at the edge of fitting in an airline-regulation carryon. My 600/4 II is slightly shorter than the patent-based lens length of the 200-500, and here it is in a carryon:

View attachment 210590

A built-in TC would make the 200-500/4 something like 50mm / 2” longer, meaning it wouldn’t fit in a standard carryon. I suspect that factors into Canon’s decision.
I have a Tamrac bag that is the regulation size for fitting under a seat on BA, EasyJet and other airlines so I can take both it and a full-size cabin case on board as carry-on hand luggage. It will take my R5+RF100-500 and my wife's R7+RF100-400 (as well as slipping in an iPad). It weighs so little I can carry it on my back, and we go on holidays with just cabin baggage and no faffing around with carousels with fears of losing luggage or delays. This is a real advantage over those heavier, non-extending 600mm zooms from Sony and Nikon, which may be technically superior. Size (small) does matter!

Cameras_in_bag.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
1,034
1,266
Northeastern US
I have a Tamrac bag that is the regulation size for fitting under a seat on BA, EasyJet and other airlines so I can take both it and a full-size cabin case on board as carry-on hand luggage. It will take my R5+RF100-500 and my wife's R7+RF100-400 (as well as slipping in an iPad). It weighs so little I can carry it on my back, and we go on holidays with just cabin baggage and no faffing around with carousels with fears of losing luggage or delays. This is a real advantage over those heavier, non-extending 600mm zooms from Sony and Nikon, which may be technically superior. Size (small) does matter!

View attachment 210592
What is the model of the Tamrac bag that you use? I have been looking for a bag to meet British Airways fitting underneath the seat guidelines.

Thank you,

John
 
Upvote 0
Aug 21, 2019
108
113
Incidentally, here are a couple of shots at f/11 (EF 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII). Shutter speeds for both are 1/2500 s, ISOs are 2000-2500 (which was no problem on my 1D X and even less so on my R3). I would not call a lens limited to f/11 a novelty.

View attachment 210567View attachment 210566

Of course, like any lens the 800/11 can only produce results based on the skill of the person holding the camera.
Shooting these subjects at f/11 demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding WL/bird photography. And the snowy is OOF to boot. Troll!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,496
23,076
What is the model of the Tamrac bag that you use? I have been looking for a bag to meet British Airways fitting underneath the seat guidelines.

Thank you,

John
The Tamrac website is terrible for details. Mine is clearly an old model, and the dimensions of a newer one aren't given but I found them on Amazon, and it is about 5cm narrower https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamrac-Jazz-84-Camera-Backpack/dp/B078N9WF7P?th=1 There are several other makes listed on Amazon UK and you can search for a BA compatible one Up to 40 x 30 x 15cm (16 x 12 x 6in)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
1,034
1,266
Northeastern US
....A built-in TC would make the 200-500/4 something like 50mm / 2” longer, meaning it wouldn’t fit in a standard carryon. I suspect that factors into Canon’s decision.
Exactly!! My Guragear 30L+ has a maximum internal size of 20". If the 200-500 mm f4 does not fit in that backpack I might seriously reconsider the purchase.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,345
13,268
Shooting these subjects at f/11 demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding WL/bird photography. And the snowy is OOF to boot. Troll!
The snowy image is soft overall because it’s a deep crop on an 18 MP sensor with a subject sufficiently distant for atmospheric effects to play a role, and also because it was with the 2x TC. Using a 2x results in a noticeable decrement in IQ, and stopping the f/8 lens down to f/11 mitigates that somewhat. Perhaps you’re unaware of that. In any case, the snowy was really too far away for a good shot.

Of my thousands of images with the 600/4, less than 50 are at f/11, so frankly I didn’t have many examples from which to choose. I posted the images to make a point, albeit indirectly since I don’t have an RF 800/11. Evidently you are too obtuse to grasp that point. @AlanF has directly shown that the 800/11 is anything but a novelty, at least in skilled hands. You may need to think of it as a novelty because you lack the skill to use it effectively, but that’s not the lens’ problem, it’s yours.

What is clear is that when your statements are challenged with logic, facts and examples your only recourse is to resort to insults, probably because you lack the knowledge to respond with facts and the intelligence to respond with logic. It’s always sad to encounter such petulance here, but it’s also quite common.

It would be great if you could actually post things that add real value to these forums, but that seems beyond your capability so I certainly won’t hold my breath. At least your posts are good for an occasional laugh, if only because they’re so asinine.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,345
13,268
Exactly!! My Guragear 30L+ has a maximum internal size of 20". If the 200-500 mm f4 does not fit in that backpack I might seriously reconsider the purchase.
It should, without the built-in TC. The patent indicates a lens length of 467mm / 18.5”. That’s mount flange to front element, the actual physical lens based on that patent example would be about 15mm longer, so ~19”.
 
Upvote 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
Shooting these subjects at f/11 demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding WL/bird photography. And the snowy is OOF to boot. Troll!
Quite funny as I recently saw a podcast with a professional WL/bird photographer who prefers shooting at f/11. And as hundreds (if not many more) photographers have been using the RF 800 and RF 600 and uploading their fine photos on Facebook and other groups and forums, it is you that is demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding WL/bird photography.

Neuro may be blunt. He does not suffer fools gladly. But he is a long time forum member and he deals with facts. Might be a good place to start instead of making ignorant statements.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,345
13,268
Dang. I didn't dig into that rumor, I just took it at face value. Oh well. Sure would be nice!
CRguy has indicated he’s been told there’s a new type of TC coming. Since we already have the typical 1.4x and 2x TCs, something ‘new’ will likely be innovative and interesting. Well, unless it’s a 1.7x TC, but that seems unlikely. Even Nikon dropped those. I don’t think it’ll be a 1x-1.4x-2x TC, but I’d love to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0
There are expensive and cheap zooms in the line, and a bunch of really unique stuff fixed and zoom, but why not expensive and cheap fixed lenses at the common focal lengths?
And there's a reason for that. Canon have explicitly stated at one of their Quarterly business calls that they see the photography market shrinking in terms of units, and they plan on keeping their bottom line by extracting more money per purchase - ie extracting more money from you, I, and everybody else.
 
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
1,034
1,266
Northeastern US
It should, without the built-in TC. The patent indicates a lens length of 467mm / 18.5”. That’s mount flange to front element, the actual physical lens based on that patent example would be about 15mm longer, so ~19”.
Thank you for the feedback. I am just concerned that once one adds the rear lens cap and front element cover that it could be more than 20". Either way it is going to be a tight fit for the GuraGear 30L backpack.
 
Upvote 0
I am not sure that is true.
Canon sold a 50 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 50 f/1.2.
They also sold an 85 f/1.8, 85 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.2.

The last 50 f1.4 was sold 30 years ago; then the 50 f1.2 was presented in 2007, and since then, no more 50 f1.4 was ever seen with the Canon brand. I don't see why they would want to present an RF 50 f1.4 lens in the 1000/1500$€£ range (40/50% less then the 50 1.2), 90% of people would then not spend 1000$€£ extra for just a third of a stop more brightness.
And they did the 85 f1.4 in 2017 because both 85 f1.2's suck and have terrible AF, no one was buying them anymore, and Sigma Art lenses were beating the sh*t out of them (and they even failed, as the 85 Art is sharper then the Canon at any aperture); and they even did it too late, as the last DSLR was presented in the 2020, just three years later, so they presented the 85 f1.4 for a system that was already on the death bed, as Canon original R came out in 2018, just a year later then the 85 f1.4 L (of course the lens was in the pipeline since many years before presentation, you just don't stop it, then).
Consider that, apart from the 1Dx III, from 2017 to 2020 the only DSLR's presented were the 6DII (terrible camera), the 90D (good camera, but wouldn't call it a milestone), all the other cameras were cheap Rebels.
EF system was dead already when the 85 f1.4 L came to the market; lucky for us they gave us adapters, and EF lenses work as good as RF lenses, so the legacy still lives on. But we'll see if Canon will ever manufacture a RF 85 f1.4 and I'm pretty sure they won't, for the same reasons of the 50's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
1,034
1,266
Northeastern US
It should, without the built-in TC. The patent indicates a lens length of 467mm / 18.5”. That’s mount flange to front element, the actual physical lens based on that patent example would be about 15mm longer, so ~19”.
Upon measuring other Canon BW I see that adding the rear lens cap and front element cover adds about 1" to the lens length listed on Canon's website. If the patent says 18.5" I am quite sure the lens overall length with back caps and front cover will be <20". Still going to be a tight fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0