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

[1D4]

Yes, you're clearly asleep and blissfully unaware of the real world around you. In that real world, Canon has steadily gained MILC market share over the past several years, became the #1 MILC brand in Japan in 2022 (those data came our in 1Q23), and probably became the #1 MILC brand globally (given the trend lines, but those data don't come out until 4Q23).

So here in the real world, they are doing very well bringing people into and keeping them in the R system. Nikon, on the other hand, has been steadily losing market share for the past several years. They used to be the #2 ILC brand and very close behind Canon, now they've fallen to a distant third place in the ILC market, well behind Sony who remains well behind Canon. In Japan for 2022, Nikon didn't even make it into the top 3 for MILC brands (OM/Olympus was in 3rd place).

What Canon does offer besides expensive white lenses are lenses like the RF 15-30, RF 100-400, and RF 600/11 and 800/11, all relatively inexpensive lenses that deliver very good image quality at prices that are affordable to a very big segment of customers (a far bigger segment than can afford $3-4K lenses). A Canon kit can get you three full frame zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for under $1500, something impossible with either Sony or Nikon OEM lenses.

So by all means, keep living in your dream world. Out here in reality, Canon dominates the ILC market and they know far more about making and selling cameras than people like you who live in some fantasyland.

Wow, you really took offense to my post like I'm some Nikon fanboy dissing Canon. I simply stated Canon could potentially attract more people by offering a compact, lightweight prime lens that's in the middle ground between something like a $800 RF 600mm f/11 and a $13,000 RF 600mm f/4.

A huge reason Nikon lost market share because they were slow to the mirrorless game and when they finally did make it, the AF was lacking compared to what Canon and Sony already had available.

 

[1D4]

I’ll respond in a way that I hope is a bit more respectful.

Canon makes a sub-4k 500mm lens that is less than a stop slower than your dream lens. With today’s sensors and software, the difference in f-stops is not that significant. The Canon lens is as sharp as a prime, costs way less than your target price and has the added bonus of zooming out to 100mm.

None of us has access to Canon’s market research, but I strongly suspect that the research and experience shows that a zoom lens that is cheaper and more compact than a 5.6 prime, while also being light and easily hand-held is a better seller.

Of course you are free to keep waiting for a lens that I doubt will come, but thousands of us are happily enjoying a great 500mm lens.

I already have the 100-500 and love it. But for things like wildlife photography, 5.6 to 7.1 makes a bit of difference in regards to subject isolation. Obviously 4.0 would be even better, but a lot of people are willing to make that tradeoff in weight-savings. If we were talking strictly about the amount of light each would let in, I'd tend to agree with you.

 

[birdman916]

I feel like if canon produced a lens that weighed a pound or more than the 100-500 but was small enough to “bird” with even if it cost like 8k it would get gobbled up.

 

[birdman916]

I feel like if canon produced a lens that weighed a pound or more than the 100-500 but was small enough to “bird” with even if it cost like 8k it would get gobbled up.

But 16k and you prolly have to get a tripod and can’t just bird on the fly with is somewhat insane. The big white lenses are essentially for the “mugshot” birders. They stand at elaborate feeder stations and score mind numbing frame fillers that look immaculate and produce tons of likes on IG. Those photos are dope and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like them and even want to get some one day. But the overall burden of carrying that around that prevents me from birding more nimbly is prolly a no go for me. I’m hoping there is some middle ground from Canon on that …but perhaps there are technological limitations to low aperture and low weight that I’m missing.

 

[Czardoom]

I feel like if canon produced a lens that weighed a pound or more than the 100-500 but was small enough to “bird” with even if it cost like 8k it would get gobbled up.

Maybe I've missed something in previous comments, but why is it not possible to "bird" with the RF 100-500? It is something I "bird" with frequently.

 

[1D4]

Maybe I've missed something in previous comments, but why is it not possible to "bird" with the RF 100-500? It is something I "bird" with frequently.

In my comment, I provided one reason....something with a larger aperture would provide better subject isolation. The 100-500 is perfectly fine to bird with, as long as you aren't too picky about certain aesthetic qualities of the photo. And if you're just shooting against a clear sky, f/7.1 isn't a problem, other than having to go to higher ISOs. But amongst tree branches and other foreground/background clutter, f/7.1 isn't great if you want to isolate the bird/minimize distractions.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But amongst tree branches and other foreground/background clutter, f/7.1 isn't great if you want to isolate the bird/minimize distractions.

I’m not convinced that the extra 2/3-stop of f/5.6 is meaningfully better.

 

[unfocused]

In my comment, I provided one reason....something with a larger aperture would provide better subject isolation. The 100-500 is perfectly fine to bird with, as long as you aren't too picky about certain aesthetic qualities of the photo. And if you're just shooting against a clear sky, f/7.1 isn't a problem, other than having to go to higher ISOs. But amongst tree branches and other foreground/background clutter, f/7.1 isn't great if you want to isolate the bird/minimize distractions.

I’d love to see some comparison shots of 500mm at f5.6 vs f7.1. Edit: like @neuroanatomist, I’m not convinced either.

 

[unfocused]

I feel like if canon produced a lens that weighed a pound or more than the 100-500 but was small enough to “bird” with even if it cost like 8k it would get gobbled up.

I guess you can feel any way you want. I feel that an $8,000 lens is unlikely to ever be “gobbled up.”

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess you can feel any way you want. I feel that an $8,000 lens is unlikely to ever be “gobbled up.”

I can see it happening to an $8,000 lens. I mean, if it happened to a $2000 lens, then why not a more expensive one?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’d love to see some comparison shots of 500mm at f5.6 vs f7.1. Edit: like @neuroanatomist, I’m not convinced either.

Being curious, I tried a little test. It's night and tomorrow is supposed to rain all day here, so a different sort of 'birding' was warranted. Some caveats are that this was with a 600mm lens, which will give a shallower DoF (more background separation than 500mm) at the same distance. The subject was pretty close, closer than one would typically get to a passerine in a tree, and that also means better separation. Thus, this test is really stacked in favor of showing a difference. Since the lens is a 600/4, I tested wide open in addition to f/5.6 and f/7.1.

For the first set, the 'songbird' was 1 m / 36" in front of the 'tree branches'. I taped an ISO 12233 chart to the wall, because I have one and it's something we all see in nature all the time.



Since @1D4 suggested the f/5.6 lens would provide better separation for a bird 'amongst tree branches', I took a second set of images after moving the bird back against the fake ivy. It's still ~30 cm / 12" in front of the ISO 12233-type chart on the wall.

 

[1D4]

Being curious, I tried a little test. It's night and tomorrow is supposed to rain all day here, so a different sort of 'birding' was warranted. Some caveats are that this was with a 600mm lens, which will give a shallower DoF (more background separation than 500mm) at the same distance. The subject was pretty close, closer than one would typically get to a passerine in a tree, and that also means better separation. Thus, this test is really stacked in favor of showing a difference. Since the lens is a 600/4, I tested wide open in addition to f/5.6 and f/7.1.

For the first set, the 'songbird' was 1 m / 36" in front of the 'tree branches'. I taped an ISO 12233 chart to the wall, because I have one and it's something we all see in nature all the time.

View attachment 210611

Since @1D4 suggested the f/5.6 lens would provide better separation for a bird 'amongst tree branches', I took a second set of images after moving the bird back against the fake ivy. It's still ~30 cm / 12" in front of the ISO 12233-type chart on the wall.

View attachment 210612

Why did you bold and underline "amongst"? And your first series of tests having more separation from the outset isn't "really stacked in favor of showing a difference"....it makes it more difficult to see a difference because the background is already fairly-well separated. The second series isn't demonstrating much of anything because obstructions/leaves/branches/whatever wouldn't normally be that close to the subject in my scenarios. If you ran these same exact tests at f/8 and f/11, you probably wouldn't see much of a difference in those, either [everyone go get the 600mm f/11...it's only one stop difference from f/8!]. If you can't imagine wanting a larger aperture for a little more light and separation/shallower DOF, I don't know what to tell you, because that was my point...having something between the 600mm f/4 and 600mm f/11, for example, and I want something a little better than f/7.1 for *my* photography. I know what equipment I want based on real-world shooting. What you care about in *your* photos is your business and I'm not going to dissect and tear apart your wants and needs. I'm not going to waste any more time because it seems like you just want to turn every sentence I write into a debate. You can do all the testing you want and spend your time convincing people on the internet that you're correct and I'll spend my time shooting photos and selling to publications.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why did you bold and underline "amongst"? And your first series of tests having more separation from the outset isn't "really stacked in favor of showing a difference"....it makes it more difficult to see a difference because the background is already fairly-well separated. The second series isn't demonstrating much of anything because obstructions/leaves/branches/whatever wouldn't normally be that close to the subject in my scenarios. If you ran these same exact tests at f/8 and f/11, you probably wouldn't see much of a difference in those, either [everyone go get the 600mm f/11...it's only one stop difference from f/8!]. If you can't imagine wanting a larger aperture for a little more light and separation/shallower DOF, I don't know what to tell you, because that was my point...having something between the 600mm f/4 and 600mm f/11, for example, and I want something a little better than f/7.1 for *my* photography. I know what equipment I want based on real-world shooting. What you care about in *your* photos is your business and I'm not going to dissect and tear apart your wants and needs. I'm not going to waste any more time because it seems like you just want to turn every sentence I write into a debate. You can do all the testing you want and spend your time convincing people on the internet that you're correct and I'll spend my time shooting photos and selling to publications.

You seem to have missed the point. The entire test was stacked in favor of seeing more of a difference compared to your claim, since 1) I was using a 600mm lens and your claim was regarding a 500mm lens, and longer focal length means shallower DoF = more background separation, and 2) I was shooting a relatively close subject (6 m is closer that one usually gets to a passerine in a tree), and a closer subject has shallower DoF = more background separation. The point is that any differences observed in my images would be less pronounced with a 500mm lens and a more typical subject distance.

I highlighted 'amongst' because in the first set the subject was already physically separated from the background, which wasn't consistent with your claim that f/5.6 gives better separation from the background for a bird amongst branches. Thus the second set, where the toy bird was 'amongst' the (fake) branches.

The upshot is that while 2/3-stop at 500mm technically provides better background separation, in practice there's not really a meaningful difference (just like a 26 MP sensor has higher resolution than a 24 MP sensor, but in practice there's no meaningful difference). Going closer to 2 stops from f/7.1 to f/4 would more likely give a noticeable difference.

@unfocused expressed a desire to see some comparison shots of f/7.1 vs. f/5.6 to support your claim that it makes a meaningful difference. I provided a similar comparison. You are basically saying, "It's better, it just is, I know what I'm doing so trust me I know it's better but I'm not going to provide any evidence to back up my claim because it's a waste of my time." There are many 'experts' on this forum who make all sorts of claims but never seem to be able to back up those claims with actual evidence.

Obviously, you're more than welcome to wish for a Canon 500/5.6 or buy the Nikon 500/5.6 if you believe it will benefit *your* photography. Objectively, it will probably give no real advantage over the 100-500 at f/7.1 (and a lot less flexibility without the zoom), but no doubt you'll convince yourself that the backgrounds are blurrier if you use that $3000-4000 lens than if you use your RF 100-500. Good luck with that!

 

[ruralmontanan]

I can only speak for myself, but personally I don’t care how long you’ve been posting in the forum or how often you comment or how many pictures or facts you post, there are a few “regulars” here that really make the site unwelcome to most anyone else. Perhaps a little moderating would go a long way to contribute to the community here. As someone who shoots most of the brands it’s a real turnoff and doesn’t reflect well on Canon as a whole, plus it just feels like there are a bunch of jerks that shoot Canon and pay all the money for these crazy lenses. Just my two cents when I check in with this site—back to photography!

 

[Bonich]

I expect most people would prefer to have 500mm at f/4 over 560mm at f/5.6, especially since it's likely the former will be sharper than the latter when comparing this rumored RF lens to the EF 200-400 with the 1.4x engaged. Furthermore, going from 200mm to 500mm without needing to pause and flip in a TC is likely an advantage in many shooting situations.

I suspect many complaints are based in the hope for a 200-500 with a built-in 1.4x providing 700mm f/5.6, a hope that will apparently go unfulfilled. OTOH, had Canon released a 200-500 + 1.4x, people (probably even many of the same people) would have complained that the lens was too large and heavy.

Keep in mind the analogy to the 100-300/2.8, where Canon designers specifically addressed the question of the built-in TC, which was not included to meet size and weight targets for the lens. They omitted the drop-in slot from that lens as well, opting for 112mm front threads. Instead of both a TC and a filter slot, they put a focusing group close to the mount to yield a shorter, lighter lens.

I wonder if they'll put a drop-in slot in the 200-500/4? Although 112mm is the largest size from B+W, other brands (NiSi, Tiffen, etc.) go larger for screw-in filters. Even B+W's parent company, Schneider Optics, offers larger filters e.g. a 138mm CPL (a decade ago, B+W didn't offer a 10-stop ND in 82mm, so I bought the Schneider version – same glass, different name on the mount). Having said that, the standard sizes may be problematic. 300/2.8 is 107mm, so a 112mm is a good fit without being too large. 500/4 is 125mm, and I'm not sure that the common 127mm filter is big enough. The 138mm filters would seem to be too big, and are problematic for CPLs since most of them seem to be non-rotating (intended for a rotating filter holder).

Those stamped on focal lengths are for infinity only anyway.
Shooting closer (songbirds, reps/amphs, Zoo, ...) the performance at closer distances is more of relevance.
Comparing the 100-300 with the EF 200-400 (without extender engaged) both have nearly identical max magnification at comparable shooting distances - just the 100-300 provides a full stop more aperture and is only 2/3 in weight - not too bad of a deal.
(The EF provides f=227mm @ 2,00m @ 0.15x, the RF 100-300 provides f=218mm @0,16 @ 1.83m)

I do have high expectations the new RF without TC outperforming the EF 200-400 left and right in real use.
Said that the EF 200-400 is possibly the sharpest super white ever in real use, I don't expect this title to be passed to the RF.

 

[Bonich]

$16,000... Holy mother of Jesus!

She will never buy this lens!

 

[Bonich]

I don’t believe it’s about the 60mm with the EF 200-400mm, but rather the decision to drop the built-in teleconverter when going from 400 to 500mm. A 500mm with built in converter would be 700mm 5.6. That would be a ground breaking lens similar to the original 200-400, while a 200-500 zoom is “just” another zoom lens. This can be legitimately criticized as a step backward in innovation. And, given that the rumored price seems more in line with a lens with built in teleconverter that is also a legitimate criticism.

Certainly we should wait and see what Canon actually does, but I can sympathize with those who are disappointed with this rumor.

the 200-500 will be better in practical use than the EF 200-400 (read my other post)
Written by a 200-400 owner.

 

[Bonich]

BTW, the RF 135L is in stock at my trusted local dealer in Frankfurt am Main - West Germany.

Don't keep it at the dealer, take it into your bag!

 

[Bonich]

B-B-But..if it's innovations for inexpensive lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11, that doesn't count, 'cause no rich snob would be caught dead with such a lens, even though pretty much every reviewer is surprised by how much better and more useful it is than they thought. Same is true for the RF 100-400, a lens that is far smaller and lighter than any 100-400 made previously, but that doesn't count 'cause it's f/8 for heaven's sake! No true bird photogrpaher would say the RF 100-500 is innovative, even though it adds 100mm reach and yet is smaller and lighter than the EF 100-400 'cause, well, it's f/7.1, and any "pro" birder knows that is unusable, even though thousands of folks somehow mange to use it and get great results. And of course, essentially replacing an EF 300 f/2.8 prime with a much more versatile RF 100-300 f/2.8 zoom doesn't count, 'cause well it costs a fortune, and that RF 28-70 f/2 lens that has a wider aperture then any similar zoom Canon has made, well, that's just too damn big and heavy, so that doesn't count either.....

Now if they just made an obscure lens that only I want, well that would be innovation!!

You can't satisfy disappointed Canon fanboys wishing to live 20 years ago .....

 

[Bonich]

I mean we're nearing the 5th anniversary of the RF mount and there is still not a native 50mm f/1.4, a hugely popular lens. The f/1.8 is a great lens but it's not an f/1.4 (which could/should have IS). The f/1.2 is a phenomenal lens but it's huge and expensive. There is $2000 in retail price difference between the two and nothing in the middle! Except the EF f/1.4, which requires an adapter, and is 30 (!) years old.

The same problem exists at 85mm, but at least the EF f/1.4 has IS and is a relatively new design. 24mm and 35mm are missing a premium option, too. 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?

Take the EF 35 1.4, you will not be dissatisfied ...