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

[Bonich]

Shooting these subjects at f/11 demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding WL/bird photography. And the snowy is OOF to boot. Troll!

Shooting birds in flight with f/11 isn't too bad.
My best birds in flight shots with 4.0 600mm are with f/11, tag sharp eye, both wingtips blurred.

 

[Bonich]

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.

My EF 85 1.4 stands great between the RF50 1.2 and the RF135 1.8.

 

[Bonich]

The big USP of the 200-400 was the built-in TC.

So was the ultra heavy weight ....

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have no issue spending silly money on a lens, but it has to get used. This sort of lens would sit in my closet 50 weeks of the year. Definitely a rental lens for most of us if we're lucky enough to have a rental house that stocks it.

I kind of felt like that with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS when I bought it about 10 years ago. All that money (with a lot of S/H trade ins) and a big hole in my account for several years. All for a lens taht i was only going to use occasionally.
However, now when I look over my Lightroom database, it's actually my most used lens in terms of number of shots taken and number of keeper shots. These days it's more of an excuse NOT to use this lens. I'm sure if I replaced with with a super light weight mk III...I would use it even more than I currently do.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I won't put my money on buying it though - too heavy for me.

For me it's not a matter of weight, I currently use the mind bogglingly heavy EF 400mm f2.8 LIS Mk1! I like the old EF 500mm f4 LIS and it's Mk II. I think they offer a great package of Focal length, brightness, size and weight. I really think that canon deliberately didn't want to make an EF mount mkIII. I think the RF mount was coming and they wanted to hold back on the tech. The EF 600 mkIII was almost as light as the EF 500mkII.

I agree with you that one of the major benefits that the EF 500mm f4 LIS mk II has is it's awesome combination of weight, size , IQ and focal length. I'm not sure a heavier zoom is a great idea. Sure the extra flexibility would be nice but not at the expense of some of the prime's other features...like weight and focal length.

My concearn with the RF 100-500mm f4 LIS is how it will focal breath at min Focus Distance. Every large and fast zoom lens I've tried lost a lot of focal length as the subjects got closer. A lot more than a prime would and lets face it...not many wild life lenses are shot at infinity focus. Most of us are trying to melt the background.

I owned the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS for a while and it lost So much focal length at 2.5m that it was unusable in the context that I bought it for. I found that the difference at close focal lengths vs a Canon 70-200 f2.8 LIS II where marginal and not worth the size and cumbersome nature of the larger zoom. I found that at longer focus distance, the listed focal length wasn't a true 300mm. Closer to about 275-280mm. When the focus distance reduced so did the focal length and around 2.5m it looked more like 240mm on my tests. It also wasn't as sharp, the Af was less accurate and the image Stabiliser was way less refined or mature as the Canon version. I would like to see how the new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS compares. I haven't seen any lens tests that mention focal length breathing.

So from my experiance of long fast Zooms vs Primes, I would choose the Prime option every time. However, I really wouldliek to be proven wrong here!

 

[neuroanatomist]

My concearn with the RF 100-500mm f4 LIS is how it will focal breath at min Focus Distance. Every large and fast zoom lens I've tried lost a lot of focal length as the subjects got closer.

There are only two ‘great white’ zooms, and both have some focus breathing, though not to the extent you describe for the Sigma lens. Close focus has never been a strength of big whites, primes and zooms all have relatively long minimum focus distances. That’s why I have extension tubes, for closer focus with my 600/4 II.

I would like to see how the new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS compares. I haven't seen any lens tests that mention focal length breathing.

The 100-300/2.8 has some focus breathing, but it’s not bad. Compared to the 300/2.8 II, the zoom focuses 20 cm closer (1.8 m vs 2 m) but has a slightly lower max mag (0.16x vs 0.18x). But the RF 70-200/2.8 has 0.23x, because it focuses at 0.7 m.

 

[AlanF]

For me it's not a matter of weight, I currently use the mind bogglingly heavy EF 400mm f2.8 LIS Mk1! I like the old EF 500mm f4 LIS and it's Mk II. I think they offer a great package of Focal length, brightness, size and weight. I really think that canon deliberately didn't want to make an EF mount mkIII. I think the RF mount was coming and they wanted to hold back on the tech. The EF 600 mkIII was almost as light as the EF 500mkII.

I agree with you that one of the major benefits that the EF 500mm f4 LIS mk II has is it's awesome combination of weight, size , IQ and focal length. I'm not sure a heavier zoom is a great idea. Sure the extra flexibility would be nice but not at the expense of some of the prime's other features...like weight and focal length.

My concearn with the RF 100-500mm f4 LIS is how it will focal breath at min Focus Distance. Every large and fast zoom lens I've tried lost a lot of focal length as the subjects got closer. A lot more than a prime would and lets face it...not many wild life lenses are shot at infinity focus. Most of us are trying to melt the background.

I owned the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS for a while and it lost So much focal length at 2.5m that it was unusable in the context that I bought it for. I found that the difference at close focal lengths vs a Canon 70-200 f2.8 LIS II where marginal and not worth the size and cumbersome nature of the larger zoom. I found that at longer focus distance, the listed focal length wasn't a true 300mm. Closer to about 275-280mm. When the focus distance reduced so did the focal length and around 2.5m it looked more like 240mm on my tests. It also wasn't as sharp, the Af was less accurate and the image Stabiliser was way less refined or mature as the Canon version. I would like to see how the new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS compares. I haven't seen any lens tests that mention focal length breathing.

So from my experiance of long fast Zooms vs Primes, I would choose the Prime option every time. However, I really wouldliek to be proven wrong here!

The RF 100-500 even with its focus breathing gives a 0.33x magnification at its mfd of 47" or 1.2m at 500mm, and the RF 100-400mm gives 0.41x at its mfd. The RF 400mm prime has a magnification of only 0.17x at its mfd of 2.5m, and the EF 500mm f/4 II is 0.15x at its mfd of 3.7m. Focus breathing at my normal distance for birds is small. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 with its mfd of 3m and magnification 0.18x was my favourite lens at one time, but the Canon zooms far better for near macro work and just about as good for longer distances so I can go out with one and indulge in my hobby of insect and bird photos. For me, the versatility of the zoom is the winner both for flexibility of framing and for close-ups - it's magnification not focus breathing that counts. Here is a crop from the image of a Banded Demoiselle taken with the RF 100-400mm on the R7 at a distance of 1.3m.

 

[AlanF]

ps, I have to say the RF 100-400mm is awesome for these close-ups, and you have to stop down for depth of field so f/8 is no disadvantage, and small and manoeuvrable helps here as well to get the right angle. @neuroanatomist, you can use yours instead of extension rings.

 

[Walrus]

My EF 85 1.4 stands great between the RF50 1.2 and the RF135 1.8.

I'm sure it is it's just a matter of choices, if I would have needed the IS then of course the EF would have been a great choice; but not needing it, I went for the Sigma which is cheaper and sharper.
Of course I have less support compared to a Canon lens; I had multiple experience as a CPS with Canon in the last 10 years (but now they changed unfortunately the CPS program, and I won't be in anymore) and the service and assistance is top notch and also in my home town; I never experienced Sigma services, so I don't know how is their level.
I actually had a partial detach of the rear bayonet enclosure from the 50 Art years ago, but it was still under seller's warranty, and the shop took care of it and dealt with Sigma service, and turned back to me the lens in a couple of weeks (Sigma importer/service for my country is actually in my home town, too, but as my lens was "import/grey", I couldn't go directly to them for the warranty, but had to pass from the shop); surely having Canon service, especially in the next years, where stuff is going to age, would be better, but let's cross fingers. In the end when you pay less, of course you have to take some more risks.

 

[kaihp]

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?

View attachment 210610

Neuro, I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reference the 'The Damage Waiver Bearly Covered This One' story from Uncle Rog

 

[unfocused]

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

Thanks neuro for taking the time to test this out. Of course I’m pretty sure we both knew what the reaction would be, as it was never about a reasoned discussion of the relative benefits of a fraction of an f stop.

This was the standard “I want ‘x’ and Canon isn’t making it, so I’m mad and Canon is stupid for not making ‘x.’ If you show me that ‘x’ isn’t the issue then you just don’t understand because I’m more talented and discerning than you and I would just be wasting my time trying to convince you amateurs by, you know, posting an actual picture that demonstrates my point and engaging in a rational discussion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you show me that ‘x’ isn’t the issue then you just don’t understand because I’m more talented and discerning than you and I would just be wasting my time trying to convince you amateurs by, you know, posting an actual picture that demonstrates my point and engaging in a rational discussion.

Yeah. Don’t bother me with facts, data or evidence…they won’t affect my opinions!

 

[kaihp]

Yeah. Don’t bother me with facts, data or evidence…they won’t affect my opinions!

Neuro, have you ever tried discussing sound quality with audiophiles?

Like people who put a fiberoptic Ethernet cable between their NAS storage and their super expensive high-end DAC "to avoid digital noise in the audio system".

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, have you ever tried discussing sound quality with audiophiles?

Like people who put a fiberoptic Ethernet cable between their NAS storage and their super expensive high-end DAC "to avoid digital noise in the audio system".

No. There’s ample obstreperousness and basic avoidance of facts here, thanks.

 

[1D4]

Thanks neuro for taking the time to test this out. Of course I’m pretty sure we both knew what the reaction would be, as it was never about a reasoned discussion of the relative benefits of a fraction of an f stop.

This was the standard “I want ‘x’ and Canon isn’t making it, so I’m mad and Canon is stupid for not making ‘x.’ If you show me that ‘x’ isn’t the issue then you just don’t understand because I’m more talented and discerning than you and I would just be wasting my time trying to convince you amateurs by, you know, posting an actual picture that demonstrates my point and engaging in a rational discussion.

I wasn't going to post here again, but give me a break. Again, the test doesn't make sense because the first set has separation of 3 feet from the leaves while the second has no separation. Did you ever stop to think there might be cases other those two? And I did also say foreground/background elements. "Among" or "amongst" means "surrounded by", not directly next to. 2/3rds of a f-stop isn't a "fraction of an f stop" in the sense you're making it out to be to minimize the significance. A stop is just a stop, but if you want lower ISO and better subject isolation, would you rather shoot at f8 or f11 if only given those options? Again, you're putting words into my mouth...I never said "Canon is stupid for not making..."....my original statement you and neuro are hung up about was:

All these super-expensive zooms are great for people who can justify the cost and don't mind traveling with bulky gear, but if Canon wants to bring more people into/keep more people in the R system, maybe it would be best to have lenses that attract a bigger segment of customers?

and you are twisting it into something it's not just to debate something. A valid argument would have been "well maybe they want to make the best gear possible to attract the pros first, then when people see the pros' pics, it will trickle down to Joe Schmo wanting to shoot Canon as well." But no, Canon owns the market so they must be perfect and you must be completely wrong, dummy!

And "then you just don’t understand because I’m more talented and discerning than you". Please point me to where I implied I'm more talented than anyone. I don't know anything about the photos you both take or what you do with them, and I'm more critical of my own work than anyone. I said I'd rather spend my time shooting and making supplemental income to help fund my gear addiction, over debating something where my words have been twisted around. And I'm certainly not sharing any of my photo examples to win some internet debate. So you win...there's no benefits of f/5.6 versus f/7.1 and no reason to ever mention a dream lens I wish Canon would make, on the internet.

 

[AlanF]

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

Thanks for posting these neuro and for giving me permission to play with them. Currently we manipulate subject isolation by analog methods by altering aperture. We can already do the same digitally, as done in smart phones in portrait mode. This took me about 30 seconds in PS. Maybe, in the future, wide lenses will be seen as relics of the past for achieving bokeh?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, have you ever tried discussing sound quality with audiophiles?

Do those discussions typically end the same way as the ones here…with the person who initially made the claim and had it refuted with actual examples disregarding those examples, refusing to provide counter examples, and claiming they are still right as they take their marbles and run home?

 

[AlanF]

I wasn't going to post here again, but give me a break. Again, the test doesn't make sense because the first set has separation of 3 feet from the leaves while the second has no separation. Did you ever stop to think there might be cases other those two? And I did also say foreground/background elements. "Among" or "amongst" means "surrounded by", not directly next to. 2/3rds of a f-stop isn't a "fraction of an f stop" in the sense you're making it out to be to minimize the significance. A stop is just a stop, but if you want lower ISO and better subject isolation, would you rather shoot at f8 or f11 if only given those options? Again, you're putting words into my mouth...I never said "Canon is stupid for not making..."....my original statement you and neuro are hung up about was:


and you are twisting it into something it's not just to debate something. A valid argument would have been "well maybe they want to make the best gear possible to attract the pros first, then when people see the pros' pics, it will trickle down to Joe Schmo wanting to shoot Canon as well." But no, Canon owns the market so they must be perfect and you must be completely wrong, dummy!

And "then you just don’t understand because I’m more talented and discerning than you". Please point me to where I implied I'm more talented than anyone. I don't know anything about the photos you both take or what you do with them, and I'm more critical of my own work than anyone. I said I'd rather spend my time shooting and making supplemental income to help fund my gear addiction, over debating something where my words have been twisted around. And I'm certainly not sharing any of my photo examples to win some internet debate. So you win...there's no benefits of f/5.6 versus f/7.1 and no reason to ever mention a dream lens I wish Canon would make, on the internet.

I don’t think you are being unreasonable and I can see where you are coming from. I bought a Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF along with a 500D and 850D and used them for about 18 months because of the spectacular reports of the lens and the AF. They were right, and I got the best bird and BIF images I had ever taken until then. But, then the R5 anf RF 100-500mm came along and I found the zoom had virtually the same IQ at 500mm and all the advantages of a zoom, and the R5 is spectacular. The Nikons were sold. So, I personally would not go for a Canon 500/5.6 DO. The two EF 400mm f/4 DO IIs I have were good, but the RF 100-500 at 500mm bested them and I had to use the 1.4x TC on them to catch up.

 

[1D4]

Do those discussions typically end the same way as the ones here…with the person who initially made the claim and had it refuted with actual examples disregarding those examples, refusing to provide counter examples, and claiming they are still right as they take their marbles and run home?

And you're still going on about it. Claiming I am still right? Answer these two questions:
1) Does f/5.6 allow you to shoot at lower ISO than f/7.1?
2) Does f/5.6 give you a shallower DOF than f/7.1?

Just because the difference doesn't affect your photography in a meaningful way and your limited test scenarios aren't enough to convince you otherwise, doesn't mean I am wrong. But you want to make this into a "I'm right and you're wrong" scenario, when my first post was literally just a wishlist comment about a lens I'd rather have, and my hope that Canon makes more lenses between the extremes of amateur and professional. Unfocused pointed out they might not want to make my dream lens because they already made the RF 100-500 (valid point), but having that lens already, I wanted something a little faster. Would you not have argued with me if my dream lens was a RF 500 f4.5? Well that sounds great, but I think the weight/size at 4.5 would be more than I'd like it, unless Canon were able to do some Canon magic in their engineering department. Not sure why you are debating what I want and trying to convince me I don't need it.

 

[john1970]

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.

As a scientist I greatly appreciate you performing these measurements. I found them very informative. One benefit of a 500 mm f4.5/5 DO lens would be the lighter weight and knowledge that I can place a 1.4x TC on it and have a 700 mm f6.3/7.1 which is still very practical. It would also be smaller and easier to travel with as well than the 200-500 mm f4 zoom. As I mentioned before, two different lenses that IMO could be complementary.