Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM II May Have Appeared in Latest Patent

[Smokey]

I'm using the EF 200-400 4.0 and I love the build in TC. If Canon decides against a build in TC for their next Gen 400 2.8, I guess I have to move to Nikon... I'm not waiting another 7-10years... So plz Canon don't f..k it up.

I’m sure that Nikon will appreciate your though business, I’ve bought a Sony body, not because Canon sucks, or Sony rule, just because Sigma have released some great lenses that suit my style. I still love my Canon gear, of course I’d love it if they where available in an RF version, but…

 

[Del Paso]

Have I got the RF list correct for long L lenses going to at least 300mm?
100-300/2.8
400/2.8
600/4
800/5.6 & 1200/8 = 400/600mm + internal fixed TC.
100-500/4.5-7.1

The EF L lineup was introduced over a much longer time vs 7 years for RF lenses so far. Have I missed any?
The question for me is what volumes of these would be significant or profitable vs the current RF list?
70-300/4-5.6 => Not great quality
28-300/3.5-4.5.6 => Not great quality
300/2.8 (2.5kg/250mm) => Cheaper and shorter but almost the same weight as RF100-300/2.8 (2.6kg/325mm).
300/4 (1.2kg)=> No equivalent
500/4 => Would users buy this vs 400/2.8 or 600/4?
200-400/4 + TC => Heavy, big and expensive

Given the tech advances in high ISO dynamic range, full sensor AF, AF focusing at much smaller apertures and new optical design sharpness then are the non-L RF long lenses sufficient? Clearly Nikon/Sony have additional or different long lenses but I am less convinced that the current
100-400/5.6-8
200-800/6.3-9
600/800/11

All that I can see that is missing is a light weight and cheap(ish) 300/4. Maybe a DO 500 or 600mm/5.6. Maybe a 200-500+TC.
Thoughts??

I hope you didn't mean the EF 70-300L, which was a very good lens!

 

[neonlight]

Have I got the RF list correct for long L lenses going to at least 300mm?
100-300/2.8
400/2.8
600/4
800/5.6 & 1200/8 = 400/600mm + internal fixed TC.
100-500/4.5-7.1

The EF L lineup was introduced over a much longer time vs 7 years for RF lenses so far. Have I missed any?
The question for me is what volumes of these would be significant or profitable vs the current RF list?
70-300/4-5.6 => Not great quality
28-300/3.5-4.5.6 => Not great quality
300/2.8 (2.5kg/250mm) => Cheaper and shorter but almost the same weight as RF100-300/2.8 (2.6kg/325mm).
300/4 (1.2kg)=> No equivalent
500/4 => Would users buy this vs 400/2.8 or 600/4?
200-400/4 + TC => Heavy, big and expensive

Given the tech advances in high ISO dynamic range, full sensor AF, AF focusing at much smaller apertures and new optical design sharpness then are the non-L RF long lenses sufficient? Clearly Nikon/Sony have additional or different long lenses but I am less convinced that the current
100-400/5.6-8
200-800/6.3-9
600/800/11

All that I can see that is missing is a light weight and cheap(ish) 300/4. Maybe a DO 500 or 600mm/5.6. Maybe a 200-500+TC.
Thoughts??

A while back I saw reports that the EF 500/4 sold more than the 600/4 ... because it was cheaper.
I suspect that might still be true for RF, but it seems Canon are swapping the"inbetweens" (300, 500) into zooms or TC convertibles.
From the MTF charts some of their best lenses were 500 II and 600 II. Not sure whether the RF versions which put more emphasis on rear lenses (read teleconverter-style) optics has improved on this, and I think it shows in the 800/1200 not being as good as those older 500/600. Not a problem for me though as I will not be able to afford an 800 nor a 1200.
I wonder, though, if this idea of adding essentially fixed TC's is a short term plan to sell lenses while they develop non-TC versions?
Though if that starts putting weight back, not likely either.

 

[David - Sydney]

A while back I saw reports that the EF 500/4 sold more than the 600/4 ... because it was cheaper.
I suspect that might still be true for RF, but it seems Canon are swapping the"inbetweens" (300, 500) into zooms or TC convertibles.
From the MTF charts some of their best lenses were 500 II and 600 II. Not sure whether the RF versions which put more emphasis on rear lenses (read teleconverter-style) optics has improved on this, and I think it shows in the 800/1200 not being as good as those older 500/600. Not a problem for me though as I will not be able to afford an 800 nor a 1200.
I wonder, though, if this idea of adding essentially fixed TC's is a short term plan to sell lenses while they develop non-TC versions?
Though if that starts putting weight back, not likely either.

The 500/4 would need to be cheaper to justify the 600/4's cost and reach. That said, the 600mm also has a larger front element which would account for part of the increased cost to manufacture.

I suspect that adding the inbuilt TC was cheaper than a complete redesign for 800/1200mm but still would be acceptable optical quality for users. Reusing lens elements from the 400/600 would also be a big benefit for cost/manufacturing.
Having the in-lens TC weight closer to the body would help with weight distribution.
Only Canon would know the volumes actually sold but they look good in a marketing lineup

 

[john1970]

A 500 mm f4 with a built-in TC would be the last super telephoto lens I would buy. When I first started this hobby many years ago my favorite combo was a 300 f2.8 and 500 f4.

 

[grilled_rooster]

I use the Sigma 500/4 Sports adapted to my R Bodies. Works really good. But I would like to use a RF 300/2.8 similar to the sony one. The RF 100-300 is a great lens. But still to heavy for me to use longer times without a monopod. But I don't like to have two monopod combos at games. And a light 300/2.8 without a monopod will let me move much quicker, so I get better and more dynamic shots.

 

[Wild_Trax]

Talking about IQ, I hope Canon will release a lens as the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM was. I tried the version III of this lens and the RF version, and they have decreased IQ on these lenses. That´s why I bought the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens

 

[grilled_rooster]

If this lens ist coming with a 6000-7000 $ price tag, it will be around 8000 € in Germany. I would love to see it under 7000 € in Germany.

And i might get one. I use a 500/4 for soccer. I might need the extra reach to 600mm not very often. But to zoom out to 300mm would help a lot. Especially when, like me, you photograph for the press and have to take most photos in horizontal orientation. When players run towards me (in a soccer game), at 500mm it often happens that the player no longer fits in the frame. Switching to the second camera with a 70-200mm lens means that you miss some scenes.

 

[P-visie]

If this lens ist coming with a 6000-7000 $ price tag, it will be around 8000 € in Germany. I would love to see it under 7000 € in Germany.

And i might get one. I use a 500/4 for soccer. I might need the extra reach to 600mm not very often. But to zoom out to 300mm would help a lot. Especially when, like me, you photograph for the press and have to take most photos in horizontal orientation. When players run towards me (in a soccer game), at 500mm it often happens that the player no longer fits in the frame. Switching to the second camera with a 70-200mm lens means that you miss some scenes.

The current RF400mm f2.8 retails for € 13000+ in the Netherlands, so hoping for a € 7000-8000 price tag for a Mk II version is organizing your own disappointment.

 

[grilled_rooster]

The current RF400mm f2.8 retails for € 13000+ in the Netherlands, so hoping for a € 7000-8000 price tag for a Mk II version is organizing your own disappointment.

oh, this was the wrong thread I was talking about the rumored 300-600 ...

I know a 400/2.8 II will be expensive and will cost around 14k €.

 

[P-visie]

oh, this was the wrong thread I was talking about the rumored 300-600 ...

I know a 400/2.8 II will be expensive and will cost around 14k €.

I agree about the rumored price of the 300-600mm zoom. 8000 € would be 2/3’s of the price of the 2013 EF200-400mm f4 zoom with the built in 1.4 extender.