The 100-400mm II has been heavily discounted again, which may be a sign that something is up. I have certainly got my money's worth from both of mine.
Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be announced this year [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Personally all of my wildlife photos are at least 200mm. My 70-200 only goes below 200 when people are my subject, so I would gladly drop the wide end for a bit more reach.
The state of affairs:
I'm happy for current EF White Unicorn users with this news, but:
- A
Customer: I would like to shoot up to 400mm with a new Canon lens that does not require crop or teleconverters to get there.
Canon: Of course! Here are six lens options, starting at $1,199. All of them are pretty terrific -- you really can't go wrong.
Customer: You know what? I actually need 401mm.
Canon: Ooh. That's bad news for you. We at Canon believe that crossing The 401mm Barrier requires $8,999 solutions.
Customer: WHAT?! Nikon has a 200-500 f/5.6 for under $1,400!
Canon: [Nervous laughter] I'mmmmmm pretty sure that's not a thing. [Ninja smoke bomb, exit stage left]
I'm happy for current EF White Unicorn users with this news, but:
- EF needs a 200-500 f/5.6 IS offering
- RF people should be able to get up to 600mm with no EF f/5.6 requirement
- A
Last edited:
Interesting.
The reported size (similar to f/2.8 70-200) makes sense, as the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8 is quite similar in size to the EF 100-400mm v.2 lens.
If it is optically as good as the existing EF 100-400, this should be a popular lens. It would also mean that a lot of photographers not needed f/2.8 in zooms could forego the 70-200mm lenses and work with this new lens plus either a 24-105 or (future) 24-70 f/4.
Going a bit further with that idea, landscape photographers could end up with a fine three-lens kit where four used to be required — for example, something along the lines of RF 15-35mm f/4*, 24-70mm f/4*, and this new 70-400mm lens.
Dan
* These focal length/aperture lenses don't yet exist in RF, though they do in EF.
The reported size (similar to f/2.8 70-200) makes sense, as the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8 is quite similar in size to the EF 100-400mm v.2 lens.
If it is optically as good as the existing EF 100-400, this should be a popular lens. It would also mean that a lot of photographers not needed f/2.8 in zooms could forego the 70-200mm lenses and work with this new lens plus either a 24-105 or (future) 24-70 f/4.
Going a bit further with that idea, landscape photographers could end up with a fine three-lens kit where four used to be required — for example, something along the lines of RF 15-35mm f/4*, 24-70mm f/4*, and this new 70-400mm lens.
Dan
* These focal length/aperture lenses don't yet exist in RF, though they do in EF.
You might want to read the OP again:
"to be about the same size as the recently released Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM."
The sexy take of this rumor is that it might be as big collapsed (shortest FL, the 'bag size') as the RF 70-200 2.8 is when it is collapsed. The EF 70-200 2.8s and the EF 100-400L II are only about the same size today becuase the 70-200s are internal zooming / do not change in external length. The RF 70-200 2.8 rather famously changed all that.
As things currently stand between the EF 100-400L II and the new RF 70-200 2.8, some sort of dark arts telescoping witchcraft would be required to pull that off. To cover that much of a length difference, one could imagine a 'multi-tubed' telescope barrel a la the cheaper non-L larger FL multiplier zooms out there.
- A
I was delighted to find that the RF 70-200 handles at 70mm like any one kilo midrange zoom. It acts like a long normal lens for daily life grab shots. 70 is a very handy focal length for a lens that happens to be on your camera when you need to grab a shot.No, this is a great way to satisfy a "photographer's dream"
100mm end of 100-400 is a bit too long at time for sports.
70-400 is your 100-400 with a wider end. Just perfect.
Been beaten pretty soundly above, but I will voice my desire for more reach at the far end in exchange for the expanded width at the short end. I am good with the speed and size of the lens, but as I use the 100-400 today I find I am in need for more reach way more often then I am in need of more width.
As stated, will make a great outdoor sports lens but is still lacking as a wildlife and intimate landscape lens. Would like to see Canon take this market seriously and not rely on third parties to fill this niche. Nikon and Sony both have very nice offerings in this arena. I have shot side by side with them and the reach and quality is quite useful.
As stated, will make a great outdoor sports lens but is still lacking as a wildlife and intimate landscape lens. Would like to see Canon take this market seriously and not rely on third parties to fill this niche. Nikon and Sony both have very nice offerings in this arena. I have shot side by side with them and the reach and quality is quite useful.
I wonder what an RF 180-480 f3.5-5.6L IS DO or a 200-500 f4.0-6.3L IS DO would run? ...$1,599 or $2,299 at intro? Higher?
What if Canon stuns the photo world and when introducing a more PRO oriented R also introduces an RF 600mm f4.0L IS DO that is 3/4 the weight of the current EF version III and 3/4 the length of that lens? What would any of you PROs and/or well-heeled Enthusiasts pay for such a lens? $8,999?
What if Canon stuns the photo world and when introducing a more PRO oriented R also introduces an RF 600mm f4.0L IS DO that is 3/4 the weight of the current EF version III and 3/4 the length of that lens? What would any of you PROs and/or well-heeled Enthusiasts pay for such a lens? $8,999?
I'd speculate that the RF mount opened up some optical design options that let them add the 70-100 range to the system.
True, and I'd suggest one might well drop the middle one, or replace with a fast 50mm or pancake "bodycap".
I would love to see a 200-600 to compete with Sony's.
The benchmark for a longer zoom is now the 200-600mm f/6.3 a la Sony, it's a cracking lens with IQ and AF way ahead of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. However, both those lenses are too heavy for me, and the Sony too big. 70-400mm is the best compromise for a lightweight lens for hiking and safari. I am finding that attached to something as pixel dense as the 90D the 100-400mm II is providing a good long effective focal length as well as versatility. I, personally, want Canon to produce a really lightweight 500mm f/5.6 DO prime to rival the Nikon, as well as a 300mm DO.
Totally agree. My Canon 100-400 II is one of my most heavily used lenses, and at least 90% of all my shots are taken at 400mm. More reach is preferable.
Extremely tasty Canon and good focal range, punter can move from say 24-70 f2.8 lens and then bolt on the 70-400 lens for telephoto work.
Well done Canon.
The wildlife photographers trinity will now be complete - 24-70, 70-200, 100-400. If only they would realease the pro mirrorless R body! A RF 200-500/600 f4 - 5.6 w/ 1.4x TC and a weight reduction over the EF 200-400 would also be nice. I might even be happy with a 200-600 similar to the Sony as a light weight alternative for some trips. II am debating whether to replace my 1dx II with the 1dxIII or wait for a Pro R. I would like to switch out my 200-400 to something lighter, but hesitant to buy another EF lens until I know the future of the R bodies. I know, we are never satisfied!
I think it bears noting that for wildlife and others subjects where cropping is the norm, a 50% improvement in image quality (with suitable camera sensor) is as good as a 50% increase in focal length.
Optical compromises will need to be made if they are both decreasing the size and extending the zoom range. I hope this means we will also see a high-end RF crop body.
Ah, the age old debate. Guys, while trying to decide between wider vs longer, have a heart-to-heart with your partner before making any changes to your current equipment.
Last edited:
