Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be announced this year [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I'm not sure how I feel about multi-barrel extension though (as some people have *speculated* in this thread), those always look ugly and cheap to me.

FTR: Total speculation on my part. I have no idea if the real estate exists to do this.

But FWIW, see a Twitter exchange between yours truly (at link) and Uncle Rog (take link to Twitter, he replied to me) on if the move to external zooming may be problematic. (He doesn't seem to think so.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204431077047189505

- A

 

[josephandrews222]

I've yet to jump into the R world...but a significantly lighter zoom-to-400 lens R lens with the quality of the EF 100-400 II (my most oft-used large sensor Canon lens) will pull me a bit closer to the edge...

 

[Del Paso]

pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...

I hope not, white is a much more adequate color in hot climates.
Try holding a black lens in Nevada in summertime..., not to mention the lense's metal and - or glass dilatation which can easily jeopardise the optical quality.

 

[flip314]

FTR: Total speculation on my part. I have no idea if the real estate exists to do this.

But FWIW, see a Twitter exchange between yours truly (at link) and Uncle Rog (take link to Twitter, he replied to me) on if the move to external zooming may be problematic. (He doesn't seem to think so.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204431077047189505

- A

I personally have no problem with external zoom (I don't even own any internal zoom lenses), but most of the high-quality zooms have a single extending barrel. Some cheaper zooms (especially with extreme zoom ranges), like the Tamron 18-400mm will have multiple separate barrels that extend. Besides the fact that I think it looks cheap, it's adding more potential points of failure.

 

[Ozarker]

I hope not, white is a much more adequate color in hot climates.
Try holding a black lens in Nevada in summertime..., not to mention the lense's metal and - or glass dilatation which can easily jeopardise the optical quality.

I can vouch for the lens is better white than black in Nevada's summers.

 

[flip314]

pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...

Pourquoi pas paisley?

 

[stochasticmotions]

Sounds like a great start on the telephoto end for the R cameras. 100-400 used to be on my camera about 90% of the time....right up until I got the 200-600. Now I hardly ever pull out the 100-400 on either canon or sony. I know this 70-400 will be a fantastic lens but I really hope it is a precursor to a longer zoom. I can wait for both the right lens and a R camera that meets my needs since the Sony A7RIV with the 200-600 is what I need for now.

 

[GoldWing]

5.6 ? I can draw faster

 

[Dantana]

Classic CR response patter

Canon: We're going to make an RF version of one of our most popular EF lenses, but it's going to be smaller and will have more range on the wide end.

CR1: Longer!

CR2: Faster!

CR3: I hate the R!

CR4: Cool!

CR5: No CR4, you're wrong. It's not a different lens entirely that I have been thinking about for the last 25 years!

 

[slclick]

5.6 ? I can draw faster

geez, that's what we need, more gun references.

 

[navastronia]

Classic CR response patter

Canon: We're going to make an RF version of one of our most popular EF lenses, but it's going to be smaller and will have more range on the wide end.

CR1: Longer!

CR2: Faster!

CR3: I hate the R!

CR4: Cool!

CR5: No CR4, you're wrong. It's not a different lens entirely that I have been thinking about for the last 25 years!

This is, uh . . . well, let's just call it our "culture!"

 

[masterpix]

Whew - maybe I need to start softening up the bank manager.....

more likely robb the bank

 

[Kit.]

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.

This one was shot @100mm on a full-frame body.

 

[SecureGSM]

If it weighs the same as the RF 70-200 that would really be amazing. The 100-400s have always been about as heavy as the 70-200 2.8s, and I'd love to see the same weight reduction achieved on the RF version of those on this RF 70-400!

The RF system gets more and more appealing when you are talking about weight savings. Nice lightweight f4s (ultrawide/70-200) would really round out a great a versatile zoom lens line-up from 15-400mm for the RF mount.

100-400 lens was always an extending design. The new RF 70-200 is already extending and very compact and light. My guesstimate for the 70-400 lens weight is approx the weight of the EF 100-400 II L give or take. 100-400 lens is already very light for what it is.

 

[SecureGSM]

True, and I'd suggest one might well drop the middle one, or replace with a fast 50mm or pancake "bodycap".

A pancake lens in RF system would be around 28mm -ish focal length due to a shorter flange distance. So...

 

[SecureGSM]

Yes, and as others have said, you could actually walk around with just a 70-400 at large events with diverse activities (carnivals, festivals) and not feel like you would miss moments because of not having a wide enough focal length.

70mm is more than likely to be still quite a bit too long at carnivals and festivals. You typically work 24-50mm range there unless taking individual candid portraits and even as wide as 16mm (16-35 lens) for a crowd shot at carnivals. Just my 2c.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I want my zooms to be sharpest when fully extended. If they can throw in a bit extra wide angle at the expense of it being softer there, then I will be happy as the sharpness isn't so crucial for close ups when the frame is filled.

 

[degos]

I'd speculate that the RF mount opened up some optical design options that let them add the 70-100 range to the system.

The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range. The mount diameter is identical to EF.

Everything else that people are talking about here ( advanced materials, rear-shift of lens elements ) is already possible and implemented in some cases for EF mount.

Don't forget that the EF 100-400 II was a miracle of a lens when it was introduced, the image quality and durability was a huge advance over the original lens.

 

[SecureGSM]

“... The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range. The mount diameter is identical to EF...”

I see, this is why the 28-70/2.0 high quality zooms are abundant in EF, Nikon or any other DSLR mounts. Right.. and that RF 85/1.2 goodness is nothing to sneeze at as there are many similar optically spectacular 85/1.2 lenses already available in DSLR world. Well... none of the above.
According to Canon engineers, RF Mount afforded designs of previously unheard optical formulas.
As far as I remember, Sigma CEO was a bit jealous about Canon RF 28-70/2.0. And he is truly an optical design innovator.

 

[SteB1]

Personally I would far rather see an equivalent of the Sony 200-600mm internal zoom. I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have. Whereas Canon hasn't got anything like this new Sony 200-600mm. This lens and the Sony A7r mkIV, where you can use it in 26mp crop mode, is making me seriously wonder about the Sony system. For any nature photographer who wanders around in the field, this sort of combo is near perfect. It's not just the focal length range, but the fixed length and internal zoom, which makes zooming in with a flying bird so much easier. If you read reviews by Sony wildlife shooters, most them that have their 100-400mm lens are saying that the 200-600mm in practical terms is much better because of the extra range and internal zoom.

I think Canon needs to learn by just how well this Sony lens is being received by nature photographers. It would be much easier to stick with Canon because I have a shed load of macro lenses, flashes etc. I also think Canon needs to learn from the example that it is possible to have an all round camera that is high resolution, but can shoot fast, have high speed AF and be used as a crop camera.