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

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
118
Williamsport, PA
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.
Then get a Sony if it is such a God send to us humans and get an adapter to use your shed load of Canon lenses.
I love the telescoping zoom as when packing it for travel it is so compact.
12 5/8" vs 7 5/8" is 5" or a wide angle lens and the 100-400. Also for those who do not live doing birds but have large and diverse interests the unique to Canon only of the close focus capability of the 100-400 MII is absolutely amazing.
Perhaps canon will make a longer 200-600mm type lens. And if they do good for them, but for a broader base of users for the RF system the 70-400mm will be exciting. And those bodies, I imagine if the 1DX MIII and the upcoming RS? is an indicator, there will be some mind blowing QUALITY cameras by Canon that are well built and do not act like toys.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,177
3,351
Irving, Texas
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.
Yes, let's completely forget about those who do not have something like this, and forget about new buyers of such a lens. This is something people seem to forget about: That just because "I" have it and don't need or want it then nobody else does or should. The market is fluid with people exiting and entering all the time, and people who just stay put. Just because you have something that satisfies you does not mean "most" do. You know, it just may be that people in the RF ecosystem want a native lens and also may want a lens that goes wider and is more compact when stored. Ever think of that?

Some people new to the RF system are happy to adapt their EF lenses. Some want to go all native. There's nothing wrong with either choice. That's a personal decision. There are lenses I had in EF that I wish were already available in RF that are not. I would never be so presumptuous as to think my choices and desires were those of most other people.

As far as Sony goes; have at it.
 
Last edited:

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,134
1,386
USA
Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.

Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
126
261
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.
Not sure how the 100-400 II is very light for what it is when it's wider, longer, and over 200g heavier than its predecessor.

And if you're under the assumption that the only reason the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF versions is because it extends externally versus internally I think you may be mistaken.

The bulk of the weight on most full-frame lenses comes from the glass and when you compare the optical formulas for the EF and RF 70-200 lenses you'll find out where all the weight difference is coming from (6 less lenses in the RF).

The RF mount has enabled Canon to start from scratch with their optical designs, and from what we've seen with the 70-200 there seems to be opportunity to reduce weight significantly on the tele zooms with new optical formulas. I'm hoping (almost expecting) that this rumored lens will be lighter than the EF 100-400.

Over the last 5 years, even on their EF superteles Canon has been focused on weight reduction and has delivered. The 100-400Lii is really an outlier when it comes to being heaving than its predecessor. It is a big heavy lens.
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,239
6,811
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.
I read the reviews by Sony shooters and there is pretty much agreement by the ones I follow and trust that the A7RIV is weak for birds in flight and that the A9 or A9II is required to drive the 200-600mm. And you need an extender because of the low pixel density of the A9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Kharan

EOS M50
Nov 9, 2018
45
33
Damn it, if this pans out (along with an RP successor that ditches the "prehistoric technology approach"), I can see myself switching. A portable, sharp, around 1 kg. xx-400mm lens is a dream of mine.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and Dantana

Nelu

1-DX Mark III, EOS R
CR Pro
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.
Well, I don't have it and I wasn't gonna buy the EF mount one because I'm not buying any new EF lenses now, with the RF mount in full swing.
This newly announced lens is exactly what I was waiting for since for me it's the perfect match for the RF 24-105 lens.
Canon, please make it already and take my money!:)
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,244
Not sure how the 100-400 II is very light for what it is when it's wider, longer, and over 200g heavier than its predecessor.

And if you're under the assumption that the only reason the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF versions is because it extends externally versus internally I think you may be mistaken.

The bulk of the weight on most full-frame lenses comes from the glass and when you compare the optical formulas for the EF and RF 70-200 lenses you'll find out where all the weight difference is coming from (6 less lenses in the RF).

The RF mount has enabled Canon to start from scratch with their optical designs, and from what we've seen with the 70-200 there seems to be opportunity to reduce weight significantly on the tele zooms with new optical formulas. I'm hoping (almost expecting) that this rumored lens will be lighter than the EF 100-400.

Over the last 5 years, even on their EF superteles Canon has been focused on weight reduction and has delivered. The 100-400Lii is really an outlier when it comes to being heaving than its predecessor. It is a big heavy lens.
At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size? :)
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,239
6,811
At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size? :)
The weight of the 100-400mm II with the lenshood and tripod foot is 1.7kg. The Sony lens is 115g less. The Sigma and Tamron are lighter still but they are only f/6.3. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is lighter than the 100-400mm II at 1.46kg.
 

knight427

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Aug 27, 2018
131
221
Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.

Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.
Before you sell it...

There is a full moon tomorrow (tonight will be good too). Set up to take a shot of it fairly low (so the camera is easier to work on the tripod). Get your kids out to "help" as much as they are able. Be sure to let them press the shutter button. Focusing isn't too hard for them if you've done all the stuff to get Live View Zoom working and their arms are long enough. Put their name obnoxiously large in the watermark and post it so grandparents can see. Be sure to get a print or two so they can show their friends.
 

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
126
261
At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size? :)
Yes the fast primes are beasts no doubt about that, don't think the RF mount makes much of difference there.

But I've got hope for the future tele zooms!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
335
275
Yorkshire
Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.

Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.
I second knight427's recommendation for moon shots, but also, I bet you'll regret the sale in 12-24months time if you go through with it. So, unless raising the funds is required of course, I'd say hang on for now - it remains a good lens (and, following knight427's thrust, find some further uses for the focal range - 200-300mm can be interesting perspective for portraits, for example).
Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range.
Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,011
1,355
Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.
Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor does allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,401
285
Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.
Did anyone notice if eyeAF/face detect works better with RF lenses than EF lenses? I don't know if I'm imagining it but I think I tend to get RF lenses locking into faces/eyes better than the EF lenses on the R. If so, I'm wondering if the increased bandwidth between the lens and body helps... I should try this with the 24-70s...
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,239
6,811
Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor does allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.
The long telephotos from Canon and Nikon have the rear element set well back inside the lens unlike in short telephotos or standard or wide angle lenses. So, the lens designers have deliberately chosen to have the rear element quite far from the sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flip314

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,177
3,351
Irving, Texas
Did anyone notice if eyeAF/face detect works better with RF lenses than EF lenses? I don't know if I'm imagining it but I think I tend to get RF lenses locking into faces/eyes better than the EF lenses on the R. If so, I'm wondering if the increased bandwidth between the lens and body helps... I should try this with the 24-70s...
It would make sense to me that the RF lenses are faster at this. I know mine lock on lightning quick (eye-AF) even with a moving subject.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,011
1,355
The long telephotos from Canon and Nikon have the rear element set well back inside the lens unlike in short telephotos or standard or wide angle lenses. So, the lens designers have deliberately chosen to have the rear element quite far from the sensor.
...quite far from the mount surface, actually. Could be explained by the need to support teleconverters (which, for both Nikon and Canon, protrude into the lens).