Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM coming soon?

Breizh

I'm New Here
Dec 4, 2021
9
6
They better deliver R3s before they think about marketing lenses that 95% of photographers can't afford
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
985
1,164
UK
The increased efficiency of the IS in the RF100-500 compared to the EF100-400II is very noticeable, especially when coupled with IBIS. But as you say, if you have the EF100-400II already, the RF100-500 is not as tempting as when you lack coverage in that range.
I don't doubt the superiority of the RF 100-500mm. The stabilisation efficiency of RF lenses in combination with the R5 is at least 1-2 stops better than EF glass on the same body. However the stabilisation on the EF 100-400mm is more than adequate for my usage, as I'm primarily using it for active wildlife that would require 1/500 or faster to freeze subject movement.

So for me, considering that I also use a 5DMkiv alongside my R5, it makes more sense at the moment to keep the EF model. It's all a question of priorities - I can get stunning images with the EF 100-400mm, and while the RF 100-500 may be better, I'd rather spend my money on travelling. For me, ownership of the latest and greatest gear is very much secondary to being able to travel extensively around the world and enjoy photographing wildlife, so that's where my money goes.

The cost of switching to RF 100-500mm, plus extender, plus the necessary purchase of an additional RF body, is roughly equivalent to the cost of 2 African safaris, and I'll take the latter every time, in preference to buying a modest improvement in lens performance.

Of course, if I was lucky enough to be able to keep on travelling to the same extent, *and* still have thousands of dollars in my back pocket, I'd sell the 5DMkiv, get an additional R5 body, and buy a multitude of RF glass including the 100-500mm, the 14-35mm, the 400mm F2.8 and both the 1.4x and 2x extenders. Or I might change systems entirely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,111
416
Vancouver, BC
They better deliver R3s before they think about marketing lenses that 95% of photographers can't afford
Not that I disagree that Canon should deliver R3s, but I don't think that 95%of photographers can afford the R3, either :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
899
778
Frankfurt, Germany
Considering the size, weight and price of a "conventional" 1200mm F8 lens, it makes absolute sense to me if Canon made it as a mirror lens instead.
Mirror lenses traditionally struggle with a lot of optical obstacles. Here's a good review:


So it's not so easy to design such a lens in a quality that would be up to what we can expect from Canon. In astronomy, good mirror telescopes have a lot of advanced tech built in.
 

Nord0306

EOS R6
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2018
10
9
I use an EF 100-400 II with 2x tc and R6. I like having the full range of 200-800 for taking pictures of my kids and birds without having to change lenses/tc. Does anyone with the RF 100-500 miss having the full range with TC attached? Besides the $$ cost of switching, this part keeps me from considering the upgrade.