Canon Shows off RF 500mm F5.6 L IS in Latest Patent

[clarus]

what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

It may not sound much, but to me it would. Given the lens is of decent optical quality and in combination with a TC it translates into an additional 140/200mm.

 

[AlanF]

I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

 

[Dragon]

This is a big-glass-forward design much like the EF 500 f/4 II . That was one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever made even with extenders, so we can only hope.

 

[DocInfoSci]

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

• Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)
• Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

• Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799
• Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999
• Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

• Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)
• Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

 

[AlanF]

All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

• Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)
• Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

• Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799
• Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999
• Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

• Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)
• Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective. It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

 

[DocInfoSci]

The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective.

• https://www.canon.ca/en/product?name=EF_400mm_f/5.6L_USM&category=
• https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/00035/Canon-EF-400mm-f5.6L-USM-price.html?streetprice

Canon says if you still have one in stock then sell it at $1,599 CAD. In 2026. I didn't make the numbers up.

It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

Totally fair! And I trust your opinion on lens quality comparisons for things like birds, etc.

I do think that the zoom + prime combo at either tier for likely pricing ranges would be solid. I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied. I agree that zooms are the ultimate in convenience when subjects move much closer or further, but when the situation permits I prefer to reach for a prime instead. Extra nice is that my better half and I can split the set and she can carry the zoom while I futz with the prime.