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

[justaCanonuser]

I see people carrying broadcast-quality video gear including a massive tripod, and honestly wonder how they do it. They must be much fitter than me.

 

[AlanF]

How much do you pay?

Not enough.

 

[john1970]

This would have to be considerably smaller with higher IQ than a 200-600 f/6.3 to make sense. Still would prefer a zoom at this range for wildlife. Currently shooting with the 200-800 and the reach is great.

What I'd really want to see is a 100-300 f/4L that would shave off most of the 2.8's weight and price.

If you want a RF 100-300 f4 lens I would seriously consider the 70-200 mm f2.8 with a 1.4x TC. The 1.4x TC would only minimally degrade the image quality and you also have a 70-200 mm f2.8 L lens which is very good as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you want a RF 100-300 f4 lens I would seriously consider the 70-200 mm f2.8 with a 1.4x TC.

Make sure it’s the RF 70-200/2.8 Z. The non-Z version does not take TCs.

 

[AlanF]

If you want a RF 100-300 f4 lens I would seriously consider the 70-200 mm f2.8 with a 1.4x TC. The 1.4x TC would only minimally degrade the image quality and you also have a 70-200 mm f2.8 L lens which is very good as well.

Yes if you want 300mm or so as a maximum but not if you want to go to to 420mm or 600mm with TCs.

 

[john1970]

Yes if you want 300mm or so as a maximum but not if you want to go to to 420mm or 600mm with TCs.

True. You could get out to 400 mm f5.6 with the 70-200 f2.8, but beyond that focal length you need a longer lens. Maybe this is why Canon is considering the 500 mm f5.6. Personally a RF 400 mm f4 DO with a built-in TC would be more flexible, but you can't get everything.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I will say, I'm a bit envious of Nikon's "slightly slower" supertelephoto lineup
400 f/4.5
600 f/6.3
800 f/6.3

The latter is shockingly affordable. I feel like Canon is really missing out on this part of the supertelephoto market - Canon's RF 800 f/5.6 L is listed for 18k right now vs. $6k for Nikon's f/6.3.

I hope Canon will release some primes like this in the near future.

 

[scyrene]

There was still a cult of the EF 400 f/5.6 L when the EF 100-400 II came out. I suppose the built-in lens hood and kudos of owning a prime. made up for the 3.5m close focus, lack of IS and being less sharp even on Canon's own MTF charts.

The EF 400 f/5.6 is one lens that fell short of my hopes, mainly because of its lack of IS (and as someone above reminded me, the long MFD). That's what pushed me to get the 500 f/4 and aside from the cost, I never regretted it.

 

[AlanF]

I will say, I'm a bit envious of Nikon's "slightly slower" supertelephoto lineup
400 f/4.5
600 f/6.3
800 f/6.3

The latter is shockingly affordable. I feel like Canon is really missing out on this part of the supertelephoto market - Canon's RF 800 f/5.6 L is listed for 18k right now vs. $6k for Nikon's f/6.3.

I hope Canon will release some primes like this in the near future.

They are shockingly hand holdable as well, which is also a major part of their attraction.

 

[Del Paso]

There was still a cult of the EF 400 f/5.6 L when the EF 100-400 II came out. I suppose the built-in lens hood and kudos of owning a prime. made up for the 3.5m close focus, lack of IS and being less sharp even on Canon's own MTF charts.

This built-in lens shade is something I miss in Canon lenses.
Canon used it extremely sparingly. I never understood why.
Instead of unlocking, turning around the hood before putting a longer lens back into the bag, you just pushed it back. Faster and much more practical.
But the EF 400 f/5,6 never tempted me, I far preferred the excellent EF 100-400 L II.