Canon will release RF versions of the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 in early 2022 [CR2]

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
290
274
When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.
So, does that mean that the EF 200-400 f4 L IS w/ 1.4x TC wouldn't qualify when discussing Big Whites? I don't think you would find much difference in IQ between the 200-400 and the 300 mm / 400mm with the exception of bokeh.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
783
796
Scotland
Sony also has the very popular 200-600mm. Just look at the sales figures of MILCs - Nikon is a very distant third. Maybe the Z9 will help Nikon catch up.
The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.

Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Nikon: f/1.8 professional primes that cost bugger all, 300 and 500mm PF, 180-400 TC, range of PC/PC-E, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Sony: Arguably better AF in their current bodies, open to third party lenses (that all make the same staple lenses).

Of course, this is my opinion, but it looks very much like Canon and Nikon are rivals and have been for decades. They both have lenses you can't get anywhere else. Sony doesn't have this. Why would I buy into Sony when Canon and Nikon have a better version of the lens Sony wants to sell?
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
290
274
Another thought that crossed my mind, I can understand if Canon decided to go more of the small, DO route on the 500mm vs the 600mm. People who are using a 600mm are trying to get the most reach no matter what it costs, whereas the 500mm is more often for people who want long reach, but also want a more compact lens with less weight.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Canon decided to make the 500mm F/4 collapsible, much like the 800mm F/11. It would be a perfect big white contender for something like that, if someone had an issue with the design, they could just go for the 600mm.
I have wondered if that approach would work for the BW, but I think the lens barrel design and size of the front element would be a problem. When you look at the 600 & 800 f11 DO design, the lens barrel is very similar in diameter with an only slightly larger front element. Unless they have some neat/nifty new way to handle the image, the barrel of the BW has to get progressively larger as it extends to the front element. Would be great if that would work.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.

Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Nikon: f/1.8 professional primes that cost bugger all, 300 and 500mm PF, 180-400 TC, range of PC/PC-E, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Sony: Arguably better AF in their current bodies, open to third party lenses (that all make the same staple lenses).

Of course, this is my opinion, but it looks very much like Canon and Nikon are rivals and have been for decades. They both have lenses you can't get anywhere else. Sony doesn't have this. Why would I buy into Sony when Canon and Nikon have a better version of the lens Sony wants to sell?
don't forget the 8-15mm/4 fisheye as well
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
I did forget about that. Funnily enough I was talking to a guy wanting to get into skater photography today that was interested in fish eye lenses (because all the shots in the magazines are fish eye).
You also see the 8-15mm used for astro and for underwater photography. Much easier to fit in whales with a fisheye. Street and architecture is hard to compose but fun to try :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Codebunny

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
783
796
Scotland
What is the downside of using DO? Is it controling flare? Can bokeh be a problem? The size of the RF600/800 is achieved using DO even though they are not labelled DO

DO and PF can have some weird bokeh issues. Older DO lenses really lacked contrast. I tried the original 400 f/4.0 L DO and it produced really meh looking images. The samples I've seen from the mark II and the images from my PF lens suggest all the issues with sharpness and contrast have been fixed and these are now inline with the big primes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fischer

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
783
796
Scotland
You also see the 8-15mm used for astro and for underwater photography. Much easier to fit in whales with a fisheye. Street and architecture is hard to compose but fun to try :)
Underwater seems to be a great use case. And it is a environment where you can't guarantee perfect focus and fine motor control of the camera. So something wide that gets a lot of stuff in focus seems logical to me. But correct me if I am on on the wrong thought process.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
290
274
A 200-500mm f/4.0 would be heavy, but would also live on a tripod and serve wildlife photographers as 'the' lens. Especially with a flick in 1.4X TC to make it a 280-700mm f/5.6
Making it f5.6 or f5.6 @500 would help with weight. The lens could also benefit from DO technology to reduce size/weight. I had the EF 200-400 f4 L IS 1.4x TC and it was my all time favorite super Telephoto with the exceptions of being heavy AND just a bit short for wildlife (even with TC). I think we will see something like a 200-500, but it may be a couple of years once they have the traditional BW in the lineup.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
695
110
A 300-500/2.8-4.0 or even a 300-500/2.8-4.5 zoom would be cool. And useful.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
Underwater seems to be a great use case. And it is a environment where you can't guarantee perfect focus and fine motor control of the camera. So something wide that gets a lot of stuff in focus seems logical to me. But correct me if I am on on the wrong thought process.
Macro and super macro underwater needs critical focus and is certainly an issue when both you and the subject are moving. Light (strobes) are an additional source of fun :)
A lot easier focus for wide angle shooting but still an issue. Eye-AF for animals don't work so well with underwater critters. I would love to go snorkeling with whales but that is both expensive and not possible with covid for some time to come. eye-af should work well with humpback whales
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
355
206
Australia
Finally, at least confirmation of the RF 500 f/4 and talk of being extremely light and much shorter has me wondering if they can get down below 2.4kg and as short as the 400 f/2.8 which is about 40mm shorter than the current 500 f/4.

I wonder if Canon was inspired by Nikon's awesome new 120-300 f/2.8 to release their own version. If they can reduce the weight over Nikon's by even 0.5kg it would be an extremely popular lens.

Highly doubt we'll see 28-300 sort of zoom, at best I'd like to see a 100-300 f/2.8 with 1.8m MFD and 2.7kg max. Would make a great 140-420 f/4.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?
Of course they will still be used in 5 years time. We can still buy/use film cameras.
The number of models will certainly decrease. I see only a low end and high end models.
Low end DLSRs could still be sold if they are cheap enough. The 1500+kit lens is only ~USD600 including 10% GST and 200Dii+kit lens for USD750 incl 10% GST.
1DXiii for sure.... maybe the 5Div for a few years (with a price drop). If a cheaper FF model under RP then there won't be room for DLSR there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene
<-- start Taboola -->