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

[[email protected]]

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?

I owned and loved the 200-600. There were some dumb things about it (the strap anchors weren't at the center of gravity, for instance), but it in fact was the best quality or image and speed of focus for a mid-aperture "white" zoom. Canon didn't have anything as good at the time in the range. That's coming from a guy who put more than 500,000 frames on a 100-400 Mark II. I now shoot the 100-500 on the R5, and I think the image quality is as good, but the range and aperture are worse in exchange for better ergs and size/weight. It's just a trade-off. If canon made a 200-600, I'm I'd likely prefer it over the 100-500 when I went out on hikes.

 

[privatebydesign]

I wonder if I’ll still be around then, but if so, I will probably still be using DSLRs, just no longer buying them.

probably the same as me, but we’ll see...

 

[dominic_siu]

I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?

There will be no new DSLR for sure, also EF lenses. Of course you can buy used DSLR and EF lenses but no more brand new. EF lenses discontinuation is much faster after R5/6 introduction and their success push the transition at a faster pace.

 

[Chig]

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

Can get weird Bokeh with some DO lenses such as the EF400mm f/4 DO which can have odd series of semi circles in it's bokeh but haven't heard that it's an issue with these particular lenses as they have no diaphragm blades so the bokeh is very circular

 

[Chig]

Continue reading...

Canon has a patent for a switchable 1.4x to 2x T.C and there was speculation that they might build it into the RF300 f/2.8 .
If so that would be pretty cool especially if it has DO elements to keep the weight down.
Imagine if it was about 2kg and could switch to 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 with the flick of a switch

 

[AlanF]

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?

The major revolution in photography in recent years has been the upsurge in MILCs vs DSLRs. And the push and technology behind that have certainly not been driven by Nikon. Sony’s innovation there has made it Canon’s major rival and pushed it into making the world-beating R5. Canon and Sony are now battling it out for supremacy. By the way, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp it rivals my 500PF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Interesting thought on that 300 2.8 zoom. I've eyed that Sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom jealously a few times. If I could get Canon's big white version of that, I'd probably pre-order... right after I talked to my banker.

The Sigma 120-200mm f2.8 is an awful lens when compared to any version of the Canon ef 300mm f2.8 LIS prime. It's ridiculously heavy, it's not a true f2.8 and it's not a true 300mm either. It's closer to a 250mm f3.2 in reality and doesn't offer enough compared to a good 70-200 f2.8. It suffers from massive amounts of focus breathing, at Min Focus Distance it's not much longer than a 70-200 f2.8 at the same distance. So at min focus distance the focal length drops to about 220mm..utterly pointless given it's size and weight. The OS is truly clunky and awful, it's not even up to Canon's 1st gen IS level. The AF speed is so slow, inconsistent and erratic that even a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II LIS can get shots of moving objects that this poor Sigma can only dream of. My old ef 85mm f1.2 IIL is more accurate and less hesitant that this weird AF system. It's not worth the bother or the weight for something that only ticks boxes on paper. I owned this lens for about 3 months and I've never been more disappointed by an optic than this piece of 5h1t. Put it against any White lens form Canon and it'll expose this optics many many short comings.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The major revolution in photography in recent years has been the upsurge in MILCs vs DSLRs. And the push and technology behind that have certainly not been driven by Nikon. Sony’s innovation there has made it Canon’s major rival and pushed it into making the world-beating R5. Canon and Sony are now battling it out for supremacy. By the way, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp it rivals my 500PF.

And now that we have the R5, what reason would there possibly be to consider Sony?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The problem with Canon's big white Tele's for the RF mount is that there aren't the wide angle advantages of the mirrorless box. So there aren't any inherent design advantages compared to the EF mount. The last iteration of the mightily ef 400mm f2.8 LIS was the mkIII in 2018. A 400mm f2.8 design pushes a marques technical abilities to the limit as it's a very difficult lens to design and produce. To push the boundaries of this formula with each iteration requires a LOT of R&D with out a lot of lens sales. It's a very slow trickle of sales but it does create a strong headline. The problem with this stream of lenses is that the Pro RF body isn't yet announced or released. So any big white RF prime will be even slower to shift because Canon doesn't have a suitable camera body to drive it yet.
For me, the RF mount is still a way off. While Id' like a pair of Eos r5's, they are way to hotly priced for me at the moment. My 5DIII's are still turning in great imagery for my pro / semi pro needs (most of my photo income streams have been locked down due to Covid). My hope for a new RF 400mm f2.8 LIS is that there will be a surplus of cheaper ef 400mm f2.8 III LIS lenses on the market, offering me a clear and reasonably priced upgrade for my fantastic but eye wateringly heavy ef 400mm f2.8 LIS mk I. £12K UKP for an occasion use lens is was too much for my current photographic income stream. Your mileage might vary.

 

[AlanF]

And now that we have the R5, what reason would there possibly be to consider Sony?

For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.

The issue is that Sony only had mirrorless bodies to push Canon and Nikon. In four years when the R1ii, R5ii, Z9ii, and Z8ii/Z7iii are out and all about feature parry, what will Sony have to push Canon then? Even now, we have the R5 and Canon has the most unique glass. I could still see myself buying a R1 and 600mm f/4.0 if it is lighter than the Z9 and Z 600mm f/4.0, Sony don't have a body like the upcoming Z9 and R1 and their 600mm f/4.0 isn't anything special.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The problem with Canon's big white Tele's for the RF mount is that there aren't the wide angle advantages of the mirrorless box. So there aren't any inherent design advantages compared to the EF mount. The last iteration of the mightily ef 400mm f2.8 LIS was the mkIII in 2018. A 400mm f2.8 design pushes a marques technical abilities to the limit as it's a very difficult lens to design and produce. To push the boundaries of this formula with each iteration requires a LOT of R&D with out a lot of lens sales. It's a very slow trickle of sales but it does create a strong headline. The problem with this stream of lenses is that the Pro RF body isn't yet announced or released. So any big white RF prime will be even slower to shift because Canon doesn't have a suitable camera body to drive it yet.
For me, the RF mount is still a way off. While Id' like a pair of Eos r5's, they are way to hotly priced for me at the moment. My 5DIII's are still turning in great imagery for my pro / semi pro needs (most of my photo income streams have been locked down due to Covid). My hope for a new RF 400mm f2.8 LIS is that there will be a surplus of cheaper ef 400mm f2.8 III LIS lenses on the market, offering me a clear and reasonably priced upgrade for my fantastic but eye wateringly heavy ef 400mm f2.8 LIS mk I. £12K UKP for an occasion use lens is was too much for my current photographic income stream. Your mileage might vary.

At the very least we loose about an inch in length. That's enough to make a R1 and 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4.0 fit into a smaller bag or fit in the same bag with less shoving required.

 

[AlanF]

The issue is that Sony only had mirrorless bodies to push Canon and Nikon. In four years when the R1ii, R5ii, Z9ii, and Z8ii/Z7iii are out and all about feature parry, what will Sony have to push Canon then? Even now, we have the R5 and Canon has the most unique glass. I could still see myself buying a R1 and 600mm f/4.0 if it is lighter than the Z9 and Z 600mm f/4.0, Sony don't have a body like the upcoming Z9 and R1 and their 600mm f/4.0 isn't anything special.

We don't know what will happen in four years time, and we don't even know how the R1 and Z9 will perform, let alone the hypothetical second generation. What we do know now from the latest figures is:
"According to research firm Techno System Research (Tokyo), Sony ranked first with 1.15 million units and Canon ranked second with 1.05 million units out of a total of 3.26 million mirrorless production units in 2020. Nikon has only 250,000 units. Of the total of 2.39 million SLR cameras, Canon had 1.71 million and Nikon had 650,000."

SankeiBiz（サンケイビズ）：自分を磨く経済情報サイト

SankeiBiz（サンケイビズ）は産経新聞グループの経済情報サイトです。「仕事・キャリア」「自分磨き」を主なテーマに、ニュースはもちろん、気鋭の経営者や識者が執筆する連載・コラムなどビジネスパーソンの知的好奇心を満たすコンテンツをご覧ください。

www.sankeibiz.jp

Canon and Sony are slugging it out head-to-toe in mirrorless sales and Nikon a distant 3rd, but it is the only real competitor for DSLRs. which I is precisely what I have been saying. But, Nikon has apparently taken the decision that the future is mirrorless so let's hope they don't go under.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Canon and Sony are slugging it out head-to-toe in mirrorless sales and Nikon a distant 3rd, but it is the only real competitor for DSLRs. which I is precisely what I have been saying. But, Nikon has apparently taken the decision that the future is mirrorless so let's hope they don't go under.

In the unlikely event Nikon (They can be in the red for decades before it becomes a issue.) go under, it leaves us with just Canon. Sony are shifting mirrorless bodies but are irrelevant to anyone not in the markets they serve. This isn't about unit sales, it is about completion. Sony does not compete with Nikon and Canon on so many fronts. Maybe in a decade they'll have a lens portfolio to compete, but it seems like they are only interested in making the mass market lenses they know they can sell to journalistic, wedding, and event photographers.

I love Canon lenses, but I don't want them to be the only option.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

At the very least we loose about an inch in length. That's enough to make a R1 and 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4.0 fit into a smaller bag or fit in the same bag with less shoving required.

Not really...for wide angle lenses that's true, but anything over 50mm generally needs the mirror box dimension added to make the same focal length from the front objective optic to the sensor plane. So EF telephotos are generally shorter than Mirrorless with the same optical formula.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Not really...for wide angle lenses that's true, but anything over 50mm generally needs the mirror box dimension added to make the same focal length from the front objective optic to the sensor plane. So EF telephotos are generally shorter than Mirrorless with the same optical formula.

Let's make them all DO then. A full set of short and fat RF super-tele's would be smashing. We've seen people are willing to take a little IQ drop for weight loss already, I am sure the IQ loss from DO is more than made up for in the much smaller and potentially cheeper lens design.

Other than IQ, I can only assume that DO glass is a finite thing per year. I heard the PF elements Nikon use are finite, even if they had more factories.

 

[unfocused]

A 100-300 2.8 zoom would be highly desirable for indoor sports. While I could not afford one and at this point in my life wouldn't want to invest in one, I can see it as a great incentive for high end sports photographers (large NCAA schools and professional sports) to give the R1 a go. Even an f4 70-300 zoom would interest me.

 

[DBounce]

With that many professional primes to come, the R1 might just be around the corner
exciting times

Looks like you may have been spot on!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

A 100-300 2.8 zoom would be highly desirable for indoor sports. While I could not afford one and at this point in my life wouldn't want to invest in one, I can see it as a great incentive for high end sports photographers (large NCAA schools and professional sports) to give the R1 a go. Even an f4 70-300 zoom would interest me.

The Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 seems to be better than the 300 primes it replaces, it also gives the 300 some meaning and differentiation from it being a 'cheeper 400/2.8'. I can see a RF 120-300 being someones bread and butter lens, replacing a 70-200 and 300.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.

Goof for you, I'll take the Sony any day of the week over the Canon. For most of us that can use a 500/600 f/4 the 200-600 is lightweight. It's 30% cheaper, 100mm longer reach, 1/3rd stop faster, optically easily as good if not better and doesn't extend. It's tack sharp with the 1.4x TC even wide open, and has no stupid limitations of not being able to zoom through the entire range with a TC. The A9 in Australia can readily be found far cheaper than the R5 and the A9II is basically the same price. The best lightweight 500mm by a country mile is the Nikon 500 PF and if they release a 600 PF I'll definitely buy a Z9.