Canon will soon announce the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM, RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,233
893
Just because 300 mm is not mentioned in this list does not mean that it will not be announced (Rumor site) or if not announced now, it will not be announced soon afterwards.
If the earlier leaked roadmap is true (might be as it matches with these three lenses as well), then these are the remaining lenses for the next two years.

Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro

Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM


So a 300mm lens would come later.
 

Harry68

I'm New Here
Mar 4, 2013
9
0
Wow! Now I have to decide between the 400 mm f2.8 and the 600 mm f4 lenses. Previously I owned the EF 400 mm f2.8 because in one lens I could get a 400 mm f2.8, which is great for BIF and a 800 mm f5.6. It can also fit in carry on luggage. A 600 mm f4 has the advantage of being a 1200 mm f8, but is not compatible with carry on luggage.
...
With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
I am not surprised the 100mm macro is being announced, but I would really prefer a longer macro in the 200mm range. While the 100mm macro is fine for studio work where you can control the background, the old 180mm macro was far superior to the outdoor nature photography I did and still use it today. Having a tripod collar, narrow angle of view, and more working distance made all the difference to better images that generated a huge amount of photo sales over the decades. So let's hear it for a longer macro lens!
I bought a 180L last year after renting it a few too many times :) Compared to the 100L, the 180L has a few downsides:
  • The AF is slow
  • It isn't as sharp as the 100L or MP-E at MFD
  • More CA than modern lenses
It's still a great lens, but it has a lot of room for improvement. I tried filming dragonflies in a bog last year and the 180L was great for that:
The AF was just enough for a faint breeze rocking the dragonfly, but anything beyond that overwhelmed the AF. And I don't think I can blame the 1DX3 for driving the lens too slow :)
Even a re-housed 180L with the same optics but better AF would be very tempting.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)
Only if you put a spacer ring in between them, which will mess with infinity focus.
 
I concur with some earlier comments

- the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 are likely their best selling big whites
- DO lenses will follow but not as a priority
- I do love my 300mm but I also know I probably use it less than other big whites
- I think Canon like others have invested a lot of economies of scale and therefore common parts inside Ef and RF and across lenses is sensible
- I think the price of the lenses will increase a little - say 10% over the EF versions
- I think Canon will continue to want to show how their RF mount gives them more flexibility and more options.
- I thought the majority of the optics for the big whites was still hand finished if not completely hand made.
- excluding the electronics therefore I think the optics will be different enough from the EF III
- finally - how do you encourage existing owners of the EF big whites from changing to an RF version ? I think they need to offer some compelling advantages. And given what they have done with those lenses, sure they might improve sharpness a tad, but size and weight are surely going to be bigger wins / easier for them especially if the price increases

Same thing with the mirror less bodies - Canon had to make their 2nd gen significantly better than their dSLR bodies to stop people considering a migration and encourage them to trade in. Not saying they did it for all users in any way, but they upped their game from previous iterations - well for me they did.

As an ethusiast and not a pro, any of the RF lenses would have to offer a good step up over their excellent EF lenses for me to consider that swap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMC11

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,579
3,978
Irving, Texas
Not quite sure about that, the version III telephoto primes are less than 3 years old at this point, and they've really made them as light as possible. The focusing system already has fly-by-wire manual focusing just like the RF lenses.


I says similar USM motor as in the RF 50mm f/1.2L lens

And if they designed these with the rear elements closer to the mount, they would not be compatible with the RF extenders, even the 100-500 is not usable through the full zoom range when an extender is mounted.
So it would be a bit surprising to see brand new designs so soon instead of other lenses that are even older in the EF-mount, like the 300 2.8, but maybe the development was running in parallel with the version III EF lenses or something.

From the article: "Obviously, there is a business advantage in using the same subsystem in several lenses. But putting the same electronic focusing system in this EF lens makes me think that going forward Canon lenses may have a lot of internal similarity in either RF or EF mount. Converting the Canon 400mm f/2.8 to an RF wouldn’t be quite as simple as a different rear element and an RF bayonet mount, of course. The additional electronics for the RF Control Ring would have to be stuffed in here and probably some optical tweaks made, but the core structure could be very similar."
While I respect the guys at Lens Rentals, it's speculation... just like what we are doing here. Lens Rentals does not make Canon design decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
413
229
"finally - how do you encourage existing owners of the EF big whites from changing to an RF version ? I think they need to offer some compelling advantages. And given what they have done with those lenses, sure they might improve sharpness a tad, but size and weight are surely going to be bigger wins / easier for them especially if the price increases"

They probably don't expect to have too much problem selling them at first, given the comparatively small volumes and pent-up demand. No adapter in itself will be enough for many, going by forum comments about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canonmike

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,800
669
If the earlier leaked roadmap is true (might be as it matches with these three lenses as well), then these are the remaining lenses for the next two years.

Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro

Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM


So a 300mm lens would come later.
We will see. I don't think so.
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
214
254
Painful that the RF 300mm F/2.8 IS L is not on that list. Maybe Canon is hoping that some will succumb to getting the RF 400mm f/2.8 IS L first. But its the difference between handholding - or not - for me, so not an option. I guess the same goes for many others. Optics of the 400mm will probably tell us a lot of what we can expect of a 300mm.
I have no issues with my 300 2.8II on my R5, why the need to rush for the RF version?
 
Aug 16, 2016
5
2
The 400mm f/4 DO II is just under the weight of the 300/2.8 II so it would be remarkable if they could make a 400/2.8 that light.
400 f/2.8 III is as light as 300/2.8 II. I have used them side by side. You literally feel no difference between them. The weight is the same and the distance from the weight center of the lens to the mount is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
324
273
The EF versions of the 400 and 600 were the only ones Canon updated to version III. That tells us which lenses they prioritized and one can speculate that was based on some combination of demand, profitability, return on investment and degree of improvement through design changes. Because they are the most recently updated lenses, it may also indicate that Canon needed fewer design changes to convert these to RF mount.

I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy.

I would not be surprised to see this as a development announcement with the actual lenses released in 2022.
"I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy."

We can dream and hope this happens but I don't anticipate any bargain buys on 600mm F4L iii's anytime in the foreseeable future. We're all holding our collective breaths as we wait for a price announcement on these new RF tele offerings, knowing that I won't be able to afford one, no matter the price. Oh well, one can dream and wish and drool over those that can.
 

pzyber

Canon Shooter
Mar 25, 2011
28
33
Sweden
www.jimmynordstrom.se
RF 500mm f/5.6L IS or RF 600mm f/8L IS would have been much more interesting and unique lenses for the RF platform - also, a lot more reasonably priced.
I totally agree. I would buy a R5 and a RF 600mm f/8L IS USM immedietly if they announced such a lens. I can't really motivate to buy the f/4L for my limited use. It's also big and heavy. Albeit my 7D and EF 400mm f/5.6L USM still performs well, used it to shoot cranes the other day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil
If I was already a 400III or 600III owner but now shooting RF, it would take one of these three things in order of preference for me to sell off the MkIII and buy an RF replacement:

1) DO like the 2015 prototype that reduced weight but most importantly reduced packing length for easier travel but also for easier handholding with a shorter lens for BIF. The 600DO's length would be more important to me than the weight. 600III weight with the prototype DO length (looked to be shorter than an EF 400/2.8) would even tempt me.

2) Significantly reduced weight over the current EF lenses

3) Built-in TC
 

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
244
281
Northeastern US
With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)
With the Canon converters one can not readily stack them together. In theory one could stack the two converters if one also had an extension tube, but I do not know what effect this would have on focusing and image quality. Nikon once had a 3x teleconverter and I wished modern day equivalents would be made. Even if they made them using expensive fluorite elements I would readily buy one for a 400 mm f2.8 lens.
 

swkitt

EOS M50
Dec 8, 2015
32
21
They do 400/2,8 and 600/4 first because Sony already have them and if you want a mirrorless with such lenses, you may switch to Sony as the price of the body is not that much compare to the lenses.
The 300 and 500 will come some months later.
 

rinamiele

R5 + 1DX3
CR Pro
Jan 21, 2018
10
2
New York
rinamiele.com
If I was already a 400III or 600III owner but now shooting RF, it would take one of these three things in order of preference for me to sell off the MkIII and buy an RF replacement:

1) DO like the 2015 prototype that reduced weight but most importantly reduced packing length for easier travel but also for easier handholding with a shorter lens for BIF. The 600DO's length would be more important to me than the weight. 600III weight with the prototype DO length (looked to be shorter than an EF 400/2.8) would even tempt me.

2) Significantly reduced weight over the current EF lenses

3) Built-in TC
Besides the native RF mount -- Literally any of these would be complete motivators for me to move on from my 600 f4 II. The 600 III was not necessarily worth the upgrade despite me wanting any weight savings I could get! (I'm a small woman! I am not strong! ha ha!)

The only issue for me is the R1. I still have a 1DX Mark III and couldn't use the RF 600 f4 with it obviously. So I'd appreciate an R1 announcement with these lens announcements! HA HA! You hear that Canon?

Saving my pennies now.