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

[AlanF]

Yes you'll be fine with the vaccine for custom purposes after the 1st of may
And yes I don't doubt that 400 f/4 gets you sharp shots on puffins, but maybe hardly on bigger wingspan birds. Anyway as the background (sky or sea) is far away, it won't make any improvement on the picture to make it at f/4 IMO.
See you on the cliffs somewhere

I know it's off topic, but I visited Iceland once, 9 years ago, and took a 7D + 100-400mm (original version) and got this shot of a Tern feeding its chick in Reykjavik. The zoom was necessary as I had to zoom out and got good depth of field. I'll bring the RF 100-500 if I visit again.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Canon makes new models because people buy them. If you went from the 600mm IS L I or II to the 600mm IS L III then you should know why people would upgrade their EF version to the RF model. I got the 300mm IS L II for the minor upgrade it was - and never regretted it. Neither did I regret going from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L I to II to the RF 70-200mm IS L.

The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ.

Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ.

Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.

The MkII 70-200 is a horrible portrait lens, way worse than the MkI or the non IS versions. Sharper for sure, but a comparatively horrible portrait lens.

 

[stevelee]

Autofocus.

That would be weird. Maybe if it also had autotilt.

 

[sanj]

The MkII 70-200 is a horrible portrait lens, way worse than the MkI or the non IS versions. Sharper for sure, but a comparatively horrible portrait lens.

Why please.

 

[privatebydesign]

Why please.

They traded sharpness, and the MII is undoubtedly sharper, for a weird out of focus roll off. Look at a lot of sports photos, particularly if they have busy backgrounds, and you can tell the difference.

This is an example of the MkII that you just don’t get with the MkI https://www.ephotozine.com/articles...ns-review-16101/images/canon70-200mmII304.jpg

I shoot people more than sports so I never ‘upgraded’, if I were primarily a sports shooter and especially if I ever used TC’s on it, I’d get the MkII or III.

 

[adrian_bacon]

I’d happily get the 100 macro as long as it’s at least 1:1.

 

[justaCanonuser]

That's a lot of assumptions.

This is exactly what CR is about.

I should emphasize that I still use DSLRs and like to work with optical viewfinders, since I also shoot with vintage gear and want to keep my eye and imagination trained. Plus, when I go for birding/ wildlife, I like to have a viewfinder through which I can watch with a tele lens if there is something e.g. in a nest is going to happen, without draining batteries.

But, Canon, like Nikon, has already hesitated about a decade to give their ML camera products a full go, since they depend on long-term customers who grew up with SLRs. Now, it looks like they exactly do that with the R system. It reminds me of the 80s, when Canon decided to switch from the FD to the EF mount, not looking back anymore. With that radical decision they lost some old customers but gained a clean mount design. Nikon tried to keep their F mount compatible, which caused technical problems (which I know from own experience).

 

[Fischer]

The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ.

Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.

I'm not buying any of the three lenses just announced as I want to start with the 300mm f/2.8 first. But they apparently make sense to build for Canon - otherwise Canon would not - regardless of how it fits our perspectives. And people will be buying them. I myself have low expectations to the pure optical improvements Canon can bring to the RF 300mm f/2.8 IS L. A little extra functionality and weight and I'm good.

 

[Dockland]

I’d happily get the 100 macro as long as it’s at least 1:1.

Probably it will be at least 1:1 I'm guessing the price tag will be around $2000-2500, but anyway I'll get one. Extremley pleased with my current 100mm L

 

[SteB1]

The reported 1.4x magnification, which should be written 1.4:1, not 1:1.4 reproduction ratio would be interesting and useful. However, as a specialist field macro photographer for a long time this is not enough. It doesn't even give the frame filling power on FF that you get with a 1:1 lens on a crop body, an effective 1.6x magnification. This is not enough to fill the frame with an average sized fly, let alone a smaller insect or flower part. 2x magnification would be much more useful. It's always been a difficult task using the MP-E 65mm and a 1:1 macro lens like the 100mm L IS f2.8, because you have this abrupt jump from 1:1 to greater than, and a lot of subjects span this gap. Even if you use 2 bodies you have to keep switching from one to the other. So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

Yes, the EF 600/4 L III basically feels like an RF lens.

It could be no coincidence that last week's firmware update has made electronic FTM work properly at last - it's very important for long lenses.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The reported 1.4x magnification, which should be written 1.4:1, not 1:1.4 reproduction ratio would be interesting and useful. However, as a specialist field macro photographer for a long time this is not enough. It doesn't even give the frame filling power on FF that you get with a 1:1 lens on a crop body, an effective 1.6x magnification. This is not enough to fill the frame with an average sized fly, let alone a smaller insect or flower part. 2x magnification would be much more useful. It's always been a difficult task using the MP-E 65mm and a 1:1 macro lens like the 100mm L IS f2.8, because you have this abrupt jump from 1:1 to greater than, and a lot of subjects span this gap. Even if you use 2 bodies you have to keep switching from one to the other. So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.

Was discussing this with a friend at the weekend. The most useful upgrade to the 100L would be 2x macro while retaining infinity focusing. And the most useful upgrade to the MP-E65 would be increasing the range to 0.5-5x. But if I understand correctly, creating a lens which crosses the 1:1 'barrier' poses significant design challenges. I imagine this is why so few lenses actually do that.

 

[koenkooi]

Was discussing this with a friend at the weekend. The most useful upgrade to the 100L would be 2x macro while retaining infinity focusing. And the most useful upgrade to the MP-E65 would be increasing the range to 0.5-5x. But if I understand correctly, creating a lens which crosses the 1:1 'barrier' poses significant design challenges. I imagine this is why so few lenses actually do that.

I wouldn't mind giving up a bit on the MP-E ranges, I rarely go beyond 3x. The 2x setting is what I use most for solitary bees and ladybugs, which is why I was considering the Laowa 100mm EF version, Laowa removed electronic aperture for the RF version :/

 

[padam]

So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.

I think that all EF lenses are able to take the RF 1.4x or 2.0x extender with a hacked EF adapter.

Hacked: Making All Canon EF and EF-S Lenses Compatible with Canon RF Extenders

Hacked: Making All Canon EF and EF-S Lenses Compatible with Canon RF Extenders — The-Digital-Picture.com

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[xps]

I´ll fetch the 600mm and sell my EF version III, if the sharpness is on the equal level than my EF II Version.
Sadly, my copy of the 600 III is noticably not as sharp and not as highend as my older II version. Especially in the center.
It is welcome for my old hands, that it´s weight has been reduced.
But for 13999 European bugs, I would have liked to see better IQ.
I hope, the upcoming >100MP bodies will force Canon to get the image quality back on top - for the same price.

 

[Pixel]

“The 300mm is a bit more interesting, according to my source, Canon may actually release the RF mount version of the 300 f/2.8 as a zoom.”

Nailed it.

 

[[email protected]]

If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!

Canon's certainly on roll to become stronger in no 1 position of FF ML - hope Nikon pulls it socks up and release more Z's.

 

[ethermine]

If the reviews of the 600mm are what I expect them to be, it’ll be mine. Personally, the weight of these things don’t bother me, so that’ll never be a determining factor as it is for a lot of folks. My criteria for a good lens is focus speed, decent sharpness and weather sealing.

 

[privatebydesign]

Out of curiosity, what do you expect it to offer, that the TS-E 24mm w/ adaptor don't?

Well there are several big possibilities. It could have a built in rear filter slot, it could have more shift and they certainly need a lot more tilt, and the lack of a mirror box means all those are possible. It could have shift and tilt registration in EXIF which would mean you could do vignetting corrections in DPP. It could have AF and auto assisted tilt.

There are lots of areas the usability and functionality could be enhanced over and above IQ.