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

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,292
425
Well there are several big possibilities. It could have a built in rear filter slot
Isn't there an EF to RF adaptor with a filter?
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.
All excellent ideas, but seem a bit speculative to expect Canon would implement them.

The TS-E lenses were recently refreshed (3-4 years ago), and for a niche market, so I doubt Canon will make new versions soon. Then again, if it can make those big improvements, it could make photographers switch brands, making it worth releasing soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
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.
Painful... :oops:
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,273
5,391
Isn't there an EF to RF adaptor with a filter?

All excellent ideas, but seem a bit speculative to expect Canon would implement them.

The TS-E lenses were recently refreshed (3-4 years ago), and for a niche market, so I doubt Canon will make new versions soon. Then again, if it can make those big improvements, it could make photographers switch brands, making it worth releasing soon.
I wasn't suggesting one or any of them might be implemented, I was replying to the comment about what could possibly be in an RF T/S that isn't already in an EF one.

Hasselblad already do the EXIF and auto correction for tilt and shift. The filter holder is an obvious benefit for a 16/17mm RF T/S.

The amount of tilt available because of the depth of the EF mirror box and shadowing is pathetic when compared to any other type of tilt, so improving that a lot would seem an absolute minimum to me.

I would expect RF T/S's to be significant upgrades to the EF ones.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,799
669
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.
Thanks. So it is a 'bad' lens. Not just a portrait lens. As any lens can be a 'portrail' lens.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,799
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.
 

SteB1

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 22, 2019
52
87
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 agree it's probably a challenge. But the Laowa lenses prove it is possible with good image quality. I'd love an MP-E type lens with 0.5x or even better 0.3 times, so you could fit dragonflies, bigger butterflies in the frame. However, for a walk around lens infinity focus is always useful in case some bigger suddenly pops up or happens in the distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koenkooi

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,273
5,391
Thanks. So it is a 'bad' lens. Not just a portrait lens. As any lens can be a 'portrail' lens.
Hi sanj, I don’t think it is fair or correct to call the lens a ‘bad’ lens. I was just pointing out that there was a trade off for the newer versions increased sharpness. Also the MkII and MkIII works better with with TC’s.

Basically you can make an informed choice with your own priorities. Ultimate subject sharpness and AF speed, vs, less ultimate subject sharpness, not quite as good with TC’s, nicer backgrounds and fall off. Though at this point in time the considerations between the two are more likely to be down to price, availability, and the ability to repair them if they have issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
78
76
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
yep. I completely transitioned over to RF mount late last year after my studio got burgled and I lost all my EF equipment. The only EF lens I have is the 40 STM. Used it as an opportunity to "clean house" so to speak and picked up an R5, R6, and RP along with the RF 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8, 35 f1.8, and 50 f/1.8, all RF mount. I need a good macro lens for some of the types of product I shoot. The R5 is my main camera, the R6 backup, and RP walk around, personal use, spare body on a shoot, BTS video, etc.
 
I don't know if you mean that they don't have an 1.4x and 2x for RF in the launch of the big whites... Because there is already an RF 1.4x and an RF 2x .. and i tested the 1.4x with the 100-500 and it is perfect
I knew about the availability of those RF converters. I was just emphasizing how I use my 300. The fact is I'll never be able to change to RF anyway. I'm so heavily invested in EF. I'd guess +/- $65k and the business is not profitable enough anymore. The gravy train is long gone (for me).
 

David_E

Macrophotography
CR Pro
Sep 12, 2019
212
307
www.flickr.com
As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
There's always room for improvement.Seems there is always room for quibbling, as well. IsimplyS
As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
There's always room for improvement.
Seems that there is always room for quibbling as well. I simply do not believe that the etc. 100mm macro Lenses are better on a Canon camera than the Canon 100mm macro in any demonstrable way.
 
Last edited:

neonlight

EOS 90D
Jul 10, 2015
135
16
Several things:
1. Agree with you about the DO technology. I almost bought the 400 DO when I sold my 200-400, but thought I would wait for a RF 400 DO IS (L?) version. I thought is was a great lens and liked the weight / size. It also did very well with the 1.4x TC. I was actually hoping for a 500 DO even if they had to go to f5.6 to make it work. I tried the RF 800mm f11, liked the IQ but not happy with the f11.
2. Very surprised they are releasing the RF 400 & RF 600 first since these RF lenses were recently updated and got the version III weight loss program. I am wondering if they were designed for both the EF/RF mounts during the last update and let's them bleed through EF inventory and have two BW ready to go. I really thought we would see the RF 300, 500 & 200-400 (500?) first. These are all very popular lenses, but I don't know how their sales compare to the 400/600.
3. I have been on a mission to lighten my wildlife load and happy with any weight / size reductions they can make on the BW lenses.

I too wondered about the DO versions. I won't be able to afford the 600 whatever it costs, but I might get the chief accountant in our house to allow something equivalent to Nikon's 500 f/5.6. That was what I was hoping for when Canon produced the 600 f/11.
I suppose I'll add a 500 f/5.6 to the wish list and keep hoping.
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
213
254
Sold mine already as part of my RF transition. Better to sell while I can get a decent price. You may have noticed the first 3 Canon EF-lenses have now been discontinued. That's not good for resale values. Currently the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and RF 100-500mm IS L make due as my style of photography is severely hampered by Corona. After summer things should be better - and I will be longing for a fast 300mm prime again. YMMV.
I think we look at this in different ways, I’m not worried about resale, this lens is resiculously sharp, fast and with the R5 it’s accurate every time. No complaints to everyone upgrade. But to each their own.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,914
1,256
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!
Doesn't your IS work together with IBIS now? This functionality is not restricted to RF lenses.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,914
1,256
The IS collaboration between IBIS and EF IS is much more basic than with an RF lens though.
I understand this to a point and that's why I guess Canon updated the firmware of many RF lenses a year and a half ago but we cannot know how much is the difference.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
I understand this to a point and that's why I guess Canon updated the firmware of many RF lenses a year and a half ago but we cannot know how much is the difference.
And sadly the firmware of the 100mm L can't be user upgraded. I don't noticed a difference between the 100mm L on an RP or on an R5, while with e.g. the MP-E I do notice a difference.
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
405
349
Yorkshire
And sadly the firmware of the 100mm L can't be user upgraded. I don't noticed a difference between the 100mm L on an RP or on an R5, while with e.g. the MP-E I do notice a difference.
Koenkooi, what is the difference (s) you notice with the MP-E on the R5? I'm interested to understand, as I have neither but am wondering about both - is it easier to use/ worse?

Thanks in advance. Stoical.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
Koenkooi, what is the difference (s) you notice with the MP-E on the R5? I'm interested to understand, as I have neither but am wondering about both - is it easier to use/ worse?

Thanks in advance. Stoical.
The EVF is noticeably less jittery, handheld natural light stills are closer to being acceptable quality, but the biggest improvement is in video. The IBIS smooths out pretty much all high frequency micro shakes which makes stabilizing the rest in post a lot better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoicalEtcher

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,233
893
Looks as predicted.
Apart from the distance scale disappearing and the additional part for the RF mount, they might be very similar to the version III EF lenses (but the RF teleconverters should perform be much better with these lenses).
 

Attachments

  • EyzNtE5U4AEzQXr.jpg
    EyzNtE5U4AEzQXr.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 38
  • EyzNtE6VEAAUjV4.jpg
    EyzNtE6VEAAUjV4.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 38
  • EyzNucEVIAM00y3.jpg
    EyzNucEVIAM00y3.jpg
    24.5 KB · Views: 34
  • EyzNucnVIAAgYRE.jpg
    EyzNucnVIAAgYRE.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 35