Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

So, let's speculate about future lenses.

I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500.

Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?
I do not know but allow me to say it must not! I prefer your first guess a lot more! Oh and the suggested lens too :D
 
Upvote 0
The excitement is right here! Build to L standards, use superior DO (immersion fresnel) optics, optimise size and weight for RF, and paint that sucker white!
I agree because I make sinful thoughts about turning to the dark side! (only for the D500/500PF combination though).
However be certain that should Canon make a 500 5.6 DO they would ask 6 to 7K for it. Not that it wouldn't be tempting aloooooot!
 
Upvote 0
I'm not nearly so sanguine about this lens staying at f/5.6 through 400mm. Except for the constant aperture Nikon 200-500, none of the consumer super zoom lenses maintain 5.6 at 400mm, and they go a 100mm longer and are 1/3 stop brighter at the longest focal length. So, you think that Canon has somehow managed to avoid this problem and then drop 2/3 of a stop in 100mm when all other zooms reach their slowest maximum aperture more than 100mm below their longest focal length?

I'm not saying that it can't be done--I don't have the expertise--but I'm extremely doubtful.

My confidence is driven by these two alternative scenarios. Imagine a Dilbert style meeting in Japanese culture as the chief designer reports to the VP of new products:

1. “Good news boss! Not only was the team able to successfully adapt our successful 100-400 design to the RF mount, but Jenkins actually came up with a way to stretch it to 500 without compromising existing performance.” Boss: “Well done! Let’s get it into production and inform Marketing!”

2. “Boss, in our 100-400 project, Jenkins found a way to stretch it to 500, but there’s a problem. You see, we need to make it slower than the original as it reaches 400.” Boss: “Tell Jenkins good job for trying but we aren’t going to sell a worse lens. All those internet nerds will make laughing stocks of us and no one will buy the lens. They keep talking about a cripple hammer or something. How else can we expect to sell that sucker for $2800?! Just make the damn 100-400 like I instructed and stop with the silly distractions. And be sure to paint it the pretty new white color marketing came up with.”

My reasoning is that if they are announcing a 100-500 they clearly solved the technical challenge feared by the pearl-clutchers.
 
Upvote 0
My confidence is driven by these two alternative scenarios. Imagine a Dilbert style meeting in Japanese culture as the chief designer reports to the VP of new products:

1. “Good news boss! Not only was the team able to successfully adapt our successful 100-400 design to the RF mount, but Jenkins actually came up with a way to stretch it to 500 without compromising existing performance.” Boss: “Well done! Let’s get it into production and inform Marketing!”

2. “Boss, in our 100-400 project, Jenkins found a way to stretch it to 500, but there’s a problem. You see, we need to make it slower than the original as it reaches 400.” Boss: “Tell Jenkins good job for trying but we aren’t going to sell a worse lens. All those internet nerds will make laughing stocks of us and no one will buy the lens. They keep talking about a cripple hammer or something. How else can we expect to sell that sucker for $2800?! Just make the damn 100-400 like I instructed and stop with the silly distractions. And be sure to paint it the pretty new white color marketing came up with.”

My reasoning is that if they are announcing a 100-500 they clearly solved the technical challenge feared by the pearl-clutchers.
Unfortunately scenario #2 was not the case with RF 24-200. Vignetting like a mad cow at wide end with lens correction switched off in camera. It is going to be a Scenario #3 Instead. Introduce compromises to meet mid market expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Personally I'd be glad to give up 5.6 at 400 mm for the extra 100 mm if the price is in a similar range as the EF 100-400. As mentioned above, with an EVF and the R focusing system this is likely not going to be an issue for the typical user of this lens.

Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.

A ~40 MP R5 with the 100-500 would have been perfect!

The lens is likely going to be a bit longer at 100 mm vs. the EF version (based on a very rough picture comparison with the RF 70-200 which is similar close to the mount), but probably only about 10-15 mm, which is not a lot and less than the EF-Adapter required for using the EF version on a RF camera. If Canon is using a similar construction as for the RF 70-200 (mostly very robust plastic, see Lensrentals' teardown), the 100-500 might even end up being lighter than the EF 100-400. We'll see...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Personally I'd be glad to give up 5.6 at 400 mm for the extra 100 mm if the price is in a similar range as the EF 100-400. As mentioned above, with an EVF and the R focusing system this is likely not going to be an issue for the typical user of this lens.

Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.

A ~40 MP R5 with the 100-500 would have been perfect!

The lens is likely going to be a bit longer at 100 mm vs. the EF version (based on a very rough picture comparison with the RF 70-200 which is similar close to the mount), but probably only about 10-15 mm, which is not a lot and less than the EF-Adapter required for using the EF version on a RF camera. If Canon is using a similar construction as for the RF 70-200 (mostly very robust plastic, see Lensrentals' teardown), the 100-500 might even end up being lighter than the EF 100-400. We'll see...

My measurements of the RF 100-500 lens with a ruler on the monitor and, with an almost identical filter diameter of 77 mm, give results of a lens size of about 92x192 mm. :)
 
Upvote 0
A friend once said that any large enough group of people behaves, collectively, like a toddler.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
There was an anecdote that the Aga Khan asked some physicists to design a better racehorse. After several years, they claimed they had reached the theory of a designing a spherical one.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.

This makes me think of the presumed 100-500 as a 100-400 with a built in 1.25x extender!
 
Upvote 0
We're more than happy to shoot at f/8 at 560mm all day long (100-400 + 1.4tc) yet now 500mm @ 7.1 is freaking people out?

1/2 and 2/3 stops are not the end of the world! Stop reading dpr. Boy, some people need a time machine and go back to Ye Olden Tymes of film and 8 megapickles to really appreciate the amazing gear we have in this era, we are truly spoiled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
We're more than happy to shoot at f/8 at 560mm all day long (100-400 + 1.4tc) yet now 500mm @ 7.1 is freaking people out?

1/2 and 2/3 stops are not the end of the world! Stop reading dpr. Boy, some people need a time machine and go back to Ye Olden Tymes of film and 8 megapickles to really appreciate the amazing gear we have in this era, we are truly spoiled.
Obviously the days when I walked 5 miles to school in 3 feet of wind driven snow (up hill in both directions) were much better. There is absolutely nothing worth buying these days. Truly, we are a Prozac nation. ;)
 
Upvote 0
Canon's, in recent years, has proved they can lay an egg. And there will be somebody in marketing saying "A 5x lens will obviously sell better than a 4x. 5 is bigger than 4! 5x! See how great that sounds?"

And the extra reach is going to be useful for some people, even if there are some compromises.
 
Upvote 0