Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[FrenchFry]

Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
RF 500mm D.O f/4 with 700mm f/5.6 and 1000mm f/8
RF 600mm D.O f/5.6 with 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
RF 600mm D.O f/4 with 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8

I'd be keen on either the 300mm or 400mm ones as they'd be light enough for me to carry and hand hold

Here is the rumor that that article was based on, from June 2019. I hope these RF 300 and 500 lenses will come soon, as they were originally slated to launch last year. It looks like the 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as of 2019, or at least not planned to come out before the 300/500mm lenses.

I would love to purchase the RF500 as a companion to the R3, especially if it is as lightweight as the rumors have led us to believe. Built-in teleconverter(s) on the 300 and/or 500mm lenses would be incredible.

"We’ve previously reported that Canon will be introducing an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM as their first super telephoto lens for the RF mount.

Now we’re hearing that an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM will also be launching sometime in 2020, and the source has claimed that this lens will come with a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses, unfortunately, no details about this were given.

I think we’re going to see a lot more professional lens announcements in 2020 for the RF mount."

A Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM is on the way [CR2]

We’ve previously reported that Canon will be introducing an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM as their first super telephoto lens for the RF mount. Now we’re hearing that an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM will also be…

www.canonrumors.com

 

[David - Sydney]

I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco

Not sure that it is a fiasco. The RF100-500mm is still hard to find for buyers. Canon are selling them as fast as they can make them.

The RF100-500 is effectively a EF100-400mm plus built in 1.25x teleconverter. It would be even better to add a TC to widen the focal range but I would suggest that most people are using either the shorter end (100-500mm) or longer end (420-700mm or 600-1000mm).

I can think of a couple of use cases with TC where it would be a problem... eg whale watching from a boat where you are not sure where the whale will surface and harder to change TCs on a moving boat and motor racing tracking cars etc around a circuit.

The small size of the lens is an easy tradeoff for me against TC limitations.

 

[David - Sydney]

I have just been happy with my EF 100-400 and 2x TC and converter. I use the RF 24-240 for anything else. It's a bummer that the RF 100-500 is locked below 300mm, so I will continue to use the EF. I was excited to see the RF 70-200, but most of my work is hobby and family and the high ISO performance of the R6 is so good, I don't need f/2.8. Some day...

Isn't it great that we have both EF and RF options! Best of both worlds

 

[David - Sydney]

If nothing else, I suspect a supertele lens designed for RF would have a dedicated control ring.

The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white.
If on a tripod/monopod then having the control ring on the silver section to the body may make sense but hand holding would need the ring to be much further forward. Adding the ring to the silver section would be relatively simple but further out would require a re-design of the lens body which would be much more expensive.
Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?

 

[Chig]

An RF400mm 2.8 would also be an option for your list.

Also, some articles age better than others. If this switchable teleconverter 300mm RF lens was really intended to come to market in 2020 we should start hearing about it any day now.
"According to a report on Canon Rumors, the manufacturer is working on an innovative new RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens for 2020 that will come with a “new and unique feature” for super telephoto optics.
Could it be that these two stories are related, and that Canon will announce a revolutionary 300mm lens with built-in teleconverter that can toggle between 300, 420 and 600mm at the flick of a switch, without the need to unmount anything?"

I'd be really keen on the 300mm f/2.8 especially if it's a DO version with the freznel elements , could be similar size and weight to the EF400mm DO f/4 ii.
I have the first EF300 f/2.8 and it's a fantastic lens but the 2.8kg weight is just too heavy for hand holding

 

[Chig]

The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white.
If on a tripod/monopod then having the control ring on the silver section to the body may make sense but hand holding would need the ring to be much further forward. Adding the ring to the silver section would be relatively simple but further out would require a re-design of the lens body which would be much more expensive.
Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?

Could make the knobby focus preset ring reprogrammable

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white.

Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?

Just distal to the MF ring, which could give up a centimeter or so for it. Whether on a tripod/monopod or handholding, having all the lens barrel controls nearby is preferable, although they should be distinguishable by feel. For handholding, they should be by the lens foot, reachable with fingertips as the lens is supported.

Yes, a redesign would be needed for that, which reinforces the point that the current RF 400/600 lenses are not specifically designed for the RF mount.

 

[Chig]

Not sure that it is a fiasco. The RF100-500mm is still hard to find for buyers. Canon are selling them as fast as they can make them.

The RF100-500 is effectively a EF100-400mm plus built in 1.25x teleconverter. It would be even better to add a TC to widen the focal range but I would suggest that most people are using either the shorter end (100-500mm) or longer end (420-700mm or 600-1000mm).

I can think of a couple of use cases with TC where it would be a problem... eg whale watching from a boat where you are not sure where the whale will surface and harder to change TCs on a moving boat and motor racing tracking cars etc around a circuit.

The small size of the lens is an easy tradeoff for me against TC limitations.

The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.
It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.
As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000
The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.

 

[David - Sydney]

None of this would be necessary if the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 took TC's as one would expect, and/or the 100 - 500 got its full range when on a TC.

Rather than focusing(!) on TCs, Canon is encouraging you to get the RF70-200mm/2.8 + RF100-500mm + either the RF600/800 or both.
Perhaps you could do a comparison in weight and size for this combination vs your EF solution. Cost is obviously higher though
Canon's RF lenses have brought something new to the table vs their EF counterparts in virtually every example. Size/weight, focal length, focus speed, sharpness, macro etc. the RF400/2.8 and RF600/4 have the least difference but are still are fantastic optically.
I used to have the EF70-200/2.8 + 1.4x/2x TCs but haven't regretted getting the 100-500mm instead
Either way, you have great options to either use EF or RF.

 

[unfocused]

Here is the rumor that that article was based on, from June 2019. I hope these RF 300 and 500 lenses will come soon, as they were originally slated falsely rumored to launch last year. It looks like The 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as of 2019, or at least not planned to come out before the 300/500mm lenses. at the top of the priority list for Canon's RF Big White development cycle.

I've fixed your post. I'm always surprised when readers of a rumor site don't understand the definition of a rumor. Nothing was "originally slated." The rumor was wrong. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that the 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as early as 2019. Just because a "source" used by Canon Rumors didn't know what they were talking about doesn't mean these two lenses weren't always at the top of Canon's development list.

 

[David - Sydney]

The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.

Indeed much better being lighter. I don't see any issues with the use of plastic and happy that we won't see paint chips near the lens mount

It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.

"easily"? On what basis are you making this assertion?

As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000

Of course! Isn't it fantastic that Canon made the RF mount backward compatible
The size/weight of the RF70-200mm/2.8 amazed my wife and she said to get it when it was 15% off (AUD3600) and it was 3 months before I got my R5.

The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.

NZ doesn't seem to get the same discounts as Australia is seeing with our 5 year warranty and we aren't a huge market compared to Europe or the US. When (if?) the borders are open, would you consider traveling to buy it here and ship back for any warranty given the savings (including 10% Oz GST) and extended warranty?

 

[InchMetric]

I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.

The 100-500 (and improving high ISO image quality) may have saved me $10,000 on a big white. I had the RF 400 2.8 ordered the first day but cancelled as the 100-500 is meeting my needs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 100-500 (and improving high ISO image quality) may have saved me $10,000 on a big white. I had the RF 400 2.8 ordered the first day but cancelled as the 100-500 is meeting my needs.

I'll definitely be comparing the performance of the 100-500 (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs) vs. my EF 600/4 II (also with TCs), once I get an R3 in my hands.

 

[Chig]

"easily"? On what basis are you making this assertion?

Well they did on the EF version on which it's closely based but they chose not to as a design decision possibly optimising the wide end functionality instead but I would much prefer access to the full zoom range using extenders .

NZ doesn't seem to get the same discounts as Australia is seeing with our 5 year warranty and we aren't a huge market compared to Europe or the US. When (if?) the borders are open, would you consider traveling to buy it here and ship back for any warranty given the savings (including 10% Oz GST) and extended warranty?

No I'd rather suck up the extra cost for the peace of mind and convenience of a local (5 year) warranty but having said that if I (or a family member) travelled overseas then I could buy it here in NZ duty free which would be a worthwhile saving
Also our gst rate is 15% in NZ so if you factor that in and the exchange rate the difference is only about $150

 

[Chig]

Indeed much better being lighter. I don't see any issues with the use of plastic and happy that we won't see paint chips near the lens mount

I'm not bothered about the use of plastic , just stating that this is the main reason the RF version is lighter than the EF one

 

[Chig]

Camera Pro in Australia is accepting deposits for preorders on the R3 already:

Canon EOS R3 Mirrorless Camera Body

Canon R3: Superb Low Light Performance Featuring reliable AF technology and up to 8-stops image stabilisation, the R3 Canon minimises shake even in low light conditions. With the right lens the Canon R3 is a great camera for concerts, night shots and sports photography. 24MP Full-Frame...

www.camerapro.com.au

So is Rubber Monkey in New Zealand:

Canon EOS R3 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Body Only) | NZ

Canon Authorised Dealer. Fast New Zealand shipping. Phone 0800 4MONKEY to buy Canon EOS R3 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Body Only), or visit our Wellington Store. EOSR3 . 24.1 MP Full-Frame Stacked BSI CMOS Sensor; 6K60 Raw, 4K120 10-Bit Video; Eye Control AF, Dual Pixel CMOS AF; Subject Tracking...

www.rubbermonkey.co.nz

 

[quiquae]

Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??

When was the last time you saw an amateur in the field using a lens hood correctly, that is to say, not deployed backwards on the lens? It's so rare that I do a double take every time someone actually has the hood mounted properly.

I can see why you'd think that way, but on the other hand, I can also see Canon thinking: "if no one uses the hood anyway, why bother including one?"

 

[kaihp]

Most reviews have plenty of fluff. For example, Bryan at TDP wrote: "This is simply one of the most incredible lenses available and one of the ultimate action sports lenses." Sounds very much like the quote you posted above, except this one was about the 400/2.8 IS MkII. He also described the 400/2.8 IS MkI as the, "Ultimate Canon professional field/track sports lens." So it's very possible that a new 400/2.8 designed for the RF mount from the ground up would be a further improvement (which Bryan and other Canon-friendly reviewers would describe in similarly superlative language). Even if there is no benefit from the shorter flange distance (which is likely the case for a supertele design) it would effectively be a MkIV version of the lens.

Not to take anything away from Bryan (I really appreciate his reviews and the content of his website), but he tends to use very favourable language* towards Canon's products. I have come to the point that I try to notice the places where he isn't lyrical about the product and take that as a negative. It's an indirect communication style that is somewhat opposed to the very direct American (and western in general) communication style, but quite common in Asian cultures.

*) Your "Canon-friendly reviewers" language make me think you tend to agree.

 

[koenkooi]

Not to take anything away from Bryan (I really appreciate his reviews and the content of his website), but he tends to use very favourable language* towards Canon's products. I have come to the point that I try to notice the places where he isn't lyrical about the product and take that as a negative. It's an indirect communication style that is somewhat opposed to the very direct American (and western in general) communication style, but quite common in Asian cultures.

*) Your "Canon-friendly reviewers" language make me think you tend to agree.

Yes, Bryan "grades on a curve" when it comes to Canon products. I do the same thing as you and I also look for relative comparisons to lenses I have used, e.g. "as sharp as the classic 17-40L".

 

[AlanF]

The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.
It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.
As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000
The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.

I have used both the 100-400mm II and the 100-500mm extensively on the R5. The 100-400mm II is very good indeed on the R5 and the performance with the 1.4xTC is enhanced over using it on a DSLR. There are advantages with the 100-500mm but whether they are worth the extra money is another matter. The 100-500mm at 500mm and f/7.1 resolves as well as the 100-400mm + 1.4xTC at 560mm and f/8, so having the bare RF lens has effectively the same flexibility as having the EF ± 1.4xTC without having to put on a TC. When it comes to using the 2xTC, the 100-400mm + 2xTCIII is pretty good at 800mm for far distances but soft close up. The RF 2x at 1000mm is very good both at long and short distances, but you can zoom out only to 600mm. I would not pin high hopes on using the EF with stacked TCs at 1120mm.