Here’s confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they’re quite delayed

[fox40phil]

7.1 isn't 5.6 also for the bokeh etc...
You can't do everything with better image sensors!

There are so many other leneses they should already release...and now we will have two with near the same focal length.... (100-500 vs 100-400 & 15-35 vs 14-35)... where are some nice small and light tele with 4.0 or 5.6 f? or a bigger macro >=150mm... and other great small and fast primes ( 2.8 line, and <=1.4 line(<50mm))

 

[FrenchFry]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

Cost, weight, and size.
It's not a lens that piques my interest, but those would be legitimate reasons for a lens with this much range overlap. Now, if this were an APSC lens, the use case would be even more pronounced.

 

[slclick]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!

Are you aware that different lenses have different pricepoints, these differentiators play a HUGE role with various budgets. Don't give me the just save bs.

 

[Chaitanya]

I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with extension tube? the rf 35mm cannot.

I never heard about incompatibility of 35mm with Extension tubes(there are some 3rd party options with electronics communication), you mean Teleconverters which aren't used on these wide angle macro lenses anyways(have seen photographers(butterfly) use 1.4x TC with 150mm/180mm/200mm Macros).

 

[sanj]

No, they're all mine!

All yours sir! I prefer the 35mm and will wait for 24mm 1.2L.

 

[navastronia]

With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...

The range feels suspect, but then again, there is the 17-40/4 L

 

[Mr Majestyk]

They can delay the 100-400 all they like, we don't need more rubbishly slow lenses. Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when? If they released the slow and fast together I wouldn't have a problem. But still no fast supertele zooms on the radar.

 

[H. Jones]

I'll echo others--I think any wide angle macro, even at 0.5x, is super exciting. As time goes on using the 35mm 0.5x macro, I love the look of having more of the background in your shots while shooting macro, it really places your subject into the environment and puts the viewer into the picture. 0.5x has been pretty great for slightly larger subjects, which are normally great candidates for wider angles anyway. If the 24mm macro fits in around 500-600, I'll get one just for the heck of it. Plus, 24mm f/2.8 is a nice emergency back-up wide angle if something happens to my 24-70mm f/2.8. Can't come soon enough!

18-45mm is an interesting lens. If it's cheap enough while full frame, it could get huge sales as a full-frame consumer ultra wide-angle, as well as a APS-C RF kit lens. Even if 18mm is distorted at full frame and needs corrected like the 24-240mm, I think Canon would be very smart to make this lens work for both.

A 100-400mm has the point of view of 160-640mm on a crop sensor body, and at F/7.1 will be absolutely tiny. I'm very interested to see this lens, not really to buy for myself, but probably for a family member in a few years with a crop RF camera. I'd bet Canon can pull it off for $500 or $600.

 

[Jstnelson]

I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with extension tube? the rf 35mm cannot.

I have used extension tubes with my RF 35mm 1.8. Is there some reason you’re not supposed to be able to?

 

[Chig]

I wonder what the size of the 100-400 will be. Right now, I really want a small, light telephoto…that has aperture blades…to use as a fun walk around wildlife lens when I walk my dog or go to the zoo. I fear the days are numbered for my EF 100-400 II right now. The weight really makes it a “work” only lens for me as it’s unjustifiably heavy to pack in a bag regularly.

Well 400mm f/7.1 means entrance pupil of only 56mm so could be very compact especially if they use fresnell DO elements like they did in the RF 800 f/11.

 

[AJ]

Wasn't there an RF 70-400/5.6-7.1 about to be announced? Does the 100-400 replace it, or is this yet another lens?

 

[AlanF]

They can delay the 100-400 all they like, we don't need more rubbishly slow lenses. Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when? If they released the slow and fast together I wouldn't have a problem. But still no fast supertele zooms on the radar.

The 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6L has been superseded by the RF 100-500mm, which is basically the shorter lens with a built in 1.25xTC. The new Canon narrower telephotos are not rubbishy but are excellent lenses that take advantage of the new AF capabilities of mirrorless. You might get a 3rd party 400mm lens but current Sigma and Tamron 400s are f/6.3.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Wasn't there an RF 70-400/5.6-7.1 about to be announced? Does the 100-400 replace it, or is this yet another lens?

The 100-400mm has been rumoured for longest time as part of the roadmap. CR seems to think rumors of 70-400 and 100-400 refers to the same lens. But maybe it is two different lenses?
I cannot get out of my head that there are a patent for an APS-C 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 ! I'm still hoping for that together with an "R7" ;-)

 

[Joules]

7.1 isn't 5.6 also for the bokeh etc...
You can't do everything with better image sensors!

There are so many other leneses they should already release...and now we will have two with near the same focal length.... (100-500 vs 100-400 & 15-35 vs 14-35)... where are some nice small and light tele with 4.0 or 5.6 f? or a bigger macro >=150mm... and other great small and fast primes ( 2.8 line, and <=1.4 line(<50mm))

500 7.1 is 400 5.6 in terms of bokeh though. Just with a tad extra resolution once you crop them to the same field of view.

400 7.1 behaves analogous to 300 5.6.

Canon is just adding a little reach to their mainstream Tele options, without changing the diameter. This results in a smaller f number, but unless you don't need the reach, it is still a benefit for the consumer.

If the number bothers you so much, the EF versions remain available both new and used for the time being.

 

[Joules]

Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when?

It's been out since 1998 and updated in 2014.

If you can't see how the RF 100-500 is a superset of that lens (and therefore replaces it fully in terms of functionality), that's fine. But would you mind keeping that frustration to yourself? We have heard it often enough, but your demand for that lens will not sway Canon I to releasing it - and even if it could, this is not the place to voice it in order to get them to hear it.

 

[MoonMadness]

All yours sir! I prefer the 35mm and will wait for 24mm 1.2L.

Thanks! I'll take that then!

 

[LeBlobe]

I have used extension tubes with my RF 35mm 1.8. Is there some reason you’re not supposed to be able to?

I didnt test it but i read a few places that tubes were not working. I'm gonna buy some now after seeing 2 comments here that they work .

 

[Kiton]

Are you aware that different lenses have different pricepoints, these differentiators play a HUGE role with various budgets. Don't give me the just save bs.

As I did not read right though and jumped off, so did you. Have a good weekend!

 

[Charlie_B]

I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....

 

[Mr Majestyk]

It's been out since 1998 and updated in 2014.

If you can't see how the RF 100-500 is a superset of that lens (and therefore replaces it fully in terms of functionality), that's fine. But would you mind keeping that frustration to yourself? We have heard it often enough, but your demand for that lens will not sway Canon I to releasing it - and even if it could, this is not the place to voice it in order to get them to hear it.

Are you for real. Come to Australia where one retails for $2600 and the other $4900. In what unvierse do live in that the 100-500L rip-off replace a lens nearly half the price. I suppose the 500 f/4 renders the 400 f/5.6L obsolete. I wouldn't pay $4900 for the 100-500L if it were f/5.6.