Here are some new lens images and early pricing

[FrenchFry]

Tempted for that 85mm for Christmas, sold my EF 85mm F1.8 years ago and miss it, but certainly not its hit n miss autofocus ability!

Happy to see the three different focus limiter options, but wondering if this kind of suggests that autofocus through the full range is a bit slow? Hopefully not, just curious to see three positions on this lens and not, say, the 100-500mmL.

 

[FrenchFry]

Whats wrong with the near Focus Distance of the 100-500mm L? The Sony 200-600 focuses to 2.4M while the Canon focuses as close as 0.9M.

I believe that the near focus distance being referred to by Fox is the near focus distance on the switch. The focus limiter switch does not have an option for close focus only.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Quick thoughts:

At those prices Canon will sell a boat load of the f11 primes.

RF L lenses are very high quality but expensive. Is that still news to anyone?

If you already own the EF 100-400 II you’re fine. Don’t worry, be happy.

If you don’t own the 100-400ii than the RF 100-500 is a worthy successor and you should consider getting one when the price levels out in a few months

Fair price for the 85 f2 but I don’t need it right away so I’ll wait and see if the price levels out.

additionally: those f11 primes are probably going to crush 7D Mark ii sales. Might be the end of the line for the 7D.

 

[FrenchFry]

A quick comparison between the Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS and Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM

Specification	Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM	Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
Weight	1370g (3.02lbs)	2115g (4.66lbs)
Size	93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")	111.5mm (4.38") x 318mm (12.5")
Filter Size	77mm	95mm
Elements/Groups	20 elements in 14 groups	24 elements in 17 groups
Minimum focusing distance	0.9m (2.95')	2.4m (7.87')
Pricing	$2999 (speculation)	$1998

For anyone who likes using these telephotos for close ups of butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, etc., another noticeable difference between these lenses will be the max magnification of 0.33x for the Canon vs. 0.20x for the Sony 200-600 (and 0.35x for the Sony 100-400).

 

[SteB1]

100-500 price isn't unexpected considering how expensive RF 70-200/2.8 is compared to EF. But when compared to say the $2K Sony 200-600 which is longer, faster, internal zoom, short zoom throw, excellent IQ (ie not a budget optic) and takes TCs well, the price of the 100-500 seems high to me. I think it should have matched the $2200 100-400II price more.

Comparing some other RF glass between UK and USD the UK price is usually just slightly less than USD (like £2599 vs $2699 for RF70-200)

My thoughts exactly, and it saves me the bother of saying it. It's an interesting lenses, but purely on it's own the Sony 200-600mm is a far more compelling lens to wildlife photographers and probably other photographers.

 

[FrenchFry]

Also, we can debate whether Sony's 200-600 is or is not the same price point as the RF 100-500L, but isn't a 5x zoom range vs. a 3x zoom range just begging to let us down sharpness-wise?

(Has a single 24-105 / 24-120 ever outresolved a similar timeframe 24-70?)

- A

Hopefully not! The high price tag compared to the competition and previous most similar Canon lenses suggests that Canon is very confident in the quality and performance of this lens. (I hope... Of course that 7.1 aperture has us all guessing...)

 

[BillB]

Rf 85 - Price is good
RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.

Very negative, the price of the 100-500! For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....

EDIT: the more zoom means more reach, the zoom value is the same

Actually, 100-500 is a 5x zoom, while 200-600 is a 3x zoom.

 

[privatebydesign]

Rf 85 - Price is good
RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.

Very negative, the price of the 100-500! For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....

EDIT: the more zoom means more reach, the zoom value is the same

A 200-600 is a three times zoom (600/200=3), pretty close to the simplest type of zoom range eg 24-70, 70-200. A 100-500 is a five times zoom (500/100=5), five times zooms are MUCH more difficult and expensive to build to the same standard.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, according to TDP, the RF 24-105L outresolves the RF 24-70 f/4-7.1 but that has more to do with the difference in class and price of the lenses than difference in zoom ranges.

There's an RF 24-70 f/4-7.1?

I thought that was also a 24-105.

- A

 

[subtraho]

If you already own the EF 100-400 II you’re fine. Don’t worry, be happy.

Have there been any rumors regarding if the R5/6 share the EOS R's inability to activate the High Speed Display EVF setting while using EF lenses? That's kind of the crux of this decision if one plans to use the lens for sports or fast-moving wildlife like BIF. If the EVF works better for tracking and panning with the 100-500 than the 100-400, it's still an upgrade.

 

[[pod]]

3000$ that is terribe for this aperture zoom. Literally shocked.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Have there been any rumors regarding if the R5/6 share the EOS R's inability to activate the High Speed Display EVF setting while using EF lenses? That's kind of the crux of this decision if one plans to use the lens for sports or fast-moving wildlife like BIF. If the EVF works better for tracking and panning with the 100-500 than the 100-400, it's still an upgrade.

Good question. I don’t know about that one. Maybe someone else could chime in.

I have no idea if the DPAF in the R5 is up to those tasks so there are still lots of question about R’s for sports and wildlife IMO.

Disclaimer: all my Canon’s are DSLR’s. My only mirror less is a Fuji XT3 and despite focusing well for a MLC it’s just not in the same league as my 1DX Mark II for action. Not even close. I guess we’ll see how the new R’s do in a couple days.

 

[ahsanford]

3000$ that is terribe for this aperture zoom. Literally shocked.

If you only look at that feature, you are correct.

Nikon's cheap superzoom is 500mm f/5.6 with IS for $1400.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

I bought my EF 400-500mm f4.5-5.6L II two years ago for £ 1,799. A £ 1,100 premium for the RF 100-500mm is in my book a steep increase. Ive had no issues shooting Red Kites with the EF 100-400 with & without the 1.4x converter on the EOS R.

 

[bmfotonet]

I paid $1899 for my EF 100-400L II back in 2018. Based on what I have seen so far with Canon RF lenses, I was expecting there to be a price premium for the new lens. $3000 is just too much for me, however, considering that the 100-500L is an f/7.1. If it was an f/5.6 maximum, I would feel like I was getting something in return for the higher price but with the slower aperture, it's not really worth it for me. As of right now I'm planning to keep my 5D Mark IV and EF lenses for a while longer. Who knows, maybe after a year or two the prices of these new RF lenses will come down, especially after initial demand has been met. For now, I'm just sitting back and watching. Not like I'm going to be doing any major traveling this year anyway. The air show in my city has been canceled as well. Maybe next year.

 

[chasingrealness]

Thanks for the info! I’m surprised by the pricing of the new 85mm f/2. Seems too high, especially when you can get a really stellar Samyang f/1.4 for $699. I don’t know that IS is worth that much more when you have IBIS. Anyone have a contrary opinion? Interested to know if there’s something I’m not considering here.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Please update the article to include estimated USD prices minus the 20% VAT so everyone can panic just a wee bit less!

 

[ahsanford]

Thanks for the info! I’m surprised by the pricing of the new 85mm f/2. Seems too high, especially when you can get a really stellar Samyang f/1.4 for $699. I don’t know that IS is worth that much more when you have IBIS. Anyone have a contrary opinion? Interested to know if there’s something I’m not considering here.

The Canon will offer:

• 1:2 Macro (Samyang 0.11x max mag)
• First party AF you can rely on
• IS will stack with IBIS (so we are told)
• STM is probably going to be quieter focusing for video (but I am only speculating)
• Surely smaller and lighter

It's a classic non-L prime for Canon: it's a stop slower than what you want, but it probably will do everything else well. I'd get the Canon all day unless you really need f/1.4

- A

 

[highdesertmesa]

Thinking the 100-500 will come in at $2899 USD, then when it goes on sale (as the 28-70 and others did for a time @ $300 off) it will be right at $2599. Given what I paid for my RF 70-200 f/2.8, the 100-500 price does not surprise me. If this had been released at the same price point as the 100-400 II was, I would have been concerned about IQ @ 500mm.

 

[highdesertmesa]

EF telephoto users who have not used higher-end mirrorless telephotos with TCs may be in for a pleasant IQ-shock when they see how well they can work together. Take for example the GF 250 + 1.4x for the GFX. The IQ from using the TC noticeably exceeds the bare lens when cropped and enlarged to the same focal length – something I was not used to seeing on EFs with TCs. Stabilization and AF will also be much better with the TCs. I was never happy with the 1.4x on the 100-400 II and 5DsR – it was always sharper to crop and enlarge (some of this was due to the TC IQ loss and some was due to less effective IS when the TC was used).

In any case, I think the pain of the higher price for the 100-500 will be outweighed by the increased performance over the 100-400 II. We'll know for sure soon enough.