Here are some new lens images and early pricing

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
112
96
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

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
112
96
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.
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
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.
 
Last edited:

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
112
96
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

SpecificationCanon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USMSony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
Weight1370g (3.02lbs)2115g (4.66lbs)
Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")111.5mm (4.38") x 318mm (12.5")
Filter Size77mm95mm
Elements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups24 elements in 17 groups
Minimum focusing distance0.9m (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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tiggy@mac.com

SteB1

EOS M50
Feb 22, 2019
41
54
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

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
112
96
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...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556 and Go Wild

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,145
3,337
120
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.
 

subtraho

Birds and Macro
CR Pro
Nov 20, 2018
29
42
Maryland
www.flickr.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and pj1974
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,515
173
66
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'm New Here
Jun 17, 2017
20
12
Chicago
Visit site
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

chasingrealness

RF = Requires Funding
Feb 24, 2020
44
54
Queens, NY
www.chasingrealness.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and navastronia

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,641
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

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
308
367
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
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

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
308
367
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse and Rule556