Here are some new lens images and early pricing

CaMeRa QuEsT

EOS M5 11-22/4-5.6 22/2 50/1.8 STM+EF-EOSM 270EXII
Sep 12, 2016
39
35
Canon must have found a cheaper way of making DO elements for these two lenses, as Canon has historically charged a hefty premium for DO lenses. Maybe they are molding the elements instead of cutting them down to shape, analog to the same processes for aspherics. DO elements already induce flare artifacts in their bokeh, molding could introduce another layer of unpredictability, like the onion-shaped rings on molded aspherics' bokeh circles. Also, was not equipping an iris diaphragm an engineering limitation or a budget decision? On the 85mm, the only thing I can say is that its front element is very small, ensuring heavy vignetting and lots of cat's eyes, which was to be expected, as this lens is a companion the similarly small front element 35mm. Looking forward to seeing what type of 20mm lens Canon will concoct to accompany the 35 and 85mm.
 

Rule556

I see no reason for recording the obvious. -Weston
Dec 19, 2019
95
97
Seattle
www.flickr.com
I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. :)

I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
124
247
I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. :)

I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.
I'm expecting it to be 6.3 at 400mm, but will be pleasantly surprised if it is 5.6. The DO allows lens designers to "cheat" on the length of the lens, but the maximum aperture for the maximum FL, as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), requires a minimum diameter for the front end of the lens. Look at the 400mm f/4 DO. It's light weight and relatively compact for what it offers. However, the front end is pretty massive to accommodate the f/4 max aperture. For the 100500 to be 5.6 or even 7.1 at 500mm would require a much bigger front end, which would take it out of the realm of a relatively compact zoom in the vein of its predecessors.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,245
I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. :)

I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.
++++If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus...

if we are at 6.3 at 400mm then the extra reach of 100mm at the long end and slow F7 aperture costed you $2000 Just for those 100mm. Suggesting you are better of upgrading to R5 for an extra $1000 and cropping to 500mm framing. And still be better off.
for the record, Sigma or Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 is smaller lighter and priced at around $600.
with a very reasonable IQ for a F6.3 lens.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and Rule556

Paul Nordin

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Jun 5, 2020
19
40
Based on those pictures, its clear that there will be no TC support of the RF 70-200L
 

tomri

EOS M50
Jun 4, 2014
43
15
I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. :)
I would not hold my breath. How many zooms do you know that get slower in the last 20% of their range?
 

fox40phil

5DIV & RP
Apr 12, 2013
187
99
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
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.
It is about the damn setting you can do at the lens!
For example:
1. Close to 10/15m. 2. Above 10/15m and 3. Complete range!
But Canon has only # 2 & 3... only everything and far... that is a big design fail for a NEW and >3.000& lens!
 

Tangent

EOS 90D
Nov 13, 2015
123
65
Glad to see the build quality of the 85 stay at the level of the 35 1.8. I would like to see that stay consistent as new midsumer primes are deployed.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
114
98
I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. :)

I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.
We'll see in a few days, but how likely is it that we will have:
100-400mm be in the F4.5-5.6 range
and then suddenly 400-500mm in the 5.6-7.1 range?
Shaped almost like an exponential curve? Not impossible... sure... but I wouldn't count on it.
 

Freddell

EOS M50
Oct 2, 2014
46
5
The main problem with the argument is that it isn't the lens to compare with.
It's a different lens that Canon hasn't provided an alternative to just yet.
It is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS which is the closest alternative, let's take a look.


SpecificationCanon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USMSony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS
Weight1370g (3.02lbs)1395g (3.07lbs)
Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")93.9mm (3.7") x 205mm (8.07")
Filter Size77mm77mm
Elements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups22 Elements in 16 Groups
Minimum focusing distance0.9m (2.95')0.98m (3.22')
Pricing$2999 (speculation)$2499

Seems reasonable if it can match it with the wider range.
That's a spot on comparison! They seem to be practically identical!
With the RF mount maybe the geometry managed to squeeze out som additional range.
Before we bash RF100-500 for aperture at 500mm it would be interesting to compare to Sony FE 100-400 where they overlap.
Maybe the RF is 5.6 at 400mm??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
114
98
++++If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus...

if we are at 6.3 at 400mm then the extra reach of 100mm at the long end and slow F7 aperture costed you $2000 Just for those 100mm. Suggesting you are better of upgrading to R5 for an extra $1000 and cropping to 500mm framing. And still be better off.
for the record, Sigma or Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 is smaller lighter and priced at around $600.
with a very reasonable IQ for a F6.3 lens.
Hopefully there will be many benefits that would justify the price premium. Some examples of these would be:
  • Better IQ (sharpness, colors, contrast, etc.)
  • More pleasing bokeh
  • Faster autofocus
  • Compatibility with High Speed Continuous Shooting
  • Better Dual IS capabilities
  • Better TC compatibility
  • Higher max magnification
  • No need for adapter
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,070
712
That's a spot on comparison! They seem to be practically identical!
With the RF mount maybe the geometry managed to squeeze out som additional range.
Before we bash RF100-500 for aperture at 500mm it would be interesting to compare to Sony FE 100-400 where they overlap.
Maybe the RF is 5.6 at 400mm??
A 1.25x teleconverter makes a 400mm 5.6 into a 500mm 7.1, so it is entirely possible that they are an exact match at the same focal lengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddell

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
272
195
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.
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with you. I'd say 'certain types of wildlife'.

The canon isMUCH lighter than the sony, which is important if, for example, hiking, with nearly as much reach.
It's got a much better magnification for things you can get closer to, like butterflies, etc, making it better for that sort of 'wildlife'.

I'd personally favour the 100-500 over the 200-600 given these tradeoffs.

Also, I'm not in the market for either. I'll stick with my 100-400 II with the RF adapter. Not worth the upgrade to me at the moment :) (And I swapped out the tamron 150-600 in favour of the 100-400. Less reach, but better sharpness and much smaller made the tradeoff well worth it to me.)

But I'm very intrigued as to what the image quality will be like for the 800 f11 given that price. I wasn't planning on buying one, but if the image quality is decent, the price and weight/size make it more interesting to me than I'd expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob and padam

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
272
195
It is about the damn setting you can do at the lens!
For example:
1. Close to 10/15m. 2. Above 10/15m and 3. Complete range!
But Canon has only # 2 & 3... only everything and far... that is a big design fail for a NEW and >3.000& lens!
The point of the focus limiter switch on tele lenses was to improve focusing speed and accuracy over the zoom range, given how slow some of these could be to focus when they had to hunt over the entire range. They were a solution to a problem *that should not exist*. How many times have you had the focus limiter in the wrong setting when it was nudged by accident and missed that shot? :)

If this lens has only two settings, it's likely that it's going to focus damn fast and accurately; and you don't NEED more toggles to fiddle with, or get wrong.

Needing to have 3 switch settings is celebrating a failure.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
114
98
The point of the focus limiter switch on tele lenses was to improve focusing speed and accuracy over the zoom range, given how slow some of these could be to focus when they had to hunt over the entire range. They were a solution to a problem *that should not exist*. How many times have you had the focus limiter in the wrong setting when it was nudged by accident and missed that shot? :)

If this lens has only two settings, it's likely that it's going to focus damn fast and accurately; and you don't NEED more toggles to fiddle with, or get wrong.

Needing to have 3 switch settings is celebrating a failure.
I hope you are right!
Though this would suggest that autofocus on the new 85mm macro lens might struggle a bit if it needs this extra focus limiter position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

smr

I'm New Here
Jan 24, 2017
23
3
I'd love the 100-500 Lens. Fantastic focal length range and it's an L lens so the IQ is going to be fantastic. It's a bit too expensive for me though, I think considering the 100-400 MK2 is £1,300 grey then I'd probably buy that instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM