Here are some new lens images and early pricing

Go Wild

EOS RP
Dec 8, 2014
284
342
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.
True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1

Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!

I do value the reducing weight and size, but that is not everything....For a L lens and like someone mentioned some posts behind,I think Canon can´t canibalize important things like aperture just to bring down size and weight. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a great thing, but...what matters most for a professional is if at the end of the day you can get a shot with the highest quality you can...F7.1 it´s not the end of the world....But it´ starting to be... :D Unless the new R bodies are insane at ISO levels...

I dont want to be unfair with Canon, I do value the new lens and the new ways of bringing lenses to the market with less weight and size...But boy...3300€... For me, the right price is around 2600€/2700€ for this type of lens.

And don´t come with the thing that we dont know the aperture at 400mm. If I buy a 500mm is to use at 500 with quality!! :D
 

highdesertmesa

EOS R6 | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
304
358
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
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.
And it's likely the 100-400 II will take another price dive in the coming days. Makes me think about getting one and keeping my R versus the R5 + 100-500.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,397
265
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
I can understand that for most people, the value of the 100-400 II will be greater than the RF 100-500 at launch. The 100-400 II is so good already that I'm not sure how much IQ, bokeh and the slightly higher max magnification would sway people to get the RF. The faster dedicated RF communication could improve AF, IS and some other function, but that is also an incremental gain. I think the extra 100mm and the slight weight decrease are the primary drivers especially if it can maintain f/5.6 at 400mm.

I think that the wildcard are the new TCs. The latest EF ones were released a decade ago, and optical technologies have improved markedly since then. If the 100-500 + RF 1.4x TC can deliver excellent IQ, then it becomes a viable option to the 150-600 zooms. 700mm at f/10 vs. 600mm at f/6.3 but in a much smaller/lighter package with significant more range at the wider end.
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
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!
Curious why you need to set a 100-500 lens to only focus on close subjects? I get that it's important to you but what are some of the rest of us missing? I'm at an age where whenever I use a focus limiter, I forget that I set it and then miss a shot due to focus lock-out. Maybe it's me. ;)
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,397
265
True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1

Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!

I do value the reducing weight and size, but that is not everything....For a L lens and like someone mentioned some posts behind,I think Canon can´t canibalize important things like aperture just to bring down size and weight. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a great thing, but...what matters most for a professional is if at the end of the day you can get a shot with the highest quality you can...F7.1 it´s not the end of the world....But it´ starting to be... :D Unless the new R bodies are insane at ISO levels...

I dont want to be unfair with Canon, I do value the new lens and the new ways of bringing lenses to the market with less weight and size...But boy...3300€... For me, the right price is around 2600€/2700€ for this type of lens.

And don´t come with the thing that we dont know the aperture at 400mm. If I buy a 500mm is to use at 500 with quality!! :D
The reason why this is such an issue is because Canon doesn't have a direct competitor to the 150/200-600 zooms or to Nikon's 200-500. Nikon not only has the 200-500 but also has the 80-400. Sony not only has the 200-600 but also its own 100-400. Canon RF will have only the 100-500... for now. And guess what, the 80-400 and 100-400 from Sony and Nikon cost more than their 200-500 and 200-600, so what kind of value do the 80-400 and 100-400 deliver? For your application, those lenses are worthless, but Canon/Sony/Nikon still decided to make them.

Canon might make a direct competitor to the consumer 150/200-500/600s in the future. I hope so, but I don't think of the RF 100-500 as such. There is room between the 100-500 and the RF 600 and 800 f/11s for something else because right now, Canon's solution for that range is big, heavy and expensive: the 200-400L with the internal 1.4x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Wild

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,049
3,152
120
True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1

Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!

I do value the reducing weight and size, but that is not everything....For a L lens and like someone mentioned some posts behind,I think Canon can´t canibalize important things like aperture just to bring down size and weight. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a great thing, but...what matters most for a professional is if at the end of the day you can get a shot with the highest quality you can...F7.1 it´s not the end of the world....But it´ starting to be... :D Unless the new R bodies are insane at ISO levels...

I dont want to be unfair with Canon, I do value the new lens and the new ways of bringing lenses to the market with less weight and size...But boy...3300€... For me, the right price is around 2600€/2700€ for this type of lens.

And don´t come with the thing that we dont know the aperture at 400mm. If I buy a 500mm is to use at 500 with quality!! :D
I'm not arguing the pricing structure Canon believe they can or need to charge, or your willingness, or not, to pay that. I am merely pointing out that comparisons between disparate lenses of unknown IQ are problematic. Take it one step further the 200-400 f4 has a very small multiple yet is over $10,000 by which the 100-500 seems like a bargain. We all have budgets and we all have desires, if we are lucky they overlap, but with the choices out there even if they don't we generally still have options.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
268
195
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.
Interesting point!

I imagine that this is because it's a 'half macro' - which means it focuses from very close to quite far. Which means it may end up hunting over a much larger range than other 85mm that don't focus as close. So in this case, the limiter might be very useful as a way to indicate whether or not you want 'macro mode'.

And yeah, it would still be better if it didn't need that switch at all :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
CR Pro
May 16, 2020
143
245
How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.
Looks the same as what's on the bodies and grips. If it's the same as what's on the EOS R, it feels pretty nice.
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
704
869
www.instagram.com
I was interested in the 100-500 regardless of the f/7.1, but it does seem like a steep price all things considered, though maybe worth it when we see how it performs.

As someone who hikes with way too much gear, I guess the thing that keeps ringing in my mind is that this does create some interesting options for pairing with other lenses to maximize zoom ranges, minimize the number of lenses to cary, and maintains somewhat lower weight. For instance, if I wanted my bag to have all zoom ranges from ~16mm-500mm (or more), I can do it in 3 lenses with this system (15-35, 24-105, 100-500). Every other system seems (off the top of my head - I very well could be wrong) to need 4 lenses (or will maintain a gap in zoom range or not make it to 500mm), and each system's heaviest lens will be plenty heavier than the 100-500. For instance, with Nikon I may be looking at 14-24, 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-500. Sony, 16-35 (or 12-24), 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-600. Or sub out any of the big lenses for the Sigma or Tamron offerings.

Whether or not I should be carrying all of that is a different question entirely, but I can see that setup being attractive for a very specific use case.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
570
631
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
have many observed a difference in autofocus accuracy between native and non-native glass on R-mount bodies?
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
570
631
How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.
Better grip out in the rain. My next question: how good is the weather sealing on the R5 and R6?
 

Go Wild

EOS RP
Dec 8, 2014
284
342
I'm not arguing the pricing structure Canon believe they can or need to charge, or your willingness, or not, to pay that. I am merely pointing out that comparisons between disparate lenses of unknown IQ are problematic. Take it one step further the 200-400 f4 has a very small multiple yet is over $10,000 by which the 100-500 seems like a bargain. We all have budgets and we all have desires, if we are lucky they overlap, but with the choices out there even if they don't we generally still have options.
Yes you are totally right, that´s also why I pointed it is just m opinion based on my needs or expectations! ;) Yes, I do believe there is room for this lens and maybe it´s quite a good option for some users!

But I was with hope that the price was more low than this, if it was lower I would consider this one, but for this price I gain extra muscle and resistance and carry the big one all the time!!! :D :D :D

Boy I Am really anxious for thursday!!! Can´t wait to see those gorgeous R5 and 6! I will not complain on those ones!! :D :D :D
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
I was interested in the 100-500 regardless of the f/7.1, but it does seem like a steep price all things considered, though maybe worth it when we see how it performs.

As someone who hikes with way too much gear, I guess the thing that keeps ringing in my mind is that this does create some interesting options for pairing with other lenses to maximize zoom ranges, minimize the number of lenses to cary, and maintains somewhat lower weight. For instance, if I wanted my bag to have all zoom ranges from ~16mm-500mm (or more), I can do it in 3 lenses with this system (15-35, 24-105, 100-500). Every other system seems (off the top of my head - I very well could be wrong) to need 4 lenses (or will maintain a gap in zoom range or not make it to 500mm), and each system's heaviest lens will be plenty heavier than the 100-500. For instance, with Nikon I may be looking at 14-24, 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-500. Sony, 16-35 (or 12-24), 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-600. Or sub out any of the big lenses for the Sigma or Tamron offerings.

Whether or not I should be carrying all of that is a different question entirely, but I can see that setup being attractive for a very specific use case.
I have similar concerns, but for me, it is more about one-bag travel than just hiking. The key question will be the IQ and focus performance of the 100-500. If it matches or exceeds the 100-400 II on the R bodies while being smaller and lighter than the EF lens + adapter combo, it is a slam dunk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556 and amorse
Sep 5, 2018
2
3
I was keeping an eye on the RF 100-500 but if that is the price, I’m happy to stay with my EF 100-400 II lens with control ring adapter. I can’t imagine IQ a whole lot better. My current 100-400 lens is heavier, bigger with adapter but I paid less than $1,700 for both. If the new RF 100-500 gets under $2,000 by Christmas I’ll relook it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz and JoeDavid

Max C

Canon 60D
Feb 9, 2020
108
116
Also are these new addition STM lenses weather sealed, because the 35 was not!

I don't understand the exuberance about the 85 f2. The only thing hardware wise is that it has IS, but does that really matter when the R6 and R5 have IBIS?

Don't mean to be a downer, but this should have been $500 max price. Possibly $450 on sale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

subtraho

Birds and Macro
CR Pro
Nov 20, 2018
29
42
Maryland
www.flickr.com
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.
I'm one of the odd Sony converts who kept all of their Canon glass after making the jump, and I've been looking closely at the R5 as a way to work my way back into the Canon ecosystem, but the High Speed Display issue on the R and RP genuinely worries me. If I attach my (still-beloved) EF 100-400Lii and get a slideshow trying to shoot birds, it's going to be very difficult to convince myself to keep the camera over my existing gear - especially given the rumored price of the RF 100-500.

On the other hand, I have to imagine that (given the upgraded AF and 12/20 fps burst rate) this is probably the first Canon mirrorless that the DSLR loyalists with big white lenses I see down at Conowingo are paying any real attention to, as a 7Dii replacement or as a second body alongside their 1DX models. (I realize it is meant to be a 5D replacement first and foremost, but with these specs it should make a pretty good 7D replacement too) Canon has to have made the realization that if one of those folks attaches their EF 600 f/4 or 800 f5.6 to the R5 and gets a slideshow, word will quickly get out and it's not going to go well for sales to that crowd. So, maybe they have fixed it? Time will tell.
 
Last edited: