Point taken, but I am more comparing this to the recently released Rokinon RF AF 85 f1. 4, which is weather sealed very well for $699. I just don't see the value in this offering of the Canon RF 85 f2. Maybe it will appeal more to EOS R users who don't have IBIS. But for me the R6 and R5 have IBIS, I rather the faster 1.4 AF weather sealed lense from Rokinon for a similar price.
I think Canon's consumer lenses are extremely good. My original 100 Macro was a non-L lens with excellent build and performance.RF 85 is not a L lens, while 100-500 is a L lens, and more expensive. The Sony 200-600 is a consumer zoom even though the image quality is very good. I would guess that the build quality of the 100-500 is in another league compared to the Sony 200-600. You are comparing apples to oranges. You can compare the Canon 100-500 to Sony 100-400.
It's a big deal to those of us who bought an R or RP and don't want to upgrade our camera bodies after less than 2 years.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.
Yea I figured it will be more appealing to the EOS R users who don't have IBIS. I would be content too, if I owned an EOS R. But for the R6 and R5 the AF Rokinon is a better option for me.It's a big deal to those of us who bought an R or RP and don't want to upgrade our camera bodies after less than 2 years.
The Rokinon does seem pretty spectacular for the price. Now if only Rokinon would port over their little autofocusing pancake lenses to RF....Yea I figured it will be more appealing to the EOS R users who don't have IBIS. I would be content too, if I owned an EOS R. But for the R6 and R5 the AF Rokinon is a better option for me.
Why does that matter?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.
The first four RF lenses released (28-70, 50 1.2, 35 1.8, and 24-105 4.0) are 2 months shy of 2 years old and still sell for their original price. There, just saved you money....If the new RF 100-500 gets under $2,000 by Christmas I’ll relook it.
Billybob, welcome back. I too took a walkabout, mine through Panasonic and Sony lands. The one quibble I have with your post is that I don't think the Sony 200-600 is in the same league as the third party 150-600s. It may be a G lens, but I own it and the 600mm GM f/4, and aside from aperture, the 200-600 really holds its own. I've been out in the rain innumerable times, and it has been as tough as my 600 f/4. I would say that if the 100-400 II is an L lens, then the 200-600 should qualify as that level as well.As I stated above, the Sony is a G lens, which is a step down from the Sony "Grand Master" lenses. The Sony is more comparable to the Sigma 150-600 S or Nikon 200-500.
I love my Sony 200-600, but I have to say it has a good portion of its weight at the tippy end of it's very, very long barrel. It's not the easiest hiking lens. For that I miss my old 100-400 II, which gave me many a good "macro" shot on the trails too. I think the 100-500, if it has the same IQ as the previous Canon and the current Sony 200-600 would be preferable.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.