Here are some new lens images and early pricing

[subtraho]

Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?

Technically the 400 f/4 DO isn't an L lens and is weather sealed, but given the price, optics, and build it might as well be one.

 

[mangobutter]

So are we thinking Canon RF 85 F2 IS = $749 USD?

 

[deleteme]

The prices on the long lenses are what I was expecting and will really make them best sellers.
Yes they are f11 but the vast number of people out there are not hard core spec whores and will easily justify the money for a toy like that.

 

[Max TT]

Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?

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.

 

[deleteme]

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.

I think Canon's consumer lenses are extremely good. My original 100 Macro was a non-L lens with excellent build and performance.
In some cases I might need an L lens because it is the only option. But I would be happy to have this 85 as a killer all round lens.

 

[deleteme]

Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?

For all the attention given weather sealing one might be forgiven for thinking all photographers were idiots that only ventured out in inclement weather.

 

[BakaBokeh]

As an owner of only L RF Lenses, the 85 f2 looks so appealingly light.

 

[LLW902]

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.

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.

 

[JoeDavid]

A lot of people on here don’t seem to know the following equations:

Lens + weather sealed + hood + pouch + $$$$ = Canon L series lens
Lens + $$ = Canon non-L lens

 

[Max TT]

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.

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.

 

[LLW902]

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.

The Rokinon does seem pretty spectacular for the price. Now if only Rokinon would port over their little autofocusing pancake lenses to RF....

 

[Nelu]

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.

Why does that matter?
It's not like the High Speed Display EVF does such a great job anyways; at least not for me, on my EOS-R!
Fast action photography with that camera sucks for two reasons:

1. EVF, high-speed or not
2. Maximum burst rate of 3 fps with AF tracking

I do find it challenging and that's why I keep using it; to hone my skills for BIF photography with a mirrorless camera.
When I really need results no matter what, I'll use my 1 DX Mark III.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

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.

No, it's not just you! Been there, done that.

 

[HenryL]

...If the new RF 100-500 gets under $2,000 by Christmas I’ll relook it.

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.

But seriously, maybe I've been away from forums too long, but there's a lot of folks expecting price drops in this soon-to-be announced gear by Black Friday, etc. Is that realistic at this point? Since I have the 2.8 trinity, 100 L Macro and 100-400II in EF, I don't plan to start off duplicating or replacing any of those. I'll pick up the 50 or the 85 1.2 for the holidays and (hopefully) they'll have some rebates in place by then for these early RF lenses.

Anyway, whatever gear y'all decide to get (or not), enjoy the new toys.

 

[brad-man]

A wide non L prime next please. An RF 24 f/2.0 IS would be nice...

 

[Jethro]

Tick to the price of the long primes (which will likely include UK VAT), now fingers crossed about the IQ!

 

[David - Sydney]

I am concerned about the 100-500mm price as well. I had planned to get R5 + 100-500mm (deposit in Feb!) but at this price it would be a AUD10K+ hit on day one (+ memory cards etc on top). I had EF 70-200mm f2.8L + 1.4x and 2x TCs when I wanted the occasional extra reach but sold my TCs (and sonn my EF70-200) so it means that I have no option for anything >200mm now (R5 + crop aside) without spending a lot of money.
The price of a new EF 100-400mm lens + new RF 1.4TC + RF adaptor would still be cheaper. Hard to say which would be better overall. Probably will be good quality second hand EF 100-400mm with people upgrading making the value of the F100-500mm less obvious.
There hasn't been any specific price reductions on RF glass in Australia but there has been discounts store wide so maybe make a decision Christmas / Boxing Day sales.

 

[dwarven]

I’ll probably be picking up the 800mm prime and wait for everything else to come down in price. Unless the 100-500 is exceptionally good, I don’t see it staying at that price for long.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

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.

So I will be comparing it to the 100-500 with hopes that it has similar image quality and build. The reduced length and size will be very welcome. The 200-600 did suffer from one major design flaw, which was that the strap lugs were oddly placed very close to the camera mount. This made it never quite balance correctly when hung from a strap, unless you wrapped the strap under the lens foot.

The max magnification will also be very welcome. I missed that a great deal since selling my 100-400 II.

 

[[email protected]]

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 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.