Here are the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM

[Bonich]

Still, like many were hoping for the superteles to take advantage of the RF mount, maybe bit lighter, shorter and a control ring.
But I guess that's asking for too much. And no cripple hammer. Too much?

How should the flange distance help a telephoto lens to become shorter?
You can design a telephoto lens as short as you want to make it based on lens technology without any restrictions for a DSLR, so the RF version will be just the distance longer you know from the RF-EF adapter.

The 300 and 500 lenses have to do the Gen II step, possibly add on DO design (500 F4??)

 

[H. Jones]

More likely that the 300 and 500mm lenses will get a complete redesign but the 400 and 600 will stay as it is, because those lenses are barely 2 years old. What could a complete redesign achieve?

To add to this on top of my previous point, the EF mount could be kept alive with full lens-repair support with only 45 lenses for a decade or two to come, 16-35mm F/2.8L III(maybe), 24-70 F/2.8L II(the only EF lens I could *maybe* see getting another update to keep it supported), 70-200 F/2.8L IS III, 400mm F/2.8L IS III, 600mm F/4L IS III.

If even just the EF 400 and 600 IS III are kept supported as long as the new RF mount ones, the hold-out bird/sports photographers will still always have their "must-have" long glass available to them. I don't think the same could be said for Nikon, and definitely not for Sony. Canon could basically have a a monopoly on DSLR 400/600mm big whites in a decade, which will be a non-zero number of birders/sports photogs who refuse to switch to mirrorless.

Whereas, the 300mm F/2.8 and 500mm F/4 are not exactly "must-have" lenses for the same photogs. People definitely buy them, but most often as a lower cost/lower weight alternative to the 400/600. A mirrorless version of either lens would make sense as a compromise.

 

[blackcoffee17]

To add to this on top of my previous point, the EF mount could be kept alive with full lens-repair support with only 45 lenses for a decade or two to come, 16-35mm F/2.8L III(maybe), 24-70 F/2.8L II(the only EF lens I could *maybe* see getting another update to keep it supported), 70-200 F/2.8L IS III, 400mm F/2.8L IS III, 600mm F/4L IS III.

If even just the EF 400 and 600 IS III are kept supported as long as the new RF mount ones, the hold-out bird/sports photographers will still always have their "must-have" long glass available to them. I don't think the same could be said for Nikon, and definitely not for Sony. Canon could basically have a a monopoly on DSLR 400/600mm big whites in a decade, which will be a non-zero number of birders/sports photogs who refuse to switch to mirrorless.

Whereas, the 300mm F/2.8 and 500mm F/4 are not exactly "must-have" lenses for the same photogs. People definitely buy them, but most often as a lower cost/lower weight alternative to the 400/600. A mirrorless version of either lens would make sense as a compromise.

Still a strange decision to discontinue the relatively new 70-200 F4 IS.

 

[H. Jones]

Still a strange decision to discontinue the relatively new 70-200 F4 IS.

I see that decision as part of the same strategy to push people who want lighter weight options towards mirrorless, especially considering how much smaller/lighter the RF 70-200 F/4L IS is, but keeping the heaviest glass available for DSLR users for as long as they exist. The 70-200 F/4L IS was always the lower cost/weight option for the EF mount, but now the RF version is even lighter.

 

[Canfan]

I was expecting a wee bit more than just a bit of silver. But these two where recently redesigned.

Agree with you at this price point think the customer expects more. Like the 600 mkii to mkiii. The reduced weight was welcomed not so much a change in shade of white. Lol.
Many pro stayed with their version 2 for that reason. Even buying new right now you can pick these up at a lower cost and paint your adapter silver or gold and done.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

My blush response to the silver extension was this looks like a fake, but...

IIRC, its been noted in this site's forums that design of super teles doesn't benefit from shorter flange distance. Also, Canon has released new versions of the 400mm f/2.8 & 600mm f/4 in late '18, barely 2.5 years ago. That's a big R&D and manufacturing facilities investment Canon needs to recoup.

So I wouldn't be the least surprised if the RF versions upgrade would be limited to the mount electronics, AF motor, and 24mm extension.

Exactly what I was thinking. By the looks of it, it's a rear end replacement using the same optical formula of the current ef 400mm f2.8 II LIS. It probably means that the ef mkIII is side-gradable to the RF version

 

[vrpanorama.ca]

well I do not see any difference in quality and size, only a new end adapter... I might be wrong but it looks like here they took the short cut

 

[Antono Refa]

Still, like many were hoping for the superteles to take advantage of the RF mount, maybe bit lighter, shorter and a control ring.

And how would Canon take advantage of the RF mount to make the superteles lighter & shorter?

 

[frankchn]

Still, like many were hoping for the superteles to take advantage of the RF mount, maybe bit lighter, shorter and a control ring.
But I guess that's asking for too much. And no cripple hammer. Too much?

Telephotos can't take advantage of the shorter flange distance, or else you would see the Sony 400 / 600 supertelephotos being significantly shorter or lighter than the EF 400/600 IS III, and they aren't.

The EF supertelephotos already have focus preset playback rings in front of the focus ring. I think they can probably just re-engineer that part to be a control ring.

 

[Canfan]

Telephotos can't take advantage of the shorter flange distance, or else you would see the Sony 400 / 600 supertelephotos being significantly shorter or lighter than the EF 400/600 IS III, and they aren't.

The EF supertelephotos already have focus preset playback rings in front of the focus ring. I think they can probably just re-engineer that part to be a control ring.

But the RF mount is also wider as well. That must count for something? Im not an engineer but there must be a reason canon went with the wider RF mount.
The engineers must of thought that this would be a tremendous advantage to the canon ecosystem down the road.

 

[Gloads]

To add to this on top of my previous point, the EF mount could be kept alive with full lens-repair support with only 45 lenses for a decade or two to come, 16-35mm F/2.8L III(maybe), 24-70 F/2.8L II(the only EF lens I could *maybe* see getting another update to keep it supported), 70-200 F/2.8L IS III, 400mm F/2.8L IS III, 600mm F/4L IS III.

If even just the EF 400 and 600 IS III are kept supported as long as the new RF mount ones, the hold-out bird/sports photographers will still always have their "must-have" long glass available to them. I don't think the same could be said for Nikon, and definitely not for Sony. Canon could basically have a a monopoly on DSLR 400/600mm big whites in a decade, which will be a non-zero number of birders/sports photogs who refuse to switch to mirrorless.

Whereas, the 300mm F/2.8 and 500mm F/4 are not exactly "must-have" lenses for the same photogs. People definitely buy them, but most often as a lower cost/lower weight alternative to the 400/600. A mirrorless version of either lens would make sense as a compromise.

I think supporting older EF lenses for RF bodies is not a long-term strategy for Canon, although they are marketing it this way now to increase adoption by selling investment protection. In reality my EF400 F/2.8 USM IS (13lb v1 boat anchor) crashes the R5 every 1000 or so shots. Canon Support's stance is that the lens is the cause, and is no longer serviced. Translated, that means it is NOT supported. Why a lens issue should result in a camera hang requiring battery removal is something they can't or won't answer.

Still a bit bitter over the AF FU on the 1D3, I pushed, and they are willing to recheck the R5 with the lens attached if I send both in, which is a fair approach if it results in a solution. They hinted they may be able to get the factory to apply new FW to the lens, but could not otherwise as it is no longer serviced.

In the end they can only support products so long.

 

[frankchn]

But the RF mount is also wider as well. That must count for something? Im not an engineer but there must be a reason canon went with the wider RF mount.
The engineers must of thought that this would be a tremendous advantage to the canon ecosystem down the road.

The wider mount again help wider angle lenses, where you can now have rays coming in at a shallower angle to the image sensor from a wider rear element. The current supertelephoto designs have light coming in basically perpendicular to the sensor anyway, and so long as the lens mount is wider than the diagonal of the sensor, you are fine. Having a wider mount doesn't confer any additional advantage.

The advantages of the wider and shallower RF mount are still most apparent in wider angle designs (e.g. the 28-70L, 50L, 15-35L, etc...) designs, where it provides lens designers with a lot more flexibility.

 

[H. Jones]

I think supporting older EF lenses for RF bodies is not a long-term strategy for Canon, although they are marketing it this way now to increase adoption by selling investment protection. In reality my EF400 F/2.8 USM IS (13lb v1 boat anchor) crashes the R5 every 1000 or so shots. Canon Support's stance is that the lens is the cause, and is no longer serviced. Translated, that means it is NOT supported. Why a lens issue should result in a camera hang requiring battery removal is something they can't or won't answer.

Still a bit bitter over the AF FU on the 1D3, I pushed, and they are willing to recheck the R5 with the lens attached if I send both in, which is a fair approach if it results in a solution. They hinted they may be able to get the factory to apply new FW to the lens, but could not otherwise as it is no longer serviced.

In the end they can only support products so long.

I never really meant supporting them for RF bodies longterm, but instead to sell to the people who hang onto DSLRs for as long as Canon sells them. A decade from now there will still be stragglers using 5D mark IVs and 1DX mark IIIs(or any future DSLR, if there is one) that expect their $12,000 400mm F/2.8L IS III they bought in 2020 to still be serviceable in 2030 and beyond. That will be far easier for Canon to promise since the new RF mount versions are likely using the same components. They could even stop selling the EF mount version but continue to service the EF lenses for probably 5-10 years after the RF ones finally get upgraded.

 

[frankchn]

Nokishita just published the product description:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1382075982450810884

for the RF 400/2.8L, and it confirms the same optical design.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

A few "snippets" from Nokishita's latest tweets:

The specifications of RF400mm are 17 elements in 13 groups, minimum 2.5m, maximum 0.17 times, filter diameter insertion 52mm, φ163x367mm, 2.89kg.
Optically Identical to EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens. The latest EF version of the 400mm f/2.8L IS lens, introduced in late 2018, preserved the legendary sharpness of previous EF400mm f/2.8L lenses, but with a dramatic reduction in overall weight.

RF600mm is 17 elements in 13 groups, minimum 4.2m, maximum 0.15 times, filter diameter insertion 52mm, φ168x472mm, 3.09kg.

The specifications of the Canon RF100mm macro are 17 elements in 13 groups, minimum shooting distance 0.26m, maximum shooting magnification 1.4x, camera shake correction effect 5 steps (EOS R) / 8 steps (EOS R5), filter diameter 67mm, size. It seems to be φ81.5x148mm and weigh 730g.
Spherical Aberration (SA) Control Ring Allows Adjustments to Shape and Character of
Foreground/Background Bokeh
The RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM features Canon’s first adjustable Spherical Aberration (SA) control ring
on the lens barrel that allows you to adjust the depiction of the image’s background bokeh. Used to add a unique
emphasis to your imagery, the SA Control Ring allows the user to change the shape and character of the foreground
and background bokeh. A minus setting creates a dreamy, soft-focused look, while a Plus setting creates a
bubble-bokeh-type look.
...
The RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM is equipped with dual independent Nano USMs to help achieve
high-speed and focus accuracy throughout its focusing range.

 

[Methodical]

Well, this will save me $13k if true. I guess I will get a 2nd mirrorless R5.

 

[David_D]

the white ring at the end closer to the mount might be control ring.

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but I just read some of the new super-tele promotional material...

Unlike other RF lenses, though, the RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm F4L IS USM don't feature a dedicated control ring – but there's a good reason for that. "When you're holding a big lens, having a ring at the back wouldn't make sense as you want your hand to stay at the front," explains Mike. "That's why the focusing ring can double as a control ring. It's a more logical place for your hand to sit when using these lenses."

from: https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/news/rf-telephoto-lenses/