Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM

[ahsanford]

Price just was pushed out: £2,899

No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD

- A

 

[FrenchFry]

I don’t understand Canon and those new lenses....
Why they don’t give us the possibility to separate the focus distance more.... with a 3rd option for under 10/15m?!?! I don’t get it... it is a L lens nothing cheap ... this should have standard features like the Sigma 150-600 and Sony 200-600 has...
my hope was strong for a really nice Tele zoom for RF but this... isn’t what I expected! A cheap copy of an 100-400 for RF, nothing special. NOTHING to beat the current 150-600/200-600 or 200-500 lenses of the other players!!

Now that the prices have been previewed, we know that this lens is not particularly cheap. It will be interesting to see if this lens offers something that the others don't, beyond size and weight. The IQ, bokeh, etc. might be special enough on this lens to warrant a purchase. We'll find out soon whether the lens earns its L badge and warrants its high price tag, or whether the lens isn't quite attractive enough to convince EF lens owners to upgrade.

 

[Trout Bum]

Price just was pushed out: £2,899

No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD

- A

YIKES!

 

[bbasiaga]

In regards to the f number not scaling, I think the missing piece is what size objective lens it takes to make that size image circle work at that focal length. The front lens elements on these things are typically 70-80-90mm, but producing an image circle (pupil as some call it) that is 25mm (F/4) or so. The wider the aperture the larger the objective diameter, and the more correction necessary, more elements, etc. now make all those elements also perform at 500mm, and how big/heavy do they have to be?

So I'd bet that the size of the front objective isn't right to correctly render an image at F2.8, at 100mm despite the pupil diameter it can make at F7.1 on 500mm.

-Brian

 

[usern4cr]

I noticed the weight of the RF 100-500 was listed as 1370g. But does anyone know if this includes the tripod collar and foot? I hope they mention this on Thursday, or else we get a slew of youtube reviews that do mention it.

 

[Fischer]

Is it for certain that the 70-200 RF will not take the TC's. Very disappointing if this is the case.

 

[Maarten]

mean->think? I'm guessing you mostly use Afrikaans and that Afrikaans is like German "was meinst Du" sounds like "mean" not "think"

Afrikaans is Dutch and Afrikaans.

 

[Whowe]

I have both EF version but impractical to travel with both.

I know, I have both in EF also. Need 70-200 for the 2.8 for indoor sports, but already had the 100-400 for the longer reach for wildlife/ birds. I will definitely be adapting for a while. I don't use the 70-200 enough to justify that purchase anytime soon with high school sports. The 100-500 probably has my name on it, but I'm not in a rush, so I can wait a little while and catch it on a price drop of second hand if reviews are good (which I expect.)

 

[Eclipsed]

1370g for the RF 100-500 weighs LESS than the RF28-70 f2.
It's a little more than half the weight of the EF 300mm F2.8 IS ii (I know very different, but a comparison for me)
It's 77% the weight of the EF100-400 on adapter.
It's only 14% heavier than the RF70-200 f2.8.

3 pounds of performance.

 

[fox40phil]

Really to expensive...

But sweet weight! With those technologies they could build much more nice lenses!
lets hope for some nice new 2.8 & 4.0f lenses >300mm!! How about a lightweight 800 8.0 DO. Would be a winner^^. Or a small 200-400 4.0 with 1.4tc

 

[CvH]

I know, I have both in EF also. Need 70-200 for the 2.8 for indoor sports, but already had the 100-400 for the longer reach for wildlife/ birds. I will definitely be adapting for a while. I don't use the 70-200 enough to justify that purchase anytime soon with high school sports. The 100-500 probably has my name on it, but I'm not in a rush, so I can wait a little while and catch it on a price drop of second hand if reviews are good (which I expect.)

I am in the same boat. I use the 70-200 F2.8 for portrait and like you, I don’t use it a lot.

I have the R and am planning to get the R5 if Canon fixes the EVF lag and blackout.

I will also get the RF 2.0 extender if the image quality is good and compatible with the EF100-400. I will eventually replace it with the RF100-500 if the image quality is as good or better than the EF100-400, and the price has come down.

 

[Whowe]

I am in the same boat. I use the 70-200 F2.8 for portrait and like you, I don’t use it a lot.

I have the R and am planning to get the R5 if Canon fixes the EVF lag and blackout.

I will also get the RF 2.0 extender if the image quality is good and compatible with the EF100-400. I will eventually replace it with the RF100-500 if the image quality is as good or better than the EF100-400, and the price has come down.

I would not expect the RF 2.0 extender to work with any EF lenses. I believe it will only work with RF lenses, specifically the 100-500, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.

 

[CvH]

I would not expect the RF 2.0 extender to work with any EF lenses. I believe it will only work with RF lenses, specifically the 100-500, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.

I know but I have the RF-EF adapter so I am hoping I can stack RF extender + RF-EF adapter + EF100+400 or EF70-200 when travelling.

 

[Canon-Chas]

I guess it's not an internal zoom like the Sony 200-600mm f5.6 - f6.3 ? A bit disappointing, surely they could have followed Sony ............

 

[Maximilian]

f/5.6 @ 400 mm was just confirmed in the "REIMAGINE - A Canon Premiere".

 

[koenkooi]

Hate to burst your bubble, but have a look at Gordon's preview:

 

[Eclipsed]

Those bar charts presumably misrepresent the facts because the f number presumably don't jump at the transitions but is a continuous function. Perhaps the bars represent "at least" those stated numbers.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

2nd Canon lens to have dual nano USM to drive the focusing group.

From TDP:
Focusing
Unless in manual focus mode, a lens's autofocus performance is an extremely important factor in realizing the image quality capability of a lens. To that point, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens, like the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens, gets an advanced, high-performing AF system driven by Dual Nano USM (Ultrasonic) focus motors.

While Canon has been designing Nano USM AF systems into the latest L-series RF lenses, this dual-motor design is being featured for only the second time in the RF 100-500. What Canon said about the RF 70-200 Dual Nano AF system again applies: "The lens also incorporates a floating focus control ... that drives the two lens groups individually while using the two aforementioned Nano USM motors. The floating focus lens element shortens focusing distance and helps reduce breathing, providing users with fast, consistent and reliable performance."

Nano USM acts like an ultra-fast version of STM AF, combining the benefits of a high-speed Ring USM actuator with an STM system stepping motor's quiet and smooth, direct, lead screw-type drive system. Like Ring USM driven AF systems, Nano USM focuses nearly instantly. Like STM AF systems, Nano USM focuses almost silently and very smoothly. Cameras featuring Dual Pixel CMOS AF and Movie Servo AF make video recording very easy, and Nano USM lenses are very well-suited for this task. The smooth focusing makes focus distance transitions easy on the viewer's eyes, and the sound of the lens focusing should not be picked up by the camera's mic.

 

[blackcoffee17]

First Canon lens to have dual nano USM to drive the focusing group.

I think the 70-200 is also dual nano USM.

 

[koenkooi]

Those bar charts presumably misrepresent the facts because the f number presumably don't jump at the transitions but is a continuous function. Perhaps the bars represent "at least" those stated numbers.

I'm assuming they represent the number that shows up in the EVF, which tends to be in 1/3 stops.