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

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

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

Thanks, just checked on TDP, it is the 2nd to use dual nano USM.

 

[Billybob]

Hate to burst your bubble, but have a look at Gordon's preview: View attachment 191207

I hope that Laing's sample was an early pre-production model that got adjusted in the release model.

Regardless, f/6.3 at 400mm is no big deal. I'm more excited that f/6.3 is maintained very close to 500mm.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Price, weight/portability, image quality. Pick any 2. If you want the same apertures at the same FLs as on the 100-400, the lens would weigh & cost more.

 

[Billybob]

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

I'm actually excited about the 100-500. Yes, it is expensive, but there is a premium paid for compact size and the best, fastest AF available.

I do agree with you that I'd like to see an affordable super telephoto that is a bit more serious than the new f/11 versions. An 800 8.0 would be nice, but I'd welcome an oddball 700 7.1 DO (or why not a 700 6.3 DO? I can carry a bit more weight around) that wasn't fixed aperture like the f/11 lenses.

 

[Eclipsed]

I’d welcome some more light long primes with 95mm filter size. But down at 300-400.

 

[AlanF]

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

The other supertelephoto zooms I use have discrete jumps of f-number rather than smooth changes. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm, it would show f/5.6 at 400mm. Not that it worries me much if it is f/6.3 at 400mm rather than f/5.6. (I was about to upload the same screenshot!) By the way, the weight of the lens with tripod ring attached is 1.525 kg, only only 130 g less than the 100-400mm II, not 200 g as he says in the review.

 

[Maximilian]

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

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

Okay?!

Would be funny, if the ambassadors and tech people in the official (!) Canon "REIMAGINE" show don't tell the truth, but time will tell when other reviews come...
I am open to be convinced...

 

[AlanF]

Okay?!

Would be funny, if the ambassadors and tech people in the official (!) Canon "REIMAGINE" show don't tell the truth, but time will tell when other reviews come...
I am open to be convinced...

I'm convinced. Figures like the one shown by Cameralabs have been prepared by the Canon tech people. Where are the mtfs?

 

[SteveC]

Per someone in a different thread, if the camera is set to half stop increments, instead of third stop increments, it does show f/5.6 @ 400.

Which tells me the number the camera shows is not "conservative" so "f/5.6" could mean anything better than f/6.0 for instance, rather than meaning "at least as good as f/5.6".

 

[privatebydesign]

 

[usern4cr]

View attachment 191257

This is probably the best I've seen for a lens to keep the wider aperture throughout it's range. Normally zoom lenses quickly stop down to the smallest aperture so fast that the wide aperture value hardly matters. But this really keeps a good wide aperture far into the telephoto range - much more than I'd ever expect.

I preordered the 100-500 before I saw this, so I'm *really* happy to see this chart!

Well done, Canon!

 

[Bdbtoys]

One thing that was bugging me about the chart was it almost looked logarithmic at first... but then after dropping the values into excel I see where the issue was. The chart as posted appears to start at 100mm... but the values in that chart actually start at zero... so it makes the f4.5 range (and total mm) look much bigger than it is and skewing everything else. If I plug the values into a new chart, it looks more like what I would expect.

 

[Bdbtoys]

The more I think of it, the more I like this lens vs the DO's (if I had to choose between them).

This by itself gets you to 'close' to the 600mm DO at a much better fstop.
This with a 1.4 TC gets you past the 600mm DO and 'close' to the 800mm DO at a better fstop.
This with the 2.0 TC gets you past the 800mm at a slightly worse fstop but it would cover the range of the DO's (w/o TC of course) w/ less bag room.
This plus an R5 with just running in crop mode for 160-800 w/o the fstop penalty... but at a resolution just under the R (but over a R6).

I could see carrying the 100-500 for the versatility paired with a 2x TC for the optional 600-1000mm reach... and foregoing the DO's... and if running crop could get you up to 1600.

Guess it all depends on the TC IQ.