Here is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

[slclick]

I'll be buying this low end toy. A nice fit for my kit.

 

[xwxw]

I did a size comparison to the latest 70-300 EF. It's probably 1-2cm longer than the EF. I think we could expect similar optical performance.

 

[john1970]

For the price of $649 US this is a nice budget option that is low cost and lightweight. Glad to see that Canon is still releasing lenses as affordable alternatives to their L series.

 

[HenWin]

I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.

You don't say why it's "unusable in most situations", so your comment isn't very helpful.

 

[Kit.]

There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500.

There's a 100-400 II L.

 

[[email protected]]

I got the 600 f/11 for a remote outdoor setup, but this looks like it would be much better for same purpose - and more versatile (and probably more protectable). The price being this low makes it the best option.

 

[xwxw]

There's a 100-400 II L.

Great observation. And there are 3rd parties as well. Why would Canon be obligated to plug all the holes.

 

[hoodlum]

Canon is certainly setting up the lenses for a cheaper and more compact FF or APS-C RF body for next year.

 

[AlanF]

0.41x at 400mm for $649! If I didn't have the 100-500 already, I'd be getting this one for chasing dragonflies. And with the leftover money I can try to hire @AlanF to run the images through DxO PL for me

I am either free or very expensive! Anyway, I'll be getting this lens - my wife is beginning to struggle with the 100-400mm II, and I'll use it when I want a lightweight compact set up. f/8 doesn't worry me.

 

[xwxw]

I sold my 100-400 II last year for $1400. Happy to use half the proceeds towards this downsized/downgraded version. The weight savings will be worth the image degradation for my use scenarios.

 

[xwxw]

Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.


View attachment 200085

 

[Marximusprime]

I just bought a 70-300 II for hiking when I don't want to bring the 100-400 II. This would be a nice compromise, if it's as sharp as the 70-300.

 

[koenkooi]

Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.


View attachment 200085

Thanks for the comparison! The RF100-400 will end up even more compact on an RF camera, since the EF lenses need the adapter as well. I think that will push it to the same length as the 70-300+adapter.

 

[xwxw]

I just bought a 70-300 II for hiking when I don't want to bring the 100-400 II. This would be a compromise, if it's as sharp as the 70-300.

I would think there is a good chance so.

From my size comparison, I especially like the more slender shape of the new lens (less girth than the 70-300 II).

The macro functionality is an added bonus. I enjoyed using the 100-400 II for pseudo macro work. But with this, the magnification goes one step further.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Man, I'm not really sure what to think about this maximum aperture at 400mm. The price seems good and the size/weight are very appealing...but this isn't as compact and tidy as I was hoping for in my head for this sacrifice in light gathering. Oh well I was waiting for price/performance...but it looks like I'm getting the Fuji XF 70-300 instead for my casual walk-around super telephoto.

 

[Eersel]

I would imagine that this will be a sub $1000 lens. Good choice for amateur wildlife folk.
Working in a camera store we are getting older photographers who want telephoto but don’t want to carry around the RF 100-500mm.

Won’t be too bad of a lens, I found the 800mm to even be a little fun!

 

[aceflibble]

They've put the zoom ring—the most imporant of the three rings—in the wrong place again, as with the 70-200 f/4. You always want the most important control to be as far forward on the lens as possible for maximum stability. Putting the zoom ring to the rear means most of the lens' weight in use is going unsupported, hanging free several inches away. Even with lens IS, that's not good. At the very minimum it puts more wear on the extension mechanicism when the forward weight isn't supported. I suppose if you know you're only going to be using it at 400mm (which I expect many people will) then you could just leave it there and keep your hand on the control ring, but even then it still seems erroneous to place the zoom ring so far away from the control ring.
Also confused as to why they didn't combine the control and manual focus rings. Seems like an obvious, easy cost saving and streamlines the operation of a lens like this which is so very rarely going to be focused manually.

But still, appears to be a good size, I'm happy to see them vaguely (between this, the 24-105 f/7.1, 85mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8) adopting the modern standard 67mm filter size, and while I don't expect the optics to be anything special, just hitting 400mm (probably actually 380-390mm) at a price below what second hand 400mm f/5.6Ls cost, and presumably a weight far below that lens (not that the L lens is particularly heavy to begin with) is a good combination. With the close focus, I can see this lens plus the 800mm f/11 becoming 'the' combo for the wildlife amateur who wants to shoot everything from butterflies to birds and large mammels with the lightest possible kit. If an RP-size camera can be made that is just a little faster, that and this lens will be a helluva starter combination for kids.
It does raise the question of the purpose of the 600mm f/11, though, since I'm sure many people would much rather have the extra stop of f/8 than the extra 200mm, and conversely if you can live with f/11 and do value more reach then surely you'd go to the 800mm.

Should make a good landscape lens, too; I know many people think "landscape" only means 16-35s, but for my money landscape begins at 100mm.

I wasn't that fussed when the rumours started flying, but now seeing the even smaller than expected size and uncharacteristically reasonable price (unless Canon screws over the UK on the conversion again, as they've done with most RF products so far), I can see myself picking one up for the times when I'm not anticipating seeing anything special and/or I just can't be bothered to carry one of my Great Whites, moreso than I ever considered the f/11 lenses. Overcast England does not like f/11, but f/8 is right at the limit of usable.

Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.

Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?

Samyang/Rokinon/Bower already made the lens you're asking for. 85mm f/1.4, sealed and with a much better focus motor than the terrible STMs (which is a motor Canon should be ashamed of, quite frankly). As a bonus, if you buy the Samyang-branded version it will even have a red ring, because sure why not. (The Samyang-branded version is actually temporarily unavailable due to their distribution problems with covid, but the Rokinon and Bower versions are still around and the Samyang will come back... eventually...)

 

[blackcoffee17]

They've put the zoom ring—the most imporant of the three rings—in the wrong place again, as with the 70-200 f/4. You always want the most important control to be as far forward on the lens as possible for maximum stability. Putting the zoom ring to the rear means most of the lens' weight in use is going unsupported, hanging free several inches away. Even with lens IS, that's not good. At the very minimum it puts more wear on the extension mechanicism when the forward weight isn't supported. I suppose if you know you're only going to be using it at 400mm (which I expect many people will) then you could just leave it there and keep your hand on the control ring, but even then it still seems erroneous to place the zoom ring so far away from the control ring.
Also confused as to why they didn't combine the control and manual focus rings. Seems like an obvious, easy cost saving and streamlines the operation of a lens like this which is so very rarely going to be focused manually.

But still, appears to be a good size, I'm happy to see them vaguely (between this, the 24-105 f/7.1, 85mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8) adopting the modern standard 67mm filter size, and while I don't expect the optics to be anything special, just hitting 400mm (probably actually 380-390mm) at a price below what second hand 400mm f/5.6Ls cost, and presumably a weight far below that lens (not that the L lens is particularly heavy to begin with) is a good combination. With the close focus, I can see this lens plus the 800mm f/11 becoming 'the' combo for the wildlife amateur who wants to shoot everything from butterflies to birds and large mammels with the lightest possible kit. If an RP-size camera can be made that is just a little faster, that and this lens will be a helluva starter combination for kids.
It does raise the question of the purpose of the 600mm f/11, though, since I'm sure many people would much rather have the extra stop of f/8 than the extra 200mm, and conversely if you can live with f/11 and do value more reach then surely you'd go to the 800mm.

Should make a good landscape lens, too; I know many people think "landscape" only means 16-35s, but for my money landscape begins at 100mm.

I wasn't that fussed when the rumours started flying, but now seeing the even smaller than expected size and uncharacteristically reasonable price (unless Canon screws over the UK on the conversion again, as they've done with most RF products so far), I can see myself picking one up for the times when I'm not anticipating seeing anything special and/or I just can't be bothered to carry one of my Great Whites, moreso than I ever considered the f/11 lenses. Overcast England does not like f/11, but f/8 is right at the limit of usable.



Samyang/Rokinon/Bower already made the lens you're asking for. 85mm f/1.4, sealed and with a much better focus motor than the terrible STMs (which is a motor Canon should be ashamed of, quite frankly). As a bonus, if you buy the Samyang-branded version it will even have a red ring, because sure why not. (The Samyang-branded version is actually temporarily unavailable due to their distribution problems with covid, but the Rokinon and Bower versions are still around and the Samyang will come back... eventually...)

Yes, that focusing motor in the RF 85 F2 is a disgrace. But i heard Samyang had some issues with the RF mount and they are stopping releasing RF lenses.

 

[MartinVLC]

It will be ineresting how IQ holds up against the Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 that has some very positive reviews. If the Canon is at least as good the 100 Euro/Dollar extra for not having to use the EF-RF adapter should be worth it. If it´s significantly worse in IQ it would be quite sad for canon.

 

[aceflibble]

Man, I'm not really sure what to think about this maximum aperture at 400mm. The price seems good and the size/weight are very appealing...but this isn't as compact and tidy as I was hoping for in my head for this sacrifice in light gathering. Oh well I was waiting for price/performance...but it looks like I'm getting the Fuji XF 70-300 instead for my casual walk-around super telephoto.

Sadly, Canon seem to have decided that all non-L zooms lenses must be one stop slower than EF zooms. I doubt we'll see them change that design philosophy any time soon.

That said, the Fuji 70-300 is equivalent to 106-456mm f/6-8.5, so other than perhaps a little bit of size and the addition of weather sealing and a hood included in the box, the fundamentals of this lens and the Fuji really are not very different. Which isn't to say "how dare you, you must buy Canon" or anything—I have a bunch of Fuji gear myself and there are certainly other reasons to opt for theirs over Canon—just that you might want to wait for proper in-depth reviews (not just one day's hands-on) to come out for both lenses before choosing, since at least in terms of the most important spec they're not as different as they may first seem. Especially since I see you have the R6 and R5, I can guarantee from experience that you'll get a cleaner and more detailed image shooting either of those cameras at f/8 ISO 1600 than you will shooting the X-E4 at f/5.6 ISO 800, for example. (Especially if you downsample the R5, obviously.)