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

[Viggo]

The EF 100-400 L II is a stable member in the bag of many photojournalists, landscape, wildlife, etc. photographers. When they are shooting action in low light, it is probably not their weapon of choice.

This new RF 100-500 L offers better quality, better flexibility, better portability, better stabilisation, higher magnification, less focus breathing. It will cost quite a bit more, inevitably, because that's what's called progress against an older, discounted lens and also increased manufacturing and development costs.
It's the exact same story with the RF 14-35 etc. etc. newer, better, considerably more expensive (and despite it's high cost, it will be difficult to get for many months).

Comparing it against 400/2.8 and the like is completely pointless. They serve a completely different purpose and there is a need for both.

The 14-35 relies on software correction and costs a ridiculous amount of money for an f4, same with the 70-200. But, unlike the 100-500 they’re the same aperture, much better IQ and AF and they’re tiny. I think the 70-200 f2.8 is priced insanely , but less insane than the new f4 lenses. A RF 70-200 f4 here costs more than a used 200 f2. The EF 70-200 f4 L IS II costs $1650 and the RF 70-200 f4 L costs $2650, I don’t understand how the pricing makes sense. To me at least I would like something that feels of significantly higher value when the prices are so high. I think the RF 50 L and RF 85 L are too expensive, but they feel more worth it comparing it to their EF counterpart, none of the other RF- L’s do…

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF 70-200 f4 L IS II costs $1650 and the RF 70-200 f4 L costs $2650, I don’t understand how the pricing makes sense.

In the USA, the RF 70-200/4 is $1600 an the EF 70-200/4 IS II is $1300. That makes sense, unlike the prices in your geography.

 

[Nemorino]

The Canon Germany shop sells the RF at 1799 and the EF at 1409€

 

[Chig]

The 400/5.6 is a lens from the time when ISO 1600 film was ‘fast’ and we tried to find the very noticeable grain ‘pleasing’. The original 7D was at about that noise level.

Current sensors combined with AI-driven noise reduction can produce much cleaner images at 5-digit ISOs, so we’ve effectively gained 3-4 stops of light that way. An f/7.1 or f/8 lens with an R5/6 will perform better in terms of light/noise than an f/5.6 lens with a 5DIII or 1D X. Also, consider that the 100-500 at 500/7.1 is effectively identical (in terms of light gathered) to the 100-400 II at 400/5.6 if you crop the 400mm image to the 500mm FoV.

When I test my 600/4 on my 1D X against the 100-500 on my (forthcoming) R3, I strongly suspect the latter combo will deliver better overall results in low light. Of course, I’ll use the 600/4 with the R3 for the best of both worlds.

The bottom line is that the RF lens 500/7.1 or even 400/8 on an R5/6 will outperform 400/5.6 on an older body (at least in terms of light, can’t speak to the optical performance of the new 100-400, but we know the 100-500 is excellent).

The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.

Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.

 

[Chig]

It's not that much heavier but does change a £5000 lens into a £9000 lens.

Well the Sigma 120-300 weighs 3.4kg which is 20% heavier than my ancient EF300mm (non IS) f/2.8 and 40% heavier than the EF300mm f/2.8 mark ii which is only 2.4kg
Personally if I could afford a new Great White I'd buy the EF400 DO f/4ii which at 2.1 kg is the only one light enough for handholding for any length of time.
Hopefully Canon will make a RF version or maybe a RF500 or RF600 DO ?
I suggest a RF600mm DO f/5.6 would be a great lens to pair with an R5 or R3 and they might be able to get the weight down to about 2kg.

 

[Viggo]

In the USA, the RF 70-200/4 is $1600 an the EF 70-200/4 IS II is $1300. That makes sense, unlike the prices in your geography.

That I can agree with.

 

[xwxw]

Keep in mind that a 400mm f/8.0 is a 800mm f/16.0 lens with a 2x TC.

I think you got it backward That would be 1200mm f32.

But I understand what you meant.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But honestly I think the II and the 100-500 should not be that different. The II already came in an updated grayish white (similar to 70-300L and 70-200 III, and starkly different from the 100-400 I or 70-200 II). Lighting may have played a bigger role in those product pictures.

Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg.

For flying birds where high shutter speeds are needed, yes. For perched birds where a slower shutter speed can be used, the IS on the RF 100-400 may enable better shots at lower ISO than with the 400/5.6L.

 

[xwxw]

Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.
View attachment 200104

Ahh thanks a lot for sharing that. I have not yet owned any RF whites. Have owned 3 of the lenses in your pic in the past.

Glad to see they continue evolving the color of the whites. Now they are "whiter" than before. So long as they do not move the color all the way to the Sony-like chalk white, I am game.

 

[Chig]

For flying birds where high shutter speeds are needed, yes. For perched birds where a slower shutter speed can be used, the IS on the RF 100-400 may enable better shots at lower ISO than with the 400/5.6L.

Even for perched birds a fairly high shutter speed (1/500+) helps a lot as they twitch around constantly in which case IS makes no difference and one whole stop of light makes a huge difference , also even for perched birds the best images are in soft light at dawn or dusk or overcast/rain and I usually use my old EF300 f/2.8 with or without T.Cs as even my EF100-400ii often isn't bright enough.
I can't imagine when this RF100-400's f/8 would be useful for my bird photography and the EF400 f/5.6 I used to have would always be better for anything other than harsh light in the middle of the day when I never shoot.

The RF100-400 will be great for shooting outdoor sports though if you can't afford better zooms and primes aren't as versatile.
Should be a hit with soccer mums

 

[Chig]

Ahh thanks a lot for sharing that. I have not yet owned any RF whites. Have owned 3 of the lenses in your pic in the past.

Glad to see they continue evolving the color of the whites. Now they are "whiter" than before. So long as they do not move the color all the way to the Sony-like chalk white, I am game.

Brighter white isn't better for wildlife but most people cover them up anyway

 

[AlanF]

Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.
View attachment 200104

Yes, it's brighter. But also has a different texture: much smoother, more matt, and lacks the stipple of the Mk II whites.

 

[AlanF]

Brighter white isn't better for wildlife but most people cover them up anyway

Much more important, the R bodies don't sound like a machine gun and scare off close subjects. My 100-500 is covered in camo - to protect it against knocks, the wild life usually sees the lens front end on.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.

Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.

Everything you say is true, if an only if, you are quick enough with your eye to catch the bird at full focal length without needing the wide end of the zoom to hunt before zooming in. Birds have not been a priority for me but that means I've done a lot of hunting with a 300/4 with or without a 1.4 TC on a cop body, so I can appreciate that it's great at a feeder, it's great once the subject is framed, but having a zoom, or more skill, is really necessary to catch some of these little guys in foliage before they fly away.

 

[JMV Portraits]

The market says that Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have done very well over the years producing midrange lenses that Canon's 'market data' says don't need to exist...

No company is omniscient.

Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?

The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.

These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.

While there will likely be more in-between options years down the road as the system fills out, it will likely continue to follow the pattern that Canon has with their EF, EF-S, and EF-M lines. Most lenses will tend to cater either to high volume budget options, or to low-volume high-markup options. Sticking to the 85mm as an example- Canon did eventually introduce and 85mm f/1.4 IS for the EF in between the 85 1.2 and 85 1.8, but still squarely in the high end of the range. It's interesting that the RF 85 f/2 that people are complaining about is, in terms of price point, features, and practical optical measures, very much between between the old EF 85mm 1.8 and the EF 85mm 1.4.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?

The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.

These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.

While there will likely be more in-between options years down the road as the system fills out, it will likely continue to follow the pattern that Canon has with their EF, EF-S, and EF-M lines. Most lenses will tend to cater either to high volume budget options, or to low-volume high-markup options. Sticking to the 85mm as an example- Canon did eventually introduce and 85mm f/1.4 IS for the EF in between the 85 1.2 and 85 1.8, but still squarely in the high end of the range. It's interesting that the RF 85 f/2 that people are complaining about is, in terms of price point, features, and practical optical measures, very much between between the old EF 85mm 1.8 and the EF 85mm 1.4.

Very refreshing when someone brings data and logical interpretation of them to a discussion!

 

[slclick]

I appreciate the comments which point out the (obvious to me but maybe not others) uses of this lens. Not everything is about speed and ginormous aperture shooting. Like a wise poster said a couple pages back, to paraphrase, my style of shooting will work well with this lens' limitations. For a minute this thread devolved into a 'Why would anyone buy this since I won't" post. Those are the worst and far too common as of late here on CR. The myriad genres and styles of photography make it a beautiful craft, from pinholes made from Beats earphone box to portraits with a 200 f/2L.
Can't wait to add this to my kit. (I sold my 100-400 ll to get my R6, a great decision....love that camera)

 

[Chig]

Everything you say is true, if an only if, you are quick enough with your eye to catch the bird at full focal length without needing the wide end of the zoom to hunt before zooming in. Birds have not been a priority for me but that means I've done a lot of hunting with a 300/4 with or without a 1.4 TC on a cop body, so I can appreciate that it's great at a feeder, it's great once the subject is framed, but having a zoom, or more skill, is really necessary to catch some of these little guys in foliage before they fly away.

Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400 , this was lined up with my left eye and worked great but my EF100-400ii zoom is easy to use without this.
I also mounted one on my old EF300 f/2.8 using an adapter I made on the mounting point of the tripod foot but then I couldn't use the tripod mount and I had to use it without the hood as this blocked the sightline
This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes. I would use my left eye to track the bird and then look through my viewfinder with my right eye which worked great.
Below are some shots taken with my phone of how it works

 

[H. Jones]

These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.

Truly great summation of the bubble that this forum exists in. I realistically almost never see third party lenses in the wild other than mid-level enthusiasts who frequent these kinds of forums to begin with. At the high end, professionals/companies using equipment most often stick to one brand for lenses and cameras so that they can get the professional support of the manufacturer when something inevitably breaks.

When it comes to working around other professionals, a solid 95% of the time it's Canon/Sony/Nikon lenses on the respective cameras. Maybe a few times I've seen lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I solidly think Canon should make, and then often low-mid range portrait/wedding photographers with third-party primes.

Hands down the most common lenses I ever see on vacations are kit lenses, 18-55, 15-45, 24-105, and then slow variable aperture zooms, 55-250, 75-300, 70-300. I can totally anticipate seeing this 100-400 and a $800 R series camera included in that out in the wild in a year or two at this price. By that point, I imagine I'll also be seeing the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 out there.