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

[aceflibble]

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.

As I said, some of Samyang's lenses are temporarily on hold as they have ongoing distribution problems around covid. (Source: spoke to two Samyang reps directly.) Samyang's distribution normally covers the largest area and most countries of the three brands the lenses are produced for, so their distribution is much more complex and, unsurprisingly, much more affected and disrupted by the pandemic. Production of all electrical goods is also reduced right now due to both covid and the semiconduct or shortage, so for now the Samyang brand has scaled back to only its most sure-fire top-selling lenses (i.e. the most standard focal lengths in E-mount). Like I said, the Rokinon and Bower brands (same lens, different names for different countries) which operate in more limited areas and aren't having to ship around as many units anyway have kept producing the RF lenses. The Samyang-branded ones will be back.

The idea that they abandoned RF due to IBIS not working fully with them is an incorrect assumption a few kneejerk YouTubers made based on a brief problem with how Canon implemented IBIS, which was in fact fixed with a firmware update almost right away. (Note the same lenses have been released on Sony E and never had a problem with IBIS there; the problems were entirely due to Canon, not Samyang, and are now fixed.) It's just unlucky timing that the release of the R5 and R6 came at the same time Samyang started to have their distribution problems, and people who are more interested in clicks than facts put the two together in all-caps headlines with lots of derpy faces and red arrows in the thumbnails.

TL;DR: Both the 14mm and 85mm work perfectly with all RF cameras, assuming you are up to date with the latest firmware. The Samyang brand has covid-related problems, but that is not permanent, and the 'sister' brands are carrying on with no change.

 

[slclick]

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.

Same. I'll be using the Tammy for a benchmark in terms of IQ. However with the adapter, size and weight will be on Canon's size. I have a feeling it will fare better than we think since in real world applications in capable hands all the lower tier RF glass is optically better than the pundits and spec sheets lead us to believe at launch. As for the aperture, if you have paid attention, the f/8 600/800 have shown us these lenses are more than capable even outside bright sunlight.

 

[okaro]

I'm assuming this is sort of an equivalent of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II lens for the RF lineup. The loss of the 70-100 range is presumably countered by the fact that the standard kit lenses for the R range all cover the 24-105 range already.

I put this more like equivalent of the EF-S 55-250 mm (88-400 mm). Canon seems to be pushing full frame even to entry level shooters. IMO this makes sense and makes things much less complicated.

 

[efmshark]

I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?

Most likely, not as good image quality compared to the primes. Max aperture of the zoom will also be f/16 at 800mm with 2x TC.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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


You need to add the EF-RF adapter to get a valid comparison.

 

[melgross]

Who uses TC on these entry level tele zooms? I have seen people using TC on 70-200mm lenses(both f4 and f2.8) havent seen anyone using it on 70/75-300mm & 100-400mm(also equivalent 3rd party) lenses.

People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.

Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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?

The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.

When pressed for their market research, the answer is always, “Well of course I don’t have any. Where’s yours?” The point is that none of us individuals have it…but Canon does. So if there was as much demand for Product X as forum dwellers claim, Canon would know it.

As usual, it boils down to a forum dweller wanting Product X, and baselessly claiming ‘everyone wants it’ because they do (and maybe the two other people of whom they asked a leading question).

 

[koenkooi]

People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.

Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.

And while the RF extenders are basically the same price as this lens, it's still cheaper than a longer lens, although the 800mm comes close.

 

[Dragon]

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.

That depends on the IQ of this lens. The 24-240 is in the same price range and if you let the digital corrections do their thing, the results are darn good. I use the 24-240 for and everyday lens on the R5 and haven't been disappointed.

 

[Dragon]

It would be nice to see a 70-300 scaling of this for the M line.

 

[Juangrande]

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

Well he did mention needing to up the iso to get useable images so “unusable in most situations” sounds like you need bright sunlight to get good images without resorting to higher iso settings. Useable being subjective here.

 

[SteveC]

There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2

Should there be? Why…because you say so?

I tend to agree with blackcoffee17 actually. (But I concede that I do not know and I am speculating here):

And I think Canon does too. It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses. (And I might even be in the market for some of them.) Of course that's me guessing what's in Canon's mind(s), so we'll just have to see.

 

[Billybob]

There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2

Yep. Expect to see a 200-600 style lens akin to Sony's $2k offering. It will be neither as compact as the 100-400 nor have quite the IQ of the 100-500, but its price will be somewhere in the middle.

 

[[email protected]]

Kinda slow, but that MFD is nice. If it's sharp, it'd be nice for a hiking telephoto.

Good on Canon for bringing out more affordable lenses out for RF - hopefully optical quality is reasonable.

 

[danfaz]

It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses.

Yes, thank you! Canon can't release every lens all at once. Let's try WAITING a bit for the remainder of the lineup before bashing Canon for lack of mid-grade lenses. At first there were sooo many complaints that there weren't enough cheap RF lenses. Now that they are putting them out, the complaint is there are not enough mid-grade lenses.

 

[SteveC]

Yes, thank you! Canon can't release every lens all at once. Let's try WAITING a bit for the remainder of the lineup before bashing Canon for lack of mid-grade lenses. At first there were sooo many complaints that there weren't enough cheap RF lenses. Now that they are putting them out, the complaint is there are not enough mid-grade lenses.

[Five year from now;] There aren't enough medium-high grade lenses (2 on 1-5 scale)! There aren't enough medium-low grade lenses (4 on a 1-5 scale)!

 

[David_D]

And I think Canon does too. It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses.

My guess is that Canon are just trying to prioritise the release order to:

1. Keep the most people happy
2. Make the most profit

Imagine ranking the entire market by the amount people are willing to pay (from really cheap to money is no object), suitably scaled by amount of profit they would make at that price point. If they can make a cheap lens and an expensive lens that can attract the bottom 40% and top 40% they are not missing out on too many sales. Over time they may add a mid-price lens to pick up the middle 40% (in my model the low and high segment overlap the mid segment by a bit, whereas the low and high segments don't overlap)..

 

[vangelismm]

I put this more like equivalent of the EF-S 55-250 mm (88-400 mm). Canon seems to be pushing full frame even to entry level shooters. IMO this makes sense and makes things much less complicated.

Yes, the range is almost a match.
If we assume nobody bought the 55-250 to shoot at 55mm, it makes even more sense.

There problem is now the wide angle zoom to replace ef-s 10-18, equiv. 16-28mm.
The rumored 18-45 would be an acceptable replacement.

 

[JPAZ]

Unless the IQ is terrible, this lens on an RP could be a nice "backpacking" rig.

 

[esglord]

This is a focal range where smaller size and and small cost are what I'm looking for. I'd like to try it out with a teleconverter to see if sharpness is adequate. Could be a fun lens.