Is an RF 100-500mm lens on the way? [CR2]

[Jasonmc89]

Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.

 

[andrei1989]

Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.

why? rf 24-240 and almost all the M zooms? aperture is not limited by AF anymore

i love these lens rumors threads, especially for long lenses
rumor: x to y lens coming
post1: make it z to w or it's dead
post2: make it n to m or it's dead

 

[tron]

If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a very small and affordable supertele.

I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.

- A

If up to 500 it should be 5.6 just like Nikon and if up to 600 6.3 to keep a reasonable size and cost.

However, to be very useful it has to be an L. With top quality fully open at max focal length (most important in my opinion) and weather resistant just like the current lenses.

 

[Jasonmc89]

why? rf 24-240 and almost all the M zooms? aperture is not limited by AF anymore

i love these lens rumors threads, especially for long lenses
rumor: x to y lens coming
post1: make it z to w or it's dead
post2: make it n to m or it's dead

Just can’t see an f6.3 500mm lens coming from Canon with the bodies they’ll be releasing this year. This could be the replacement for the 100-400.

 

[Kit.]

Just can’t see an f6.3 500mm lens coming from Canon with the bodies they’ll be releasing this year. This could be the replacement for the 100-400.

The 100-400 II is too new to need a replacement. Besides, making it -500/5.6 would affect handholdability.

I would expect something more consumer-oriented.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The 100-400 II is too new to need a replacement. Besides, making it -500/5.6 would affect handholdability.

I would expect something more consumer-oriented.

I think we might be getting a 70-400 L and a 100-500 non L. Rather than the 100-500 being the 100-400 replacement.

 

[tron]

I think we might be getting a 70-400 L and a 100-500 non L. Rather than the 100-500 being the 100-400 replacement.

Yes 70-400 has been mentioned already. But a 100-500 non L wouldn't be that good unless it has top iq. And if it has top iq it will be an L! But, Canon back in 1988 had made 2 flavors of 100-300 f/5.6 A non-L and a L version. So there is this option too.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Yes 70-400 has been mentioned already. But a 100-500 non L wouldn't be that good unless it has top iq. And if it has top iq it will be an L! But, Canon back in 1988 had made 2 flavors of 100-300 f/5.6 A non-L and a L version. So there is this option too.

A non-L can drop its IQ, focus speed/sound(STM), build quality compared to a L, or a mix of the three. It could still have good IQ but at the cost of not standing up to well to the elements like one expects of a L lens. That would get the cost and weight down and competitive. And if I am reading Nikon's versioning right, the 500 f/5.6 is their L equivalent but the 200-500 f/5.6 is non L build and priced accordingly.

 

[ahsanford]

Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.

Since Canon pitched the mirror, we have all the following lenses with f/6.3 on the long end:

EF-M: 15-45, 55-200, 18-150
RF: 24-240

f/5.6 as a mandate goes away with EF-M and RF. For this 100-500, which will never go on an EF body, it's just a question of optimizing price / weight / ability to still use a TC.

Something - 600 f/6.3 could still work. Doubt that would be an L, sure, but it would be one way to keep up with the Jones Nikons in offering a first party superzoom for an affordable price.

- A

 

[AlanF]

A non-L can drop its IQ, focus speed/sound(STM), build quality compared to a L, or a mix of the three. It could still have good IQ but at the cost of not standing up to well to the elements like one expects of a L lens. That would get the cost and weight down and competitive. And if I am reading Nikon's versioning right, the 500 f/5.6 is their L equivalent but the 200-500 f/5.6 is non L build and priced accordingly.

It's AF, AF, and then AF for birds in flight etc. After that, add the other factors, including light weight for swinging the lens around. My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C has outstanding IQ at 600mm, as good in the centre as my 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC and better than my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. It's great for perched birds, ok for slow moving large birds but low keepers for difficult stuff. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400mms have worse AF and IS (the several I have tried). In the Nikon range, the 500mm f/5.6 has blistering fast and accurate AF as well as sharpness as good as the DO II. The 200-500mm has slow AF and IQ drops from 300mm onwards, and is on the heavier side. But, lots of happy users. The 100-400mm II has very fast and accurate AF. A new 100-500mm has to equal that AF on an RF body or I will be disappointed.

 

[lawny13]

It's all about 600mm + f/6.3 to me. It's the difference between this lens being somewhere in the same time zone as the Nikon 200-500 5.6's price or being front-elemented out of that price entirely.

Also, how does DPAF impact the rules of teleconverter-ability? How do EF extenders work on adapted EOS Rs (or in LiveView on SLRs for that matter)? If f/5.6 still an absolute must-have to allow an 1.4x to focus?

- A

DPAF is rated to focus to f11. Anyone can try this out in video since what you record at is your set aperture while in stills it is wide open. So focusing up to f11 shouldn't be an issue at all. I think I even shot video at f16 and was able to touch focus without issue, but I may be wrong (relying on memory here, and it was more than a year ago).

 

[tron]

It's AF, AF, and then AF for birds in flight etc. After that, add the other factors, including light weight for swinging the lens around. My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C has outstanding IQ at 600mm, as good in the centre as my 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC and better than my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. It's great for perched birds, ok for slow moving large birds but low keepers for difficult stuff. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400mms have worse AF and IS (the several I have tried). In the Nikon range, the 500mm f/5.6 has blistering fast and accurate AF as well as sharpness as good as the DO II. The 200-500mm has slow AF and IQ drops from 300mm onwards, and is on the heavier side. But, lots of happy users. The 100-400mm II has very fast and accurate AF. A new 100-500mm has to equal that AF on an RF body or I will be disappointed.

Alan hello. Interesting and useful info as always! One question: Did you use only D500 with 500PF or have you also tried the D850? I am asking because I assume that finding the target both stationary and in BIF has to be more difficult with D500 (just like having a 500mm with 7D2) rather than D850.

 

[AlanF]

Alan hello. Interesting and useful info as always! One question: Did you use only D500 with 500PF or have you also tried the D850? I am asking because I assume that finding the target both stationary and in BIF has to be more difficult with D500 (just like having a 500mm with 7D2) rather than D850.

Used only the D500. I can manage easily 500mm and with more difficulty 700mm on APS-C for perched birds but for BIF 500mm is my limit unless they are far away and sufficiently slow. As you might recall, 400mm on a 5D series is my favourite for BIF because of the ease in finding and retaining focus on target. I bought into the D500 as there were plenty of used ones on sale at WEX and I could get a low shot one at half new price (they have now none on sale) to go along with a mistakenly low-priced 500/5.6 PF. I am not considering a D850 as they are expensive new and used and I have my Canons for FF.
It's a difficult time for buying as there are so many uncertainties where things are going and what lenses and bodies are coming on line.

 

[tron]

Used only the D500. I can manage easily 500mm and with more difficulty 700mm on APS-C for perched birds but for BIF 500mm is my limit unless they are far away and sufficiently slow. As you might recall, 400mm on a 5D series is my favourite for BIF because of the ease in finding and retaining focus on target. I bought into the D500 as there were plenty of used ones on sale at WEX and I could get a low shot one at half new price (they have now none on sale) to go along with a mistakenly low-priced 500/5.6 PF. I am not considering a D850 as they are expensive new and used and I have my Canons for FF.
It's a difficult time for buying as there are so many uncertainties where things are going and what lenses and bodies are coming on line.

Thanks! It's the size and weight of the 500mm which I find so tempting!

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.

Heavier than a 300 f/2.8 even if entirely plastic, like like 2.6kg+. Look at Nikon’s 120-300 f/2.8, 3.2kg, even if plastic would probably still be 3kg. That’s probably closer to the mark for weight unless it’s a budget build and optically only ok., which would be doubtful for an RF lens.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I hope they bring Both 600 f6.3 and 200-600f 5.6L. Too much asking?

No give us a 600 f/5.6 DO, Nikon 500 PF is a fantastic lens and ridiculously small for a 500mm and I’m hoping they release 600 f/5.6 PF. There are rumors of 800 PF too but I doubt that at least for a very long time.

 

[Pape]

Even RF 100-500 f11 for 500Euro is possible if they developed focus system even better what R got. Who knows maybe quad dpaf f16 focus on R6 and R5?
Maybe thats why they dropped 7d . It just getting obsolete.

 

[CDR]

Interestingly I have recently found myself using my 300 2.8 and the EOS R's 1.6 crop a lot (effective 480) and getting very nice wildlife images (yes limited to 11Mp files to work on) but have been able to use wide open (at 2.8) with much better AF accuracy / AF speed than adding a 2X converter (although less obvious AF advantage over the 1.4X but that is F4 wide open).

Why do I mention this here? Well for me if the new R5 is real (crop around 17Mp) and this lens is a very good IQ F5.6 at 500 this may be all I need for wildlife other than for very low light shooting - no extenders needed at all!

Here's hoping ;-)

 

[AlanF]

Interestingly I have recently found myself using my 300 2.8 and the EOS R's 1.6 crop a lot (effective 480) and getting very nice wildlife images (yes limited to 11Mp files to work on) but have been able to use wide open (at 2.8) with much better AF accuracy / AF speed than adding a 2X converter (although less obvious AF advantage over the 1.4X but that is F4 wide open).

Why do I mention this here? Well for me if the new R5 is real (crop around 17Mp) and this lens is a very good IQ F5.6 at 500 this may be all I need for wildlife other than for very low light shooting - no extenders needed at all!

Here's hoping ;-)

Your use of 1.6x crop is not extending your reach, which depends on the number of pixels on target, but just lowering the field of view 1.6x. It doesn't have the effective focal length of 480mm, apart from cropping in camera. If you want to extend the reach to an effective 480mm and use mirrorless, put the lens on the M6 II.

 

[Joules]

In practical terms, a 600mm 6.3 and a 500mm 5.6 will resolve about the same detail based on their physical aperture. I'd rather have a 500mm 5.6 than another 600mm 6.3 if I'd also get the rumored ~80 MP body or an APS-C variant like the 90D that are getting to the point where they can take advantage of higher f-numbers.