Patent: Canon patents RF 200mm f/2L IS, RF 300mm f/2.8L IS and RF 500mm f/4L IS optical formulas

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,322
370
32
34109
www.facebook.com
Given the likely prices of these (calling it now, 300mm $8000, 200mm $9500, 500mm $11000), if you can afford the lens, then you can afford a sherpa to lug it for you thus weight is a non-issue.:)
A good incentive for owners of the EF SKUs of these lenses to upgrade would be dropping the physical weight by ~33-50%

If all L lenses became DO for the weight savings and more compact physical dimension then good. Nikon managed to do that with their PF lenses
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
978
322
Somewhat. The Hard Rock hoodie pretty much. Not sure if you know what I mean or are guessing? Too much separation basically. A layered look. I think people like it to tell you the truth as if it's a critical level of DoF quality.
Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".

The issue has been discussed before on CR (I think well before I recall seeing your handle on CR), for example see

You may (or may not! :) ) be interested to have a read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Blue Zurich

SL,UT
Jan 22, 2022
181
268
Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".

The issue has been discussed before on CR (I think well before I recall seeing your handle on CR), for example see

You may (or may not! :) ) be interested to have a read.
Yep, I was involved in many of those discussions, as a former self (been on here since nearly the beginning)

From my experience, many lenses in the Art series exemplified that look. I owned a few a few years back. Once again, not a terrible thing, just not my cup of tea. A side note, while I look forward to possible niche lenses such as an RF 200 f/2, I will never own one but am always interested what other with capable hands can do with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Joel C

EOS R6, EOS R, EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
90
87
Tacoma, WA
The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.
Yeah, I am thinking the timeline is likely the biggest hurdle here, other than price after the fact. I have moved pretty much exclusive into RF glass (I still have some static video cameras on EF) and I don't want to go backwards in mounts, so I imagine that the wait time is going to be intense.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,399
497
200/2.0 probably sells as well as the 800/5.6 or 1200/8.0
Why do you think (or know) so?

My guess (with no sales data, that's all I can do) is it doesn't sell as well as...

1. Like the EF 135mm f/2L, its "shadowed" by the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

2. Unlike the EF 135mm f/2L, its 3x more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8. That limits sales to those who are willing & able to spend the money.

[As rough and anecdotal evidence, I saw shops offering 800mm f/5.6 on their web site more often than 200mm f/2. I'm sure its an ad thing, though bothering to ad is, IMHO, an indication.]
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,322
370
32
34109
www.facebook.com
Why do you think (or know) so?

My guess (with no sales data, that's all I can do) is it doesn't sell as well as...

1. Like the EF 135mm f/2L, its "shadowed" by the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

2. Unlike the EF 135mm f/2L, its 3x more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8. That limits sales to those who are willing & able to spend the money.

[As rough and anecdotal evidence, I saw shops offering 800mm f/5.6 on their web site more often than 200mm f/2. I'm sure its an ad thing, though bothering to ad is, IMHO, an indication.]
As you aptly pointed out there are alternatives that are cheaper.

Before it was discontinued from production the 200/2.0 is often ranked on BH to be a saleable as the 800/5.6

Lest I offend someone from my memories of the past.

It would be nice if Canon were to offer a 200/1.8 again but at under 2kg
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
219
248
Possibly, but the development cost was likely to be marginal as they just slabbed on the RF 2x TC.
What the development cost of a new RF 200/2L is, I don't know, but surely larger than the 400/2.8+2xTC and 600/4+2xTC costs.
I presume that the development cost of all the big whites was immense and still being paid for. Most of it was 3-5(?) years ago and paying off well because it yields the dividends of applying to different mounts and different focal lengths. Which is a beneficial feature, not a criticism or flaw (though it doesn’t trigger the novelty dopamine hit sought by some). It’s like Tesla buyers complaining that the Model S design hasn’t been substantially changed in 10 years.

Nothing wrong with adopting excellent existing EF designs when the RF mount doesn’t afford any striking benefits for an expensive redesign. A smart company will have a good blend, as we see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Aug 22, 2019
2
0
Would it make sense for Canon to make something like a 500/5.6 or a 600/5.6? They should be able to make them quite light and hopefully not as expensive as the f/4.0 versions. That would be something really suitable for me at least. Am I foolish for thinking this would be a good lens?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,725
14,945
Would it make sense for Canon to make something like a 500/5.6 or a 600/5.6? They should be able to make them quite light and hopefully not as expensive as the f/4.0 versions. That would be something really suitable for me at least. Am I foolish for thinking this would be a good lens?
You are not foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,113
244
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
I presume that the development cost of all the big whites was immense and still being paid for. Most of it was 3-5(?) years ago and paying off well because it yields the dividends of applying to different mounts and different focal lengths. Which is a beneficial feature, not a criticism or flaw (though it doesn’t trigger the novelty dopamine hit sought by some). It’s like Tesla buyers complaining that the Model S design hasn’t been substantially changed in 10 years.

Nothing wrong with adopting excellent existing EF designs when the RF mount doesn’t afford any striking benefits for an expensive redesign. A smart company will have a good blend, as we see.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: what I meant by "development cost was likely to be marginal" is that the incremental development cost (outside of the original cost of developing the Big White lenses and the RF 2xTC) was likely to be marginal. I'm not going to argue against the development cost of the Big Whites as still being paid for (even when used in both EF and RF mounts).
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
The f/1.8L was 1/3 stop faster (and had the “Eye of Sauron” nickname LOL) but, if they are copying existing designs, the f/2L was by far the superior lens.
Not sure the f/2 was optically noticeably better than the f/1.8 which had the advantage of lead optical elements (it was better - but it was also f/2 and not f/1.8), however it was just a pain to handle with so much front weight whereas the f/2 - even if not significantly lighter - could be used for all-day shooting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
I've been waiting too long for the RF 300 mm f/2.8. My mistake believing that Canon would give it priority. Early 2023 official release and in my hands summer 2023 sounds OK. On the fence with the RF 200 f/2. I'll compare when the reviews are out.
 

Gloads

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 27, 2020
52
31
I guess the rumored radical RF 500 f/4 is now dead, and the long wait will be for an EF refresh like the other big whites? That is a sad turn given the wait so far.
 
May 2, 2022
1
0
Oh my god! How I wish Canon will bring the RF 200L 2.0 soon! My EF was stolen in August and I miss it badly. Best Canon lens ever!

And if they bring a RF 200L 1.8, no matter at what price, I will travel to Japan and bring them a bottle of Dom Perignon. Oh lord, please hear my prayers! :love:
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,725
14,945
I guess the rumored radical RF 500 f/4 is now dead, and the long wait will be for an EF refresh like the other big whites? That is a sad turn given the wait so far.
It's unlikely it will be a simple refresh. It is a Mk II lens, and the 400 and 600 went through a Mk III with significantly reduced weight before having a simple "refresh".