Patent: Canon RF 100-400mm f/5-7.1 IS USM

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I have reported many times about a small and affordable Canon RF 100-400mm zoom lens, and another patent for such an optical formula has appeared.
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5-7.1 IS USM

Focal length: 103.00mm 200.00mm 388.50mm
F-number: 5.00 6.26 7.10
Half angle of view: 11.86° 6.17° 3.19°
Image height: 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Lens overall length: 215.58mm 255.38mm 293.58mm
Backfocus: 38.40mm 58.61mm 78.01mm

This lens has been on our RF lens roadmap for quite some time, but is listed as an RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM. It will obviously be small, lightweight, and quite affordable when compared to the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
An RF 100-400mm lens has also appeared internally at...

[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-7-1-is-usm/]Continue reading...

 

[Rumourhasit]

The big question is: will it accept the tele converters

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The big question is: will it accept the tele converters

It was expected to.
This, the 600 f/11, and the 2x Entender are all I would ever need to own.
I can rent big whites and use my micro four-thirds setup when I need to.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It will probably cost "only" $2000.

 

[Joules]

It will probably cost "only" $2000.

The current 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 Nano USM lens costs less than 500 €. As this patent is for a replacement for that lens but offers a bit more reach, I would expect a price increase, but a small one. Price will probably be below 700 €.

 

[Traveler]

Looks I’m gonna stick with my EF 70-300. All the patents show that the RF version is gonna be longer. And I’m pretty sure it’s gonna cost at least double than the EF one :/

 

[neuroanatomist]

Looks I’m gonna stick with my EF 70-300. All the patents show that the RF version is gonna be longer. And I’m pretty sure it’s gonna cost at least double than the EF one :/

Even after you subtract the 20mm flange distance from the total lens length in the patent to get the actual lens length (and add the length of the EF-RF adapter, unless you only care about storage/bag length)?

 

[InchMetric]

The big question is: will it accept the tele converters

Not to be prickly, but Canon probably has good data on the percentage of people who care about adding an extender to a lens of this type, and I'd wager it's a small single digit number. I'd also wager that the Canon data shows what people are looking for are qualities like cost, compactness, lightness, performance, that can be harmed by insisting on extender compatibility. I switched to Canon triggered by the ultra-compact RF 70-200 f2.8, and that would have lost its appeal had it been another horse's leg that took an extender.

I hope everyone gets what they want, and your needs might well be met by some EF-RF adapter/extenders that let you use EF lenses that best meet your needs.

 

[fastprime]

It will probably cost "only" $2000.

Too close to the 100-500 L

The current 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 Nano USM lens costs less than 500 €. As this patent is for a replacement for that lens but offers a bit more reach, I would expect a price increase, but a small one. Price will probably be below 700 €.

This, I'm expecting around double the cost of the 70-300

 

[Foxdude]

This is lens I'm actually very interested. I'm looking long(ish) telezoom, and can't justify the cost of RF100-500L as an amateur. I'm also interested in EF 70-300L and 70-300 nano USM version, but this one has longer reach, and no need for adapter to my EOS R. I guess it is priced around 699-899€/$ range, and would have very competitive IQ compared to price and size/weight.

 

[DavidCannon]

If I remember correctly, this lens is not an L lens, correct? After the RF 70-200 2.8 was first released, I was hopeful they would make an L version of the 100-400 in a similar size to that 70-200.

 

[Bdbtoys]

If I remember correctly, this lens is not an L lens, correct? After the RF 70-200 2.8 was first released, I was hopeful they would make an L version of the 100-400 in a similar size to that 70-200.

Correct, Non-L.

 

[InchMetric]

Canon’s most expensive non-L RF lens is $899. This might be a bit more than the 24-240. But not a lot more. $1299 is about half the 100-500 price.

 

[quiquae]

Looks I’m gonna stick with my EF 70-300. All the patents show that the RF version is gonna be longer. And I’m pretty sure it’s gonna cost at least double than the EF one :/

The optical layout features elements bunched up into a small number of groups with lots of space in between, leading me to wonder if this is going to be a collapsible design, just like RF 600 and 800.

 

[tapanit]

This is lens I'm actually very interested. I'm looking long(ish) telezoom, and can't justify the cost of RF100-500L as an amateur. I'm also interested in EF 70-300L and 70-300 nano USM version, but this one has longer reach, and no need for adapter to my EOS R. I guess it is priced around 699-899€/$ range, and would have very competitive IQ compared to price and size/weight.

I would be interested in an RF version of the 70-300L, or indeed in a slow (as in 5-7.1) 100-400L if could be made as small (folded length). Maybe this one, too (I can't tell the folded length from that patent data). The 70-300L is the longest lens I can carry in a fanny pack when cycling, any substitute would have to be at most the RF adapter's length longer.

 

[dilbert]

I would be interested in an RF version of the 70-300L, or indeed in a slow (as in 5-7.1) 100-400L if could be made as small (folded length). Maybe this one, too (I can't tell the folded length from that patent data). The 70-300L is the longest lens I can carry in a fanny pack when cycling, any substitute would have to be at most the RF adapter's length longer.

Yup, the longer focal lengths may provide more reach but 70-300 pairs nicely with the 24-70 in size and ramge.

 

[AlanF]

Yup, the longer focal lengths may provide more reach but 70-300 pairs nicely with the 24-70 in size and ramge.

The 100-400mm f/7.1 will probably be priced to appeal to those who pair it with the 24-105 f/4-7.1, not the 24-70mm, and and they will have nice pair of more affordable lenses covering the 24-400mm range. If you want to pair it with the 24-70, what you would miss more; 70-99mm or 301-400mm? If you are shooting wild life, the lens will be fully extended most of the time.

 

[rbielefeld]

The main question I have is will it be available to purchase once it becomes "available." Given what has happened with the RF 100-500 and even the 800 f/11, I wonder about the real world availability of this and other lenses on the roadmap. I know folks who have been waiting for the 100-500 for a long time and there is no stock in site for this lens. I keep asking and everyone I talk to at various camera shops say they have no idea when more 100-500s will be in stock.

 

[rbielefeld]

100-400 is a good focal range, but how about a 200-600 f/4.5-f/6.3 non-L. This is what so many of my birding and wildlife clients talk about. The IQ from the 800 f/11 and 600 f/11 is very good, so I have a lot of confidence Canon could produce a non-L 200-600 at a great price that would produce really great images.

 

[AlanF]

100-400 is a good focal range, but how about a 200-600 f/4.5-f/6.3 non-L. This is what so many of my birding and wildlife clients talk about. The IQ from the 800 f/11 and 600 f/11 is very good, so I have a lot of confidence Canon could produce a non-L 200-600 at a great price that would produce really great images.

Do you think that they would produce a cheap lens that would cut into the sales of their very popular even though expensive 100-500mm? They are more likely to make an even more expensive lens.