Patent: Canon RF 100-600mm f/8-11 IS STM optical formula

Probably going to be very affordable like the 100-400 RF, fine for the average user interested in telephotos. I just hope Canon also has plans for mid-range glass too. If the only other way to get to 600 is a $13K F/4 lens or an $700 F/11 without aperture blades. How about a 600/5.6 or 500/4.5 asap
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I have the RF 100-400 which I find to be a very good lens... minimum focus distance of just three feet. Not sure why this lens is being introduced when you could just throw a teleconverter on to get the extra 200mm. But I guess having more options is better than too few.
From experience, putting a RF 1.4x or RF 2x on an RF 100-400mm or 100-500mm on an R6 gives a good increase in resolution. On an R5, the 2x on the RF 100-500mm gives a 40% increase in reach and the 1.4x about 20%. On the R7, putting the 2x on the RF 100-500 gives about a 20% increase, and on the R7 only resolves a few percent more becuse of the brakes put on by diffraction. I use the RF 2x a lot with the Rf 100-500 on the R5, but I am tending to use the 100-400 without a TC on the R7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I have the RF 100-400 which I find to be a very good lens... minimum focus distance of just three feet. Not sure why this lens is being introduced when you could just throw a teleconverter on to get the extra 200mm. But I guess having more options is better than too few.
That was my initial reaction. Looks like a RF 100-400 with a 1.5x TC built in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I have the RF 100-400 which I find to be a very good lens... minimum focus distance of just three feet. Not sure why this lens is being introduced when you could just throw a teleconverter on to get the extra 200mm. But I guess having more options is better than too few.
No lens is being introduced...yet...or maybe ever. It's just a patent and the majority of patents don't become anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The patent is on the Canonwatch site. What is odd, it also has a 100-400mm on it which appears to be the current RF 100-400mm lens.
I don’t find that odd. Rather, it’s pretty common. Canon usually files patents on batches of lenses with similar designs. Patent applications publish 18 months after filing, which is more than enough time to bring the lens to market prior to the patent publishing. Since filing the application establishes a priority date, there are no significant IP issues.

This also happened recently with the design of the RF 16/2.8 (although CR erroneously reported that batch of patents as APS-C pancake lenses, they weren’t and one was the 16/2.8).

It does suggest (but not definitively) that we won’t see the other lenses in the patent as products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I have long thought about a replacement for my Tamron 200-500 with a switch to mirrorless in mind, The options grow and grow, but today I ordered a used EF 100-400 II and I hope that I will not regret it. It always seemed tempting to me to get a longer reach, but most of the other options do not really have a great sharpness at the long end. It seems unwise to invest money into a lens that came out in 2014 and has a shorter reach than my Tamron, but only other options that surpass that lens in sharpness and overall image quality would be the RF 100-500 for 3099 Euros that would not work on my DLSR or the very expensive 200-400 with the built in 1.4x converter, which is very heavy and expensive. I am glad that Canon expands the range of tele zoom lenses into a cheaper segment, but I am wonder how much image quality will be compromised. Can the much better IS compensate for that? In a few days I will know more. That is the first used lens I ever bought and that old used lens should give me the resolution for a bright mirrorless future.

I think for an R6 with 20 megapixels lenses like the RF 100-400, RF 600, RF 800 and this new lens might be okay, but they could lead to a lot of frustration on a higher megapixel camera or a crop camera.
 
Upvote 0
the 100-500 is a pretty pricey lens - FANTASTIC imaging, etc. This has to be a pretty low cost lents.

Of course I would like the laws of physics to be broken w/ faster, lighter, less expensive, but so far the only laws I can break or the laws of man.
 
Upvote 0
I don’t find that odd. Rather, it’s pretty common. Canon usually files patents on batches of lenses with similar designs. Patent applications publish 18 months after filing, which is more than enough time to bring the lens to market prior to the patent publishing. Since filing the application establishes a priority date, there are no significant IP issues.

This also happened recently with the design of the RF 16/2.8 (although CR erroneously reported that batch of patents as APS-C pancake lenses, they weren’t and one was the 16/2.8).

It does suggest (but not definitively) that we won’t see the other lenses in the patent as products.
That does suggest we should stop speculating about the 150-600 f/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I have long thought about a replacement for my Tamron 200-500 with a switch to mirrorless in mind, The options grow and grow, but today I ordered a used EF 100-400 II and I hope that I will not regret it. It always seemed tempting to me to get a longer reach, but most of the other options do not really have a great sharpness at the long end. It seems unwise to invest money into a lens that came out in 2014 and has a shorter reach than my Tamron, but only other options that surpass that lens in sharpness and overall image quality would be the RF 100-500 for 3099 Euros that would not work on my DLSR or the very expensive 200-400 with the built in 1.4x converter, which is very heavy and expensive. I am glad that Canon expands the range of tele zoom lenses into a cheaper segment, but I am wonder how much image quality will be compromised. Can the much better IS compensate for that? In a few days I will know more. That is the first used lens I ever bought and that old used lens should give me the resolution for a bright mirrorless future.

I think for an R6 with 20 megapixels lenses like the RF 100-400, RF 600, RF 800 and this new lens might be okay, but they could lead to a lot of frustration on a higher megapixel camera or a crop camera.
You must be a young fellow to think that a lens that came out in 2014 is an old lens! While the original EF 100-400 has been reported as being less successful in taking advantage of higher MP cameras such as the 90D, there should be no problem with the Mark II. Perhaps AlanF can verify, but I think comments from others have indicated that the EF 100-400 mark II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll be able to use this lens for the next 20-30 years with no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must be a young fellow to think that a lens that came out in 2014 is an old lens! While the original EF 100-400 has been reported as being less successful in taking advantage of higher MP cameras such as the 90D, there should be no problem with the Mark II. Perhaps AlanF can verify, but I think comments from others have indicated that the EF 100-400 mark II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll be able to use this lens for the next 20-30 years with no problem.
Yes, indeed. The EF 100-400mm II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500mm to all intents and purposes. The prices for used ones have tumbled in the last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must be a young fellow to think that a lens that came out in 2014 is an old lens! While the original EF 100-400 has been reported as being less successful in taking advantage of higher MP cameras such as the 90D, there should be no problem with the Mark II. Perhaps AlanF can verify, but I think comments from others have indicated that the EF 100-400 mark II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll be able to use this lens for the next 20-30 years with no problem.
Most of my lenses came out before 2005, so 2014 is quite new in comparison. However if you buy any technical product and it came out eight years ago, that already seems old, even if I of course want to use it for decades into the future. When I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 IS (the first version) though, I also thought that the lens might be good for decades, but compared to other 70-200 lenses today even from Tamron and Sigma it does not really keep up. As long as I use cameras below 25 megapixels or so, that is hardly a problem, but if I had an R5 for example, the 70-200 would be high on my list of lenses to replace, because it simply is not sharp enough to really support such a resolution. Another lens that is far from today's standards is my 24-70 f/2.8 (also the first version). The corner sharpness does not seem acceptable to me today and it does not even have IS. Basically ANY other 24-70 option you can buy today is much better than the famous Canon lens, although I still love the fact that it retracts when zooming in, which gives the lens hood the perfect lenght at every focal length. So that is another lens that I thought I would buy for decades, but after less than two decades I hardly use it any more.
Today lenses are designed by simulating billions of light rays from all directions and in all visible wavelenths. That's one of the main reasons why lenses got so much better in the last two decades. That simulations require an enormous amount of computing power, because for zoom lenses they have to be done for many focal lengths and focus distances. So progress in processing power of computers should result in better lenses. If a lens came out eight years ago, there was a lot less computing power available compared to today. At one point in the past or future though computing power should no longer be limiting factor. Maybe that point was already reached a few years ago. That would mean that future lenses would no longer benefit from faster compueters.

As Canon is infamous for crippling its cheaper cameras, I really wonder if Canon makes sure that the cheap options are sharp enough, but not "too sharp". What if a simple optical formula that could be build for a low price turn to be so sharp that it could cannibalize Canon's super expensive lenses? Isn't it quite odd that Sigma and Tamron often offer sharper options in the low and mid range price range than Canon?
 
Upvote 0
Iceland is a long way from Sydney! Could you post some shots as I am a sucker for Puffins and am suffering from Puffin-deprivation because of covid followed by avian flu restrictions.
Took 33 hours to get to Reykjavik door to door and they lost my luggage for 11 days! I didn't have my tripod or filters or power point convertor but had the rest of my gear thankfully so had a great time :)

I am sharing my puffin shots to the fb "I Love Puffins!" group if you are interested and tagging the photoworkshop owner "ÖRÆFAFERÐIR - From Coast To Mountains". Einar shoots with an Oly for distance but loves his Fuji medium format @~100mm full frame.
The google maps location is "Ingólfshöfði Puffin Tour" near Skaftafell and his website is puffintour.is and http://www.FromCoastToMountains.is/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0