Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025

[upallnight]

What I've found is that the EF 200-400 (and the EF 300) autofocus better/faster than the RF 100-500 (see thread).

My experience, in general, has been that AF performance is strongly correlated with the amount of light let in / max aperture. I.e., I don't find it so surprising that f/4.0 and f/2.8 lenses perform better than the RF 100-500 @ 4.5-7.1.

Even if I'm not shooting wide open (though I usually am), it has seemed to me the AF system is using the additional light that is gathered for focusing.

[I regularly do paid work with the 100-300, 400, and 600 but have not used the EF200-400. I owned (and sold) the 100-500... I just never seemed to get great results with it in any situation with less-than-ideal light. I know there is a ton of love for that lens.]

I'm intrigued by the 200-500 but don't know if I would purchase it. If I were to purchase, I'm not sure what I would then sell of the 100-300/400/600.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think the current EF 500mm f4 LIS II was a nice sweet spot in portability, price point and results. We never saw a mk III version of this lens on the EF mount and never will. But Canon could have made a mk III with all of the weight savings and the other mkIII superwhites offered. However, with the advent of the mk III 400/600 offerings...the portability / results are superior in those two lenses. So really there was no point in a mkIII 500/f4.

This new Zoom is probably going to be heavier and considerably larger than the mk II prime. However it's really creating an entire new genre / market for it's self. A super mind boggling versatile lens that really offers an impressive array of useful features. I can see this being a VERY popular lens on wildlife workshops. However, it's not going to be small or particulary light....or cheap.

 

[Quack]

I'd suggest 200-800mm f/5.6 would be much better, especially if it was variable f/1.4-5.6 if that's feasible?
Don't understand why they don't make the pro zooms variable, why not a 70-200mm f/1-2.8 ?
I realise a constant aperture is good for video and keeping your exposure constant but surely that can no be done with software even if the maximum aperture is variable. I'd much rather have a zoom which uses the maximum entrance pupil at all focal lengths so the 100-300mm f/2.8 could be f/1.0-2.8 and Canon could give you an option in the camera software if you want to lock the aperture at f/2.8 as you zoom.

If you have a zoom lens, take a look at the entrance pupil of the first optical element inside the lens as it moves toward the front of the lens at the low focal length and moves away from the front of the lens at the largest focal length. Moving forward and back changes the angle of the entering light, allowing the lens to use the width of the front glass of the lens to achieve maximum entrance pupil diameter at the long end because the first optical element is farther away, but as the first optical element moves closer to the front glass of the lens, the angle of entering light makes it impossible to use the full width of the front glass as your "entrance pupil". If you look at a lens it will be clearer than my verbal description.

 

[Chig]

This 200-500mm f/4 sounds like it will be fabulous for sports and large wildlife but for birds especially small ones a 200-800mm f/1.4-5.6 zoom would be my dream lens (not that I could afford one unless I won a lottery).
I don't know why the premium zooms seem to always be a constant aperture as the wide ends are pretty dark relatively speaking.
The 200-500 f/4 sounds great until you consider 200mm f/4 is kit lens material and my dream lens if it was a constant f/5.6 would only be a 1/3 of a stop brighter than my RF200-800mm f/6.3-9 lens at the wide end.
Imagine how versatile it would be if it was 200-800mm f/1.4-5.6. Sports pros would love it especially at events like the olympics where the lighting at the indoor venues are deliberately kept a bit dark for the TV networks.
A 70-200mm could be f/1-2.8 which would be way nicer than a constant 2.8.
I don't know if there's a technical reason for not doing this but if you prefer a constant aperture this could be controlled by software if needed without crippling the potential for those wanting the maximum possible brightness/bokoh.

 

[Chig]

If you have a zoom lens, take a look at the entrance pupil of the first optical element inside the lens as it moves toward the front of the lens at the low focal length and moves away from the front of the lens at the largest focal length. Moving forward and back changes the angle of the entering light, allowing the lens to use the width of the front glass of the lens to achieve maximum entrance pupil diameter at the long end because the first optical element is farther away, but as the first optical element moves closer to the front glass of the lens, the angle of entering light makes it impossible to use the full width of the front glass as your "entrance pupil". If you look at a lens it will be clearer than my verbal description.

Thanks for the explanation so sounds like not my idea isn't fully achievable but surely a variable zoom which comes as close to what is possible would still be better than a constant aperture for example the 200-500mm could be f/2.8-4 and my proposed 200-800mm could be f/2.8-5.6?

 

[kaihp]

My experience, in general, has been that AF performance is strongly correlated with the amount of light let in / max aperture. I.e., I don't find it so surprising that f/4.0 and f/2.8 lenses perform better than the RF 100-500 @ 4.5-7.1.

Even if I'm not shooting wide open (though I usually am), it has seemed to me the AF system is using the additional light that is gathered for focusing.

Good point and that is my experience too. But since I'm not a pro, I have not put too much validity into my results and blaimed my lack of skill and experience.

Motorsports is fortunately usually run outside with reasonable to good/excellent lighting, but with an AF system that gets a good workout from having to follow the trajectory of the subject.

 

[upallnight]

Good point and that is my experience too. But since I'm not a pro, I have not put too much validity into my results and blaimed my lack of skill and experience.

Motorsports is fortunately usually run outside with reasonable to good/excellent lighting, but with an AF system that gets a good workout from having to follow the trajectory of the subject.

No... it's definitely the case. The max aperture of a lens certainly affects its AF performance, even if shot stopped-down.

Your post made me think about when I got my first "big white": I thought it would instantly elevate my photography, and I was puzzled (disappointed!) that I did not immediately get tons of keepers. Yes, the lens was way better than what I was used to, but I didn't know how to use it. Hell, I still have some times where I blow the shot if I get lazy!

Anyway, I'd bet you are being modest about your skills. I'm sure if y ou tossed me into a motorsports situation I would not do well/know how to make the most of the panning features. Not sure my experience shooting wildlife and ball sports would translate — doesn't matter that I'm paid to do it.

 

[PinholeR5]

I've been anxiously waiting for the rumored RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM for a while. However, now that Sigma has announced the
300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports [only for L and E mount ]

Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports | SIGMA Corporation of America

Ultra-telephoto zoom with the optical performance and brightness of a prime

www.sigmaphoto.com

All the sudden, the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is starting to feel lame... The Sigma 300-600 F4 weighs about the same as my EF 600mm F4L IS II USM and at $6000 it would be a no-brainer to sell the EF 600mm II for the new Sigma, if the AF and IQ are reasonable. If only they had it for RF...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I've been anxiously waiting for the rumored RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM for a while. However, now that Sigma has announced the
300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports [only for L and E mount ]

Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports | SIGMA Corporation of America

Ultra-telephoto zoom with the optical performance and brightness of a prime

www.sigmaphoto.com

All the sudden, the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is starting to feel lame... The Sigma 300-600 F4 weighs about the same as my EF 600mm F4L IS II USM and at $6000 it would be a no-brainer to sell the EF 600mm II for the new Sigma, if the AF and IQ are reasonable. If only they had it for RF...

I was saving up for an EF 600 f/4 II.
Now I would rather put $6K aside for the Sigma zoom.

 

[pierceography]

The Sigma announcement also has me considering options. I was contemplating purchasing the RF 600mm f/4L for sports photography. It would be a later this year purchase, so I'm hoping Canon will begin bending to the pressure and open up the RF mount to full frame lenses from Sigma.

A 300-600mm f/4 would compliment my 100-300mm f/2.8 wonderfully, so I'm crossing my fingers.

 

[frankchn]

The Sigma announcement also has me considering options. I was contemplating purchasing the RF 600mm f/4L for sports photography. It would be a later this year purchase, so I'm hoping Canon will begin bending to the pressure and open up the RF mount to full frame lenses from Sigma.

A 300-600mm f/4 would compliment my 100-300mm f/2.8 wonderfully, so I'm crossing my fingers.

The Sigma is so cheap (relatively speaking) it would cost the same or less to buy a Sony A1II or Leica SL3 (the most expensive cameras on E and L mounts respectively) and the Sigma lens than any of the first party 600 f/4 primes alone.

 

[PinholeR5]

The Sigma announcement also has me considering options. I was contemplating purchasing the RF 600mm f/4L for sports photography. It would be a later this year purchase, so I'm hoping Canon will begin bending to the pressure and open up the RF mount to full frame lenses from Sigma.

A 300-600mm f/4 would compliment my 100-300mm f/2.8 wonderfully, so I'm crossing my fingers.

I also have the RF 100-300mm F2.8. and love it! I use it with the 1.4x for futball (soccer) to get the 140-420mm range that is great. I will say that the 200-500mm F4 range would actually be better for that use than 300-600mm F4, but the 100-300mm + 1.4x TC covers it well. The 140mm on the wide end is helpful. I could use the extra 80mm on the long end, but the difference is not worth getting another lens for and I won't give up the 100-300mm F2.8 functionality.

For wildlife, though, the 300-600mm F4 is a big win over the 200-500mm F4, IMHO. I was planning on giving up the 600mm F4 II for the 200-500mm F4 because of the convenience, but now with the 300-600mm F4 there is no FL compromise. It is just a matter of AF and IQ. I've have/had many Sigma lenses and they have been great! I loved the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Sport and only sold it after getting the RF 100-300mm. The IQ of the Sigma is actually pretty close to that of the RF, but though the AF on the Sigma is great, the AF on the RF is noticably better. They also launched the RF-S 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 DC OS Contemporary which could be awesome. I have the other RF-S lenses they launched and they are fantastic! Hope this one holds up as well. From my EF and RF-S experience, I'm guessing the Sigma 300-600mm F4 will not disappoint. Now, wee have to wait for it to be available in RF.

And, like you said, the 300-600mm F4 will pair beautifully with the 100-300mm F2.8.

 

[PinholeR5]

The Sigma is so cheap (relatively speaking) it would cost the same or less to buy an A1II or Leica SL3 and the Sigma than any of the first party 600 f/4 primes alone.

Yep. This thought crossed my mind. Not sure I would like to go back and forth between two systems, but it is tempting!

 

[P-visie]

The Sigma is so cheap (relatively speaking) it would cost the same or less to buy a Sony A1II or Leica SL3 (the most expensive cameras on E and L mounts respectively) and the Sigma lens than any of the first party 600 f/4 primes alone.

Yes, but Sony limits Continuous AF to 15 FPS with third-party lenses. The Leica SL3’s AF is not good enough for action photography.

 

[pierceography]

Yep. This thought crossed my mind. Not sure I would like to go back and forth between two systems, but it is tempting!

I had this thought as well, but my plan was to buy the r7mk2 when it (hopefully) comes out later this year to pair with either a 600mm f/4L or something similar. Could I go with a Sony equivalent and the Sigma? Sure. But I already have Milwaukee and Dewalt batteries sitting in my garage, I don't need to introduce that kind of heterogeneity to my camera bag.

I'm just really hoping Canon takes this shot across the bow as encouragement to finally open the RF mount up to FF lenses.

 

[docsmith]

I like options.

But the Canon EF 600 f/4 II is an amazingly sharp lens, with wonderful bokeh, rendering and very fast AF.

I’d wait until we have some legit reviews on this lens.

 

[Swissbob]

I've been anxiously waiting for the rumored RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM for a while. However, now that Sigma has announced the
300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports [only for L and E mount ]

Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS | Sports | SIGMA Corporation of America

Ultra-telephoto zoom with the optical performance and brightness of a prime

www.sigmaphoto.com

All the sudden, the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is starting to feel lame... The Sigma 300-600 F4 weighs about the same as my EF 600mm F4L IS II USM and at $6000 it would be a no-brainer to sell the EF 600mm II for the new Sigma, if the AF and IQ are reasonable. If only they had it for RF...

It’s now DOA, especially for the price ( I guess the Canon will be at least the double of the Sigma).

 

[Loswr]

It’s now DOA, especially for the price ( I guess the Canon will be at least the double of the Sigma).

Lol. The Sigma lens doesn’t come in the RF mount. But it’s going to kill a similar Canon lens. Your headspace might be an interesting place, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live there. Anytime you’d like to join us out here in reality, please do.

 

[Swissbob]

Lol. The Sigma lens doesn’t come in the RF mount. But it’s going to kill a similar Canon lens. Your headspace might be an interesting place, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live there. Anytime you’d like to join us out here in reality, please do.

Sorry I was a bit in a hurry.
Let me explain, for the assumed price ( of the 200-500/4) you could get a A1II or A9m3 and this Sigma Lens.
The Elefant in the room is of course the 15fps limitation of Sony.
If they lift it, it could be very tempting, especially for the Sony User.

I guess Canon should up the game, maybe they’ll release a 200-600/4, which would be even better.

The 10-20/4, 24-105/2.8, old RF 70-200/2.8 and the 28-70/2 were unique Lenses as well. ( which I all own BTW).

I hope Canon opens the RF system, more competition will make the RF system even more popular.

 

[Loswr]

Sorry I was a bit in a hurry.
Let me explain, for the assumed price ( of the 200-500/4) you could get a A1II or A9m3 and this Sigma Lens.
The Elefant in the room is of course the 15fps limitation of Sony.
If they lift it, it could be very tempting, especially for the Sony User.

Fine. Still doesn’t mean what you think it means. A Canon RF 200-500/4, if it arrives, will certainly not be ‘DOA’ because of this lens. No doubt a few Canon shooters will buy a Sony body to use this lens, just like a few people have bought a Nikon body to use with the 800/6.3 or 600/6.3 PF lenses (also a cheaper option than the Canon RF f/4 lenses). A Canon RF 200-500/4 will be popular.