RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM equivalent with internal zoom coming?

[Del Paso]

Even internally zooming and focusing lenses suck air in, since moving lens groups don't act in a vacuum.
Here again, we have a typical case of belief vs. experience.
And when it comes to experience, I'd guess that LensRentals' Roger has more of it than all our forum members. His statement was absolutely clear!
I've just bought the RF 70-200, the "dust-pump" type, because I'm fully convinced of the concept!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Quoting myself here...but thinking about this a bit more....this may be the lens I wanted when the RF 200-800 was announced.

If the new RF 125-500L takes a 1.4xTC well and gives 175-700 mm f/7.1-9, potentially with better IQ at 700 mm than the current 200-800 (which falls off a bit >600mm) depending on the size and weight, then this could potentially replace two of my lenses.

I am officially interested. And, if the above ends up being correct, this is going to cannibalize the sales of two lenses: the 100-500L and 200-800.

I suspect that it will be a stop faster / brighter too.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Of the patent post, I think the 100-500mm f5-6.3 is the most likely lens we will see and it's certianly an interesting lens. However, I hope canon also seriously considers the 180-600mm f5-6.3 lens too. it's only 30mm bigger / longer than the proposed 100-500.

 

[Maximilian]

Agreed, however my 100-500 has severe zoom creep. It's starting to creep even on "tight" now, kind of defeating the point.

I really wish Canon had put a Lock switch on the lens, but no they had to be clever. I might just send it in.

Fully understand. Disappointing situation

From what I've recognized and what I understand from mechanics, Canon always decides for this zoom lock ring with those big and heavy teles.
A friend of mine managed to destroy the lock switch of a much smaller (less diameter) zoom.
With a wider diameter, the leverage effect increases. So it will become even easier to destroy the lock switch.
Still, that lock ring could be implemented better and zoom creep should be reduced in appearance.

 

[usern4cr]

Agreed, however my 100-500 has severe zoom creep. It's starting to creep even on "tight" now, kind of defeating the point.

I really wish Canon had put a Lock switch on the lens, but no they had to be clever. I might just send it in.

I noticed that the zoom friction ring at maximum friction was not enough. It should lock the lens tight if at maximum.
At the minimum, there should be a zoom lock switch on the lens that will lock it 100% at *any* zoom position. The same is true for all of the zoomable lenses, which I notice only lock the lens at the retracted position (useful, but that ignored the need to lock it at any zoom position when I want to hold whatever zoom I want for multiple photos including panoramas for stitching).

 

[Toamelicious]

Curious how often people critique the weather sealing on extending zoom designs, even though this has appearantly debunked.
A matter I find far more annoying in extending zooms is the change in center of mass when zooming. This would be my reason to by internal over external zooms.
However I also care for portability and pricing and all in all I am absolutely in love with my RF200-800 external zoom, even though the throw of the zoombarrel is absurdly long and the non removable mount makes that even more annoying.

 

[Berowne]

The 100-500 is ok for me. I would prefer a real telephoto lens (400/2.8) but decided to buy a car for my daugther.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I noticed that the zoom friction ring at maximum friction was not enough. It should lock the lens tight if at maximum.
At the minimum, there should be a zoom lock switch on the lens that will lock it 100% at *any* zoom position. The same is true for all of the zoomable lenses, which I notice only lock the lens at the retracted position (useful, but that ignored the need to lock it at any zoom position when I want to hold whatever zoom I want for multiple photos including panoramas for stitching).

And just like that there is another thing Canon could improve on a mkii of the RF 100-500mm:
A zoom lock at every focal length!

I am currently on vacation on an island in the North Sea and I've trying to shoot long exposures with the RF100-500mm on my tripod. The strong wind actually blew the lens back into tube (is that the correct word?) when it was extended. I have never experienced something like this before But I gotta say: we have winds hitting 100km/h here

 

[Del Paso]

The 100-500 is ok for me. I would prefer a real telephoto lens (400/2.8) but decided to buy a car for my daugther.

And I wanted to buy Apo Summicron(s?) but decided to buy a van for my son...
But the Apo Summicron(s?) are only postponed! I definitely "need" them.
Sooo much suffering for one's children!

 

[john1970]

A L series 180-600 mm with the slowest aperature of 6.3 would be reasonable. Would be nice if they utilized DO technology to make the lenses lighter and shorter as well. It would have to differentiate from a 100-300 mm f2.8 x2TC which is basically a 200-600 mm f5.6.

 

[tron]

I wouldn't replace my 100-500L since the new design will make it bigger at least. I realize tc use is problematic but the IQ with the 2X is very good on the other hand.

 

[HMC11]

A matter I find far more annoying in extending zooms is the change in center of mass when zooming. This would be my reason to by internal over external zooms.

Curious: I assume that the lens elements are also shifting position when zooming even if it is an internally zoom lens. As such, wouldn't the center of mass change as well?

 

[docsmith]

Curious: I assume that the lens elements are also shifting position when zooming even if it is an internally zoom lens. As such, wouldn't the center of mass change as well?

Typically the heaviest element is the front element. External extending zooms move that element in addition to some internal elements and extend that weight and overall center of gravity of the lens forward as the lens extends. With an internal zoom the front element is fixed, lighter internal elements move, so less weight shifts and the front element doesn’t move. Thus, internal zooms are typically more balanced thus favored by those mounting them like videographers.

My personal experience is that internal zooms also require less effort to move and I attribute much of that to the weight difference in what you are moving.

To me, a minor benefit of an internal zooms. But some may find this important.

 

[Jaysheldon]

Assume Canon is thinking about replacing the RF100-500 (list price US$2600 -- recently a $300 cut) . Assume the reason is many serious photographers balk at the price difference between it and the Sony 200-600 (list price $1998 -- and its a third of a stop faster). The best solution is for Canon to cut the list price more, not make a replacement lens. Again, assuming the RF100-500 is selling well, why bring out a RF125-500mm F5-6.3L? If it isn\'t selling well, cut the list price (again). But if it isn\'t selling well and Canon brings out an RF 125-500L that has the same list price as the RF100-500, why bother -- unless its to say \'The new lens is faster/lighter than the 100-500, so that justifies the high price.\'

 

[Loswr]

Assume Canon is thinking about replacing the RF100-500 (list price US$2600 -- recently a $300 cut) .

The 100-500 launched at $2699.

Assume the reason is many serious photographers balk at the price difference between it and the Sony 200-600 (list price $1998 -- and its a third of a stop faster).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Sony has an absolutely stellar 200-600 f/6.3 with internal zoom. But, too large and heavy for me. The RF 100-500mm/7.1 is just so light and compact for travel, which is a real plus.

I get the impression fro the patents that this is a new lens and not a replacement for the current RF 100-500. The current lens is a perfect set of specifications for a walkabouts / travel lens that is super sharp, great AF and IS, light and convienient. This patent / rumoured new non extending lens is a bit brighter.
From the list of rumoured patents, the 180-600mm f6.3 looks the most interestng to me and wouldn't clash with the current rf 100-500 or RF 200-800 options. It would basically be a L series bigma....with Canon tech and optics.

 

[docsmith]

Assume Canon is thinking about replacing the RF100-500 (list price US$2600 -- recently a $300 cut) . Assume the reason is many serious photographers balk at the price difference between it and the Sony 200-600 (list price $1998 -- and its a third of a stop faster). The best solution is for Canon to cut the list price more, not make a replacement lens. Again, assuming the RF100-500 is selling well, why bring out a RF125-500mm F5-6.3L? If it isn\'t selling well, cut the list price (again). But if it isn\'t selling well and Canon brings out an RF 125-500L that has the same list price as the RF100-500, why bother -- unless its to say \'The new lens is faster/lighter than the 100-500, so that justifies the high price.\'

I doubt price has much to do with it.

Canon has never had a problem with populating a segment with multiple entries. Just look at the 70-200 range: 2 f/2.8 lenses and one f/4 variant. General purpose zooms you have up to 10 variants: one 24-70, three 24-105s, two 28-70s, one 24-50, two APS-Cs, and one 24-240.

Canon does do a good job of differentiating, usually with a 1 stop aperture difference or slightly different focal length range. An internal zoom is the primary difference between the 70-200 f/2.8 Z vs the 70-200 f/2.8. Often you look at a lens and understand there was a specific target market but broad enough function to appeal to others. I own the 24-105 f/2.8 Z and really like the lens even though I have never mounted it to a gimbal, I dislike the collar, and it is obviously targeted for videographers.

There will be something that differentiates this lens, and we may be able to identify Canon's target market. But there is nothing odd about Canon populating a focal length range with multiple entries. In fact, it is very normal.

 

[RobbieHat]

My continued desire since switching to the R mount has been a three lens solution from 11 (or 10) mm to 500 mm that can be filtered and extended (on the long end). I am almost there at the wide end with the 10-20 but it doesn’t accept filters and would leave a 4 mm gap between 20 and the numerous good 24+ Canon lens options.

At the long end, I seem to be one of the few that is disappointed with the current 100-500 option. Mine has always been a bit soft and I could never put my finger on if this was the result of diffraction, atmospherics or lens calibration. I sent it in for service but it didn’t seem to improve much. I am hoping for something more reliable and would welcome an internal zoom and ability to extend over the full range of the lens.

We will see what, if anything, happens on the long end and I would welcome a 12-24mm f2.8 or faster lens on the wide end so I could eliminate carrying a dedicated astrophotography lens in my setup. Sony and Nikon both have an excellent option in that range along with a Sigma mount version as well that is as good or better and more affordable. I would Canon would open up the mount to Sigma for lenses that they seemingly refuse to make.

Time to stop wishing and go out and shoot with what I have. Happy New Years all!

 

[Bonich]

I've never heard of any problem with weather sealing with the 100-500L. If you're thinking of an extendable lens vs a fixed internal lens, it's been documented by others (lensrentals etc) that it's not a problem. As for personal experience, back when the R5 came out I got the 70-200 f2.8L on a tripod to take photo quality videos of hummingbirds (a poor mans motion trap since Canon is too dense to offer motion trap firmware), and once I forgot it and left it in a downpour for ten or so minutes - but there was absolutely no problem with it. All my subsequent use with it (or other extending RF lenses) has had absolutely no issues, and I've come to love the shorter/lighter size and wouldn't want a fixed internal zoom version if it was longer & heavier. As far as TC's go, I don't want to use them due to loss of IQ and the availability of cropping and good up-rezing software available, but for those that use TCs then I could see that being an issue. And keep in mind that pushing optical quality/size/weight to the max limits is why that RF designed lens has the back optics so close to the sensor that the old-style TCs had no room to be inserted - a brilliant tradeoff for me.

As long as you never change the focal length those external zooming lenses are OK in rain as non extending lenses are. If any trouble occurs it is initiated with the lens breathing while it is zoomed.

 

[Loswr]

As long as you never change the focal length those external zooming lenses are OK in rain as non extending lenses are. If any trouble occurs it is initiated with the lens breathing while it is zoomed.

I'm curious...have you had an extending L-series (sealed) zoom lens damaged by internal moisture from using it in the rain? I ask because I spend plenty of time in the rain using extending L-series zooms, and I do not pretend they are primes and leave them at a fixed focal length, I zoom in and out freely.

Certainly my experience is anecdotal, but it's not theoretical and based on assumptions. I mean, Canon states:

Professionals often have to work in severe conditions, subject to dust, wind, rain and snow. When Canon introduced a newly developed series of dust- and water-resistant super telephoto lenses in 1999, it assumed from the outset that its products would have to perform under severe conditions like these. ... Canon’s pursuit of excellent dust and water resistance continues in the RF L-series lenses.

Yes, they caveat that statement with the CYA phrase, "This cannot guarantee complete exclusion of water and dust from entry." But weather-sealed L lenses are designed with use in rain and snow taken into consideration, and personally I have had no issues using such lenses in rain and snow. Perhaps you're not just making a theoretical claim based on assumptions (ones that contradict the manufacturer's claims), but I wonder why so many people do.