New Big White Lenses from Canon are Coming in Late Q4 and Possibly a 500mm Prime
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.
Upvote
0
I seem to be the only person who chose the 500 over the 600 because of the price difference rather than size/weight. I was able to get the former and a 5D3 for the same outlay as just the 600 (back in 2012 when they were all pretty new). I would have preferred the longer lens but I just couldn't stretch my budget that far.
Upvote
0
Haha, awesome. Although, honestly, I think sometimes the discussions here devolve into...
Upvote
0
I use extenders regularly, but none built-in. The primary benefit, in my opinion, is for when the environment makes taking the lens off dangerous to the gear — such as salt spray, blowing grit, sitting in a kayak, etc.; and yet, the benefits of the prime for its typical scenario (probably low light capability) makes it an overwhelming solution to beat out a zoom in the same range.
Upvote
0
Built-in teleconverters are most likely always better than lens + TC from image quality perspective because they are optimized to a single lens. Then add the convenience of instant switch when needed and the option to add another external TC. By the time you unmount the lens, add the TC and mount the lens again, the subject might be long gone.
Upvote
0
In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.
Upvote
0
I have missed more shots by having 1.4x too long a focal length than spoiling a shot by not having 40% more focal length.
Upvote
0
The 8 lbs is a bear, the Pangolin boat had seat-mounted gimbal heads which handled it well, but with another 2 lbs with the R1 or R3, I can’t imagine shooting it handheld for any period of time, it’s the elephant in the room. That being said, I loved the pictures it took, and being able to flip the 1.4x into place quickly is awesome.
Upvote
0
Nothing wrong for choosing a lens at a lower price point. I used to use the 500 mm f4 over the 600 mm f4 due to cost, size and weight. My fingers are crossed that Canon eventually release a 500 mm f4 (f4.5) DO lens (ideally with a built-in TC). I would likely trade in my 400 mm f2.8 lens towards the purchase.
Upvote
0
I did a Pangolin safari in June 2025; highly recommend. Due to a childhood accident, I have limited strength in my left arm. So, I use a monopod a lot. I also use it sitting in safari vehicles, which really works well. I have a RRS monopod for heavy loads and a lighter 3 legged thing monopod. I have used the Wimberley mh-100 monopod head, but have switched to the ProMediaGear tomahawk.
Upvote
0
Yeah, that happened to me also. The animal was so close that only parts of it fit in the image.
Upvote
0
What about a 300 Prime as they dont have a new one as the old one is a bit long in the tooth ? and it was a cracking lens They have replaced the 400 and the 600 already but not the 300 in the RF ?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Let's face it, if they made a zoom that was the same optical quality, f-number, weight and cost as a prime, you would be crazy not to choose the zoom. The question is how much of a compromise in those factors matters to you personally you have to make to switch the balance of choice.
Upvote
0
If the zoom is only slightly worse in each aspect I'd still choose it over a prime at least for birding
However a really good prime with 2 builtin extenders would be the best of both worlds especially if the minimum focus distance is shorter than the current primes e.g:
- A 200mm f/1.4 with 1.4x & 2x for 280mm f/2 & 400mm f/2.8 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8
- A 300mm f/2 with 1.4x & 2x for 420mm f/2.8 & 600mm f/4 could be similar size and weight to current 600mm f/4
- A 400mm f/2.8 with 1.4x & 2x for 560mm f/4 & 800mm f/5.6 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8
but obviously a bit more expensive than current super tele primes
I doubt Canon will make my dreams come true though and I'd settle for a 300-600mm f/5.6 with 1.4x builtin and a similar quality as the current RF 100-300 f/2.8 and of course it would be 10-20% more expensive I expect. (A 200-600mm f/4-5.6 w. 1.4x would be even nicer)
This is much more likely to be made and I would be content with this paired with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don’t have much experience using large telephoto optics. But the thing that as suprised me the mose about zoom lenses is that they are step-less. Other than for video I have never used the step-less feature of zooms. I treat them like multiple primes that are a lot faster to change.
It must surley be easier to make lenses like the Leica tri elmar 28-35-50. The only potential issue I see with stepped zooms and built in TC lenses are that they might loose the tracking ability when changing focal length.
It must surley be easier to make lenses like the Leica tri elmar 28-35-50. The only potential issue I see with stepped zooms and built in TC lenses are that they might loose the tracking ability when changing focal length.
Upvote
0
Why the switch? My guess would be to address the issue of the MH-100 putting the center of mass to the side instead of over the monopod, but to me it looks like that side gimbal wouldn’t shift it back enough unless used with a low profile foot (I’ve seen some that are too low to be used comfortably as a handle). I use the RRS replacement foot on my EF 600/4 II.
My solution is to use the MH-100 on top of the RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head. With a few degrees of tilt on that, the monopod gimbal is level while the monopod itself is tilted off the vertical axis. That puts the center of mass over the monopod foot on the ground, meaning I just need to balance the rig instead of supporting the weight of the off-center rig to keep it from tipping over.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
