There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]

[David - Sydney]

I have the RF 100-500 and love it. But what I've found using it on the 45mp R5, is that to get good sharpness when hand holding it, I need to shoot at 1/(4xfl), meaning 1/2000 sec if shooting at 500mm.
This might be different if you use a lower-mp body with it, I haven't tried since I do not have one, but I'd assume the bigger pixels would be more tolerant of micro movements.
Some examples here - most of the images, even panos, taken with the 100-500:
Post

I haven't seen the same issues with my RF100-500.
Both the below puffin shots were handheld and have been cropped a lot.
The first puffin was relatively stationary but the second one in flight is comparably slow showing wing movement but the eye is more than acceptably sharp for me (eye-af is amazing when panning). Puffin wings move up to 400 beat/minute. Maybe I was lucky but so far - so good!

https://flic.kr/p/2nCokKc

400mm 1/500s

https://flic.kr/p/2ojBTyB

180mm 1/200s
I checked and most of my shots on my Flickr page using the RF100-500 are approximately 1/focal length and cropped (sometimes heavily).

 

[Rzrsharp]

RF100-500 II
RF70-200/2.8 II
Internal zoom pl3ase. TC friendly or not is not important. Can not understand why it's so important to someone.

 

[David - Sydney]

RF100-500 II
RF70-200/2.8 II
Internal zoom pl3ase. TC friendly or not is not important. Can not understand why it's so important to someone.

But why is internal zoom important for you?
If the current ones don't pump dust and are rugged (as per Lens Rentals), lighter weight and shorter then where is the advantage?
The downside is lack of TC and zoom ring effort/distance but you don't need TCs...

 

[Rzrsharp]

But why is internal zoom important for you?
If the current ones don't pump dust and are rugged (as per Lens Rentals), lighter weight and shorter then where is the advantage?
The downside is lack of TC and zoom ring effort/distance but you don't need TCs...

That's quite irritating. People thought lensrental is god.
Its not.
The external zooming or focusing will bring in dust by nature, unless canon camera lens use science from another planet. Sony and Nikon are native earth camera makers.
Don't zoom out (withdaw) your 100-500 to 100mm before it dried if it's wet at 500mm. It will bring the water on the neck inside your lens to feed some hungry fungus.
My 13 year old EF 70-200/2.8 II is fungus, haze, dust free until now. It had been to all the continents with me under all kind of weather and environment. My EF2470/2.8 I/II were not that lucky, both serviced a couple of times.
It's funny people say good to a downgrade product sold at higher price.

 

[David - Sydney]

That's quite irritating. People thought lensrental is god.
Its not.
The external zooming or focusing will bring in dust by nature, unless canon camera lens use science from another planet. Sony and Nikon are native earth camera makers.
Don't zoom out (withdaw) your 100-500 to 100mm before it dried if it's wet at 500mm. It will bring the water on the neck inside your lens to feed some hungry fungus.
My 13 year old EF 70-200/2.8 II is fungus, haze, dust free until now. It had been to all the continents with me under all kind of weather and environment. My EF2470/2.8 I/II were not that lucky, both serviced a couple of times.
It's funny people say good to a downgrade product sold at higher price.

Lens Rental has extensive experience in tearing down, repairing and servicing lenses. They are not god but certainly have a significant voice in the debate. Can you point to any other source of information?

You are making assumptions but it seems you haven't used the RF lenses in question. I have both the RF70-200/2.8 and the RF100-500mm. The latter in more extreme conditions that the first one. Maybe I look after my lenses and wipe down when wet my single data point is that I have only cleaned my sensor once in 3 years. I never had any issues using my EF24-105/4 (mark I) in light rain either.

People will buy what they prefer but perhaps be open to trying things before making a definitive decision. You can always adapt your EF lens for R bodies (if you aren't already) and there will be a significant second hand market for the EF70-200/2.8 lenses for the foreseeable future

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's quite irritating. People thought lensrental is god.
Its not.

Of course not, but they’ve seen and serviced a lot more lenses than you have so I choose to believe their conclusions over yours.

The external zooming or focusing will bring in dust by nature, unless canon camera lens use science from another planet.

Dust goes almost everywhere by nature. That’s why the clean rooms I’ve worked in have continuous HEPA filtration with many room air changes per hour.

Lenses aren’t hermetically sealed and they all have elements inside that move. It’s easy to understand that a poorly sealed or unsealed lens with no external movements could be more susceptible to dust accumulation than a well-sealed lens with external movements. At least for someone with a decent grasp of physics and engineering. Maybe not for someone who found an engineering certificate in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Incidentally, one of Roger’s suggestions makes a lot of sense: all lenses have dust in them, it’s just easier to see with certain designs (front or rear element with higher magnification). Or as he summed up, if you don’t see dust in your lens, your flashlight (torch for our UK friends) isn’t bright enough.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Lens Rental has extensive experience in tearing down, repairing and servicing lenses. They are not god but certainly have a significant voice in the debate. Can you point to any other source of information?

You are making assumptions but it seems you haven't used the RF lenses in question. I have both the RF70-200/2.8 and the RF100-500mm. The latter in more extreme conditions that the first one. Maybe I look after my lenses and wipe down when wet my single data point is that I have only cleaned my sensor once in 3 years. I never had any issues using my EF24-105/4 (mark I) in light rain either.

People will buy what they prefer but perhaps be open to trying things before making a definitive decision. You can always adapt your EF lens for R bodies (if you aren't already) and there will be a significant second hand market for the EF70-200/2.8 lenses for the foreseeable future

I have RF100-500, RF28-70, RF600/F4, RF 800/11
I have more experience of rf and ef lens than many people here.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Of course not, but they’ve seen and serviced a lot more lenses than you have so I choose to believe their conclusions over yours.


Dust goes almost everywhere by nature. That’s why the clean rooms I’ve worked in have continuous HEPA filtration with many room air changes per hour.

Lenses aren’t hermetically sealed and they all have elements inside that move. It’s easy to understand that a poorly sealed or unsealed lens with no external movements could be more susceptible to dust accumulation than a well-sealed lens with external movements. At least for someone with a decent grasp of physics and engineering. Maybe not for someone who found an engineering certificate in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Incidentally, one of Roger’s suggestions makes a lot of sense: all lenses have dust in them, it’s just easier to see with certain designs (front or rear element with higher magnification). Or as he summed up, if you don’t see dust in your lens, your flashlight (torch for our UK friends) isn’t bright enough.

That's why we need internal zoom for high end lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have RF100-500, 28-70, 600/F4, RF 800/11
I have more experience of rf and ef lens than many people here.

Four lenses. Wow, that’s a lot! I think LensRentals has only two or three so you surely must have more experience than Roger Cicala.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's why we need internal zoom lens for high end lens.

Seems you totally missed the point. You’d better get rid of two of your four lenses. Dust in a lens is horrible, it really wrecks images. Not sure what you’ll replace those lenses with, sure glad that’s your problem and not mine.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Seems you totally missed the point.

I will not try to convince anyone online. It's impossible.

Anyway, an internal zoomed RF70-200/2.8 is finally coming, yeah!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anyway, an internal zoomed RF70-200/2.8 is finally coming, yeah!

Yes, a couple of people told CRguy that, and he posted it on Canon Rumors (but didn’t even give it a rating). It must be true. Yeah!

 

[Rzrsharp]

Four lenses. Wow, that’s a lot! I think LensRentals has only two or three so you surely must have more experience than Roger Cicala.

What are you trying to say? The words from a company making profit from lens rental are bible prints, and users can not have different sound from his own experience?

LOL

 

[neuroanatomist]

What are you trying to say? The words from a company making profit from lens rental are bible prints, and users can not have different sound from his own experience?

LIL

Of course you can have a different experience. But if your car breaks down and you post on the internet that the model is unreliable but it happens to be the Consumer Reports pick for more reliable, who should people believe? Hint: not you.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Yes, a couple of people told CRguy that, and he posted it on Canon Rumors (but didn’t even give it a rating). It must be true. Yeah!

What's the problem you have? Internal zoom lens bites?

You must be hurt seriously by the rumors.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What's the problem you have? Internal zoom lens bites?
S
You mbe hurt.

Well, you’ve done the impossible…convinced me online that you’re not worth my time. I suspect you’ve convinced others of some opinions about you, as well. Bye.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Of course you can have a different experience. But if your car breaks down and you post on the internet that the model is unreliable but it happens to be the Consumer Reports pick for more reliable, who should people believe? Hint: not you.

We are different from you.
We read the B&H, Anazon users review before placing the order, not the product ads and quoted reviews.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Am I the only one hoping Canon release the RF 20-70L f4 and RF 28-105L just to fight E mount's equivalent.

 

[AlanF]

I haven't seen the same issues with my RF100-500.
Both the below puffin shots were handheld and have been cropped a lot.
The first puffin was relatively stationary but the second one in flight is comparably slow showing wing movement but the eye is more than acceptably sharp for me (eye-af is amazing when panning). Puffin wings move up to 400 beat/minute. Maybe I was lucky but so far - so good!

https://flic.kr/p/2nCokKc

400mm 1/500s

https://flic.kr/p/2ojBTyB

180mm 1/200s
I checked and most of my shots on my Flickr page using the RF100-500 are approximately 1/focal length and cropped (sometimes heavily).

They are very nice shots and I and many others would be happy to have them. But, I am not sure they are good examples to use as examples that you can get critically sharp photos of birds at low shutter speeds. For a start, we can't download them and we don't know whether they are 100% crops. Here are a couple of shots of mine from earlier this year of puffins taken with the RF 100-500 at 1/4000s on the R7, one of which with sandeels is very similar to yours. These are 100% crops that can be downloaded for comparison. Are these sharper? My experience is that fast shutter speeds do improve sharpness.

 

[EricN]

We are different from you.
We read the B&H, Anazon users review before placing the order, not the product ads and quoted reviews.

We can read those reviews on lenses, but it's important to be aware that not everyone will post an accurate review for a variety of reasons. I also don't trust every Youtuber's reviews