There will be “a lot” of new RF mount lenses from Canon between now and March 2024

[blackcoffee17]

RF 100-500L wasn't in the same category as the 200-600G, the RF is expensive for being relatively compact in the typical 100-400. The other 2 lens you mentioned is in their own category, cheap and bulky.

RF 600/f11 has smaller AF area for R5/R6/R/RP, if you are using R3/R6ii/R7 or even R50 will have larger AF area.
And you really should look into the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C, it's lighter than E-mount version even with adapter take in count. And that lens is ridiculously cheap nowadays.

The Canon also starts at 100mm, has faster autofocus and much better magnification.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This is interesting.

Canon RF 100-500mm L f/4.5-7.1 = 3200€
Sony FE 200-600mm G f/5.6-6.3 = 2000€ (currently on sale for 1600€)
Sigma FE 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN = 1500€

Comparing Canon to Sony image quality looks quite similar at 500mm f/7.1. And Sony has more reach and is faster. Like the Sigma.

I would love a 200-600mm wildlife lens for RF. I got the RF 600mm f/11 out of curiosity and now I'm more into wildlife and checking out what's happening on the Moon. But it's slow to focus and the AF area is quite small. It's hard to justify the RF 100-500 knowing the Sony exists. And the Sigma if it's good. I presume it is.

While the RF 100-500mmm f7.1 L is selling so well, I seriously doubt that Canon would develop a 200-600mm f6.3. They are more likely to make a Super wild life zoom like a 200-600mm f4 (which would make every "wild lifer" descend into a frenzy of excitement.
However, a f6.3 version is a niche lens that Canon sorely miss in their range, mainly due to blocking 3rd party lenses on the RF mount. However, If Canon DID choose to make one, I'm sure it'll be substantially lighter than than all the others, Sharper wide open and an AF speed and accuracy that the other brands could only dream of. Plus...an image Stabiliser of the Gods. The problem is that it would compete directly with any $17K zoom lens that's on Canon's undisclosed road map.
It won't be long until the RF mount patents and IP expire. In the mean time, it's also interesting that Canon will only give "rights" to 3rd party lenses on the basis that the sale of such a lens wouldn't raid their own lens sales.
Canon are the gate keepers of a close loop system, of which Canon are the marketers and profiteers of...and we are the consumers, users and purchasers of. The cameras are most likely the loss leaders, but the lenses are where the fat profit margins are and Canon are defending their margins rigorously.
The fact that Canon are keeping their cards very close to their chest in terms of a lens road map, it's quite possible that Canon's manufacturing is still unstable after the last 10 years of globalised and local disasters. Canon may not know what they actually can release and sustain in production figures.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

RF 100-500L wasn't in the same category as the 200-600G, the RF is expensive for being relatively compact in the typical 100-400. The other 2 lens you mentioned is in their own category, cheap and bulky.

RF 600/f11 has smaller AF area for R5/R6/R/RP, if you are using R3/R6ii/R7 or even R50 will have larger AF area.
And you really should look into the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C, it's lighter than E-mount version even with adapter take in count. And that lens is ridiculously cheap nowadays.

It's a good example of Canon splitting a market (the popular 200-600 f6.3) by selling us a pair of lenses that aren't quite what we wanted (but are excellent).
It reminds me of the Peugeot 205 in the 80's. It was an immensely successful car that dominated the family and hot hatch market for years. But Peugeot had made the nearly perfect car, it was bigger and roomier than all the completion and in every metric, slightly superior too. However it appears that it's success was a surprise to Peugeot and was probably an accidental mistake. So what did Peugeot do when it came to replace it? They released 2 models instead. A smaller version and a bigger version. Some people actually bought both because neither was quite a 205! My point is that cleaver product portfolio's split popular items into two and then sell us both. Only to release a version of what we really wanted all along some time later...causing us to rush out and buy a 3rd item. We buy emotionally, not rationally.

I agree with you that the Sigma 200-600 f6.3 is an excellent lens. however it's very old design from a time when AF servo was a poorly conceived dream and didn't really work well. As a result, it suffers from AF inconsistencies that are well documented on the newer cameras. The wide open sharpness at the long end, AF and IS of the RF 100-500 f7.1 is in a totally different league. However, the price point of the Sigma 200-600 f6.3 C is significantly cheaper than the RF 100-500 f7.1.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think that they need it to be 1.2 to entice the owners of the EF 35 1.4L to jump to the new lens.

Yeah, I think the people who want lighter versions of EF lenses will be served last if at all.
An Rf 35 f/1.4 IS would also be interesting but not necessarily smaller or lighter.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I might like a 24mm L if its good for Astro.

I do hope Canon takes that seriously but thus far vignetting has been an issue.

But at >$2k I'll probably pass.

It will be for sure.
I would root for f/1.2 and a more affordable f/1.4L later.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Once EF lenses are no longer going to be available, then the quality stuff's prices will rise.

The price of used EF super telephoto lenses seems to be going up.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The only nuisance was continually having to take them apart and get the dust out (appearances for the next customer). I suspect that won't be a problem with an RF-S version.

I doubt it will be weather-sealed.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

it's also interesting that Canon will only give "rights" to 3rd party lenses on the basis that the sale of such a lens wouldn't raid their own lens sales

Canon never stated that.
It would not surprise me if that is indeed the case though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The odds are that you’re right because Canon has converted EF-M lenses to RF Mount before.

I found no evidence of that occurring.
The lenses are slightly different.
I have no doubt that they are based on the same optical formula but the Sigma CEO stated that was a pretty common thing to do.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The EF version came out in 2008 for USD12k and went up to USD13k in 2015 and discontinued in 2021

The EF 800 f/5.6 IS was not a huge seller compared to the EF 400 f/2.8 and EF 600 f/4 which is why those got several versions.
People preferred to use the 400 and 600 with extenders due to the shorter MFD.
Nikon went with a 600 f/4 x 1.4 while Canon made the RF 800 f/5.6 out of the EF 400 f/2.8 III.
People seem to wish that Canon took the Nikon approach but the Canon one is smaller, lighter, has higher magnification, and has a shorter MFD,

 

[neonlight]

This one would surprise me. I would bet on a slow UWA zoom, e.g. a mount-changed EF-M 11-22mm.

I would anticipate an updated 17-55 f/2.8. It's a good lens, but could have improved AF and IS. Waterproofing would be good too, make it like an L without the ring.

 

[neonlight]

I would anticipate an updated 17-55 f/2.8. It's a good lens, but could have improved AF and IS. Waterproofing would be good too, make it like an L without the ring.

...or even a 15-65 to make it look like the 24-105 FF.
Perhaps an updated 10-22 as well, as that lens never got an upgrade after the 10-18 came out. Though I got my 10-22 a month before the 10-18 announced, I'd not change it because of the wider aperture and extra range.
I'm also guessing that Canon did not make the R7 a pro APSC/ 7DIII "replacement" because most pros use FF, decided the market was for enthusiasts or those not able to reach orbital prices of FF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I found no evidence of that occurring.
The lenses are slightly different.
I have no doubt that they are based on the same optical formula but the Sigma CEO stated that was a pretty common thing to do.

What is ‘slightly different’ between the RF-S and EF-M 18-150, from an optical standpoint?

 

[Malm]

Canon never stated that.
It would not surprise me if that is indeed the case though.

It's a logical assumption based on Canons's comments that 3rd party licenses must make sense for Canon and that means - first of all - no negative economic impact for Canon. That would put high-quality 3rd party lenses nearly out of the game and I like very good 3rd party astro lenses :-(
I can somehow understand Canons politics, but I also think that it is short sighted as it reduces the number of new Canon shooters. The existing Canon shooters will not change so easily (and generate nice input when buying new RF lenses), but beginners will think twice about investing into such a closed system.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…but beginners will think twice about investing into such a closed system.

Industry-wide there is a 1.6 : 1 lens to body ratio. Among best-selling cameras, two-lens kits comprise a large fraction of sales. Thus, the data show that most buyers just buy a camera and the 1-2 lenses bundled with it. The number of people who go on to buy additional lenses is a small fraction of the user base. The issue looms large in the minds some of the people who are a part of that small minority, but as far as the overall market goes, it’s a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

This is interesting.

Canon RF 100-500mm L f/4.5-7.1 = 3200€
Sony FE 200-600mm G f/5.6-6.3 = 2000€ (currently on sale for 1600€)
Sigma FE 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN = 1500€

Comparing Canon to Sony image quality looks quite similar at 500mm f/7.1. And Sony has more reach and is faster. Like the Sigma.

I would love a 200-600mm wildlife lens for RF. I got the RF 600mm f/11 out of curiosity and now I'm more into wildlife and checking out what's happening on the Moon. But it's slow to focus and the AF area is quite small. It's hard to justify the RF 100-500 knowing the Sony exists. And the Sigma if it's good. I presume it is.

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

• RF: possible walk-around lense
• Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

• RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread…)
• Sony: almost exclusively wild-life

The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.


I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people saying they can’t justify the cost for 100-500mm because of Sonys offering …

this is a repost from June 2021 comment of mine…

 

[christianf]

As explained in a parallel thread, the RF 24-105/4 on an R8 will deliver better overall performance in a lighter package than your 7DII + EF-S 17-55/2.8, and for not much more money.

Not if you want somthing reasonible like a R7.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not if you want somthing reasonible like a R7.

What do you mean by 'reasonable'? The R7 and R8 both launched at the same price of $1500. They are about the same size, you expressed concern about weight and the R8 is 150 g / 5 oz lighter.

As I said, there are reasons people prefer APS-C over FF. But the 'reasonable' ones are really just three – lower system cost, lower system weight, and more pixels on target if you're focal length limited. When comparing the R8 vs. the 7DII with a good standard zoom, the first one is minor and the second one favors the R8. Of course, those are the possible objective advantages of APS-C...many people make decisions based on very unreasonable opinions.

Edit: and lots of people on this forum complain about things as an excuse for why they're not going to buy something they have no real intention of buying anyway. "I would buy a Porsche, but they don't come in purple." Yeah, right.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is Canon's problem right now. They make everything into an argument. Most people would agree the 100-500 is probably better but many people just compare max aperture vs max focal length.

I don't think it's Canon's problem, nor are they making it an argument. But if Canon execs start braying like donkeys, I'll happily admit that I was wrong.

 

[chasingrealness]

I’m quoting a reliable source (re-reading, I should have typed ‘higher end’ instead of ‘high end’): “We are expected 2-3 lenses to be announced in Q4 of 2023, but we don't want to guess which ones are coming. We know what a lot of you want to see in L series lenses, but we also expect at least 1 higher end RF-S lens to be announced before the year is out.”

from : https://www.canonrumors.com/is-another-f-2-zoom-coming-from-canon-cr2/

I would love to see Canon’s own answer to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8…