This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

[Khatgs]

So, you want it to be a lot bigger and heavier then? And more expensive?

Yes but not 4kg,
I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size

A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..

 

[Canfan]

Yes but not 4kg,
I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size

A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..

A bunch of 5.6 primes like 500 5.6 and 600 5.6 would be nice on the RF system and would make a lot of the wildlife and enthusiast sports guys happy.
The EF 500 f4 and 600 f4 are excellent and they're guys still trying to get they hands on the Mark I versions of these lens because of the price at which they are going used right now. Its hard even for a pro to upgrade to the every new version at 10, 000+ dollars. They are happy to use the adaptor for now as it works great. Later on they can do some RF f4 to satisfy them.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Probably a very good telephoto options for the RF are the older big whites, like the 500 F4 IS or version II. The 500 IS first version is under $3000 used and in good condition. Has anyone tried them on the R5 or R6?

 

[blackcoffee17]

A lot of pros started off on lenses like these before they move on to BIG F4 primes. There is a learning curves to these. A nice 5.6 would be a nice middle ground.
If we took a poll in this forum, I sure one the the more popular telephoto lens would be 100-400mm or similar.

I like the 100-500 but not the price. Something around $2000 would have been much nicer.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I like the 100-500 but not the price. Something around $2000 would have been much nicer.

Well, the EF 100-400mm from November 2014 sells for 2.399 $ at Adorama at the moment. And you'd like Canon to price a newly developed, 5x times zoom (instead of 4-times) faster focussing, better minimum focus distance lense to sell for less?
I have a hard time accepting a 33% mark-up (in Germany) in comparison of these two lenses, but actually wanting them to price it cheaper than a six year old lense is just absolutely unrealistic and child-like wishing/ thinking. I can't even take this complaint seriously to be honest, and I'm saying that as a consumer who views RF pricing very critically.

 

[goldenhusky]

200-600 is not even in the road map Hope Canon makes one in the near future (by 2023 at least)

 

[Methodical]

Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?

 

[koenkooi]

Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?

My guess: $200 more than the RF85 f/1.2

 

[blackcoffee17]

Well, the EF 100-400mm from November 2014 sells for 2.399 $ at Adorama at the moment. And you'd like Canon to price a newly developed, 5x times zoom (instead of 4-times) faster focussing, better minimum focus distance lense to sell for less?
I have a hard time accepting a 33% mark-up (in Germany) in comparison of these two lenses, but actually wanting them to price it cheaper than a six year old lense is just absolutely unrealistic and child-like wishing/ thinking. I can't even take this complaint seriously to be honest, and I'm saying that as a consumer who views RF pricing very critically.

From authorized resellers here in UK the 100-400 is £2200 vs £2800 for the 100-500. But when i got mine in 2016 it was below £2000. Don't remember, maybe it was promotion. But checking grey market prices, the 100-400 can be had for £1500 vs £2500 for the 100-500.
I understand it's a new lens but i doubt it's any better than the 100-400, except for the extra 100mm and native RF mount.

 

[YuengLinger]

FWIW, the 100-500mm is $100 off at B&H. I think PHOTOCON works as the discount code, but it definitely works if linked from an ad showing the discount.

 

[Dantana]

Yes but not 4kg,
I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size

A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..

So, I understand the 500 5.6 because it's kind of like putting a 1.4 on the 400 DO, but a 600 5.6 would have to be bigger, with a bigger more expensive front element. a 200-500 5.6 would be much larger than the 100-500 that exists now, and a 200-600 would be even bigger. At 5.6, those lenses are more akin to the EF 200-400 f4. They would be way more expensive than the 100-500 and much larger.

But yes, I would love a 500 5.6 DO.

 

[Methodical]

My guess: $200 more than the RF85 f/1.2

Thanks

 

[H. Jones]

A reminder of what the Mitakon 135mm F/1.4 looked like. $3,000, I'm sure Canon would have its eye on a similar cost.

I'd be interested to know if the Canon RF 135mm F/1.4 would accept extenders. 189mm f/2 and 270mm f/2.8 would almost allow the lens to serve double duty as a 200mm F/2 and 300mm f/2.8, which would make a high pricetag a little easier to swallow.

 

[fentiger]

Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?

about the same price as 200 f2

 

[David - Sydney]

From authorized resellers here in UK the 100-400 is £2200 vs £2800 for the 100-500. But when i got mine in 2016 it was below £2000. Don't remember, maybe it was promotion. But checking grey market prices, the 100-400 can be had for £1500 vs £2500 for the 100-500.
I understand it's a new lens but i doubt it's any better than the 100-400, except for the extra 100mm and native RF mount.

The RF communication protocols should be faster focus speed especially @ 500mm on RF100-500mm compared to EF100-400mm + 1.4x TC. It is also lighter and shorter (including the adapter) ie better all round.
There is nothing wrong with the EF100-400mm and that is reflected in the second hand market where few are available and still keeping their price. Good to have choices!

 

[Hector1970]

An impressive list of lens. An autofocus tilt shift would be interesting.
I'm sure if you are new to Canon all these RF lens must be very tempting.
With a huge EF collection I will be slow to by RF lens when I eventually go mirrorless.
I think I will be keeping my DSLR's for many years to come. They are still excellent cameras and robust and will last for a few years yet.
EF has the advantage of being compatible with EF and R

 

[max]

135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8.

R5 or R6 with IBIS and there you go.

I think, It's going to be 2022+ smthing when 135 is released. By then we will have R1 available allready.

Yeah but, I don't really like adapters...

 

[deleteme]

The biggest issue I have had with extreme telephotos has been atmospheric interference. It isn’t that difficult to get crazy magnification, you can stack EF TC’s if not RF TC’s, but getting clear enough air between you and the subject can be impossibly difficult.

The biggest problem I have with the extreme telephotos is that they interfere with my wallet. Makes it nearly unusable.

 

[deleteme]

Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.

AF in a TS lens is not critical but would be nice as the touch screen focus really helps. I suspect the real reason is to get more hobbyists to write checks.

 

[danfaz]

View attachment 193950View attachment 193951

A reminder of what the Mitakon 135mm F/1.4 looked like. $3,000, I'm sure Canon would have its eye on a similar cost.

I'd be interested to know if the Canon RF 135mm F/1.4 would accept extenders. 189mm f/2 and 270mm f/2.8 would almost allow the lens to serve double duty as a 200mm F/2 and 300mm f/2.8, which would make a high pricetag a little easier to swallow.

Dang! That's a beast.