Two new RF L mount lenses rumored for 2021 [CR1]

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
290
239
Let's see, "a new kind of super telephoto". Maybe a 500 f/2.8 DO with a carbon fiber housing and an acrylic front element coming in at around 5 lbs. That would be a first, but would require a flat glass protective plate to keep the acrylic element from getting scratched (although plastic lens eyeglasses with hard coatings are remarkably tough). The RF 100-500 is 15% lighter than the EF 100-400 L II, so light weight seems to be in at Canon for everything but penis envy wide aperture primes.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
506
546
Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.
Not the same at all. That "little" price difference is $1000 compared to Sony's excellent 200-600. And the extra 100mm is very useful for wildlife photography where you are almost always limited by focal length anyway, especially on full frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
53
18
www.len-lex.com
... They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF ....
Good point! And that what I would like to see from them. E.g. 200-600 f4.5-6.3, 300 f4 DO, 500 f5.6 DO, 600 f5.6 DO, 100 f2.8 (or f2) macro, 150 f2.8 macro, 180 f3.5 (or f2.8) macro. Just bring it to life and take my money! Imo it will sell much better than all those super-species with five-figure price tags.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,683
911
Let's see, "a new kind of super telephoto". Maybe a 500 f/2.8 DO with a carbon fiber housing and an acrylic front element coming in at around 5 lbs. That would be a first, but would require a flat glass protective plate to keep the acrylic element from getting scratched (although plastic lens eyeglasses with hard coatings are remarkably tough). The RF 100-500 is 15% lighter than the EF 100-400 L II, so light weight seems to be in at Canon for everything but penis envy wide aperture primes.
Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...
 

NorskHest

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 11, 2018
142
168
Minnesota - US
Visit site
Why is that so crucial for you, when the EF versions are fine for now? They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 24 - 105, etc.). I am happily using my adapted EF glass alongside my RF lenses, it's not a problem in any way.
Adapted ef in my experience works better on the mirrorless than it does the ef mount. I love my mirror boxes and won’t be switching for a long time as I still can’t get myself to get rid of my 1d’s and I just got a 1dxmkiii but if Canon has done one thing right it is their adapters they are flawless and for people who want all this new boring clinical RF glass you just have to be patient or you can except that the EF glass is still incredible and use it till it dies
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
178
247
Kenosha, WI
Good point! And that what I would like to see from them. E.g. 200-600 f4.5-6.3, 300 f4 DO, 500 f5.6 DO, 600 f5.6 DO, 100 f2.8 (or f2) macro, 150 f2.8 macro, 180 f3.5 (or f2.8) macro. Just bring it to life and take my money! Imo it will sell much better than all those super-species with fife-figure price tags.
Well, that's your opinion, clearly not theirs, and they have the market research data, you don't.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
290
239
Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...
True, but the 100-500 is 100mm longer and at 400 f/6.3, it has almost identical vignetting to the 100-400 at 400 and f/6.3. The 100-400 at 400 and f/5.6 is pretty dark in the corners (-1.5 stops). Both have 77mm filters and are the same overall diameter (within ,2mm) and the 100-500 is 15mm longer. No miracles, but it is still lighter and longer, so the trend is in the lighter direction. As to the 500 5/2.8, I was just throwing out some thoughts re the "a new kind of super telephoto" quote. Time will tell, but some weight reduction in big whites would be welcome. I have an 800mm f/5.6 L and it is a beast to carry around, much less to shoot hand held. My R5 is in shipping prep now, and the 800 f/11 looks interesting. I have several 500mm mirror lenses (Canon, Tamron, and Nikon) and a Nikon 1000mm mirror. I am curious to see if the R5 IBIS will make any of those lenses more suitable for hand holding. The Tamron is actually pretty sharp and it focuses close in. All are very small and light for their focal length.
 

highdesertmesa

EOS R6 | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
306
367
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...
100-500 will read f/5.6 @ 400mm if you change the aperture increments to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3 stops, but the aperture is wide open regardless. I tested it at both f/5.6 using the 1/2 stops setting versus f/6.3 using 1/3 stop setting by looking into the lens and pushing the DOF preview button – same opening size for both. But you do get a brighter exposure using 1/2 stops increments and f/5.6 versus 1/3 and 6.3 – I tested that in full manual. It's possible the physical aperture size is right between the two at f/5.95 – or it's also possible Canon is faking the 5.6 brightness in order to honor the 1/2 stop setting.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,372
1,157
[..] 100-500 is 15mm longer. No miracles, but it is still lighter and longer, so the trend is in the lighter direction. [..]
You're forgetting the 24mm needed for the EF-RF adapter, so it's actually 9mm shorter when used on a camera.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,683
911
100-500 will read f/5.6 @ 400mm if you change the aperture increments to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3 stops, but the aperture is wide open regardless. I tested it at both f/5.6 using the 1/2 stops setting versus f/6.3 using 1/3 stop setting by looking into the lens and pushing the DOF preview button – same opening size for both. But you do get a brighter exposure using 1/2 stops increments and f/5.6 versus 1/3 and 6.3 – I tested that in full manual. It's possible the physical aperture size is right between the two at f/5.95 – or it's also possible Canon is faking the 5.6 brightness in order to honor the 1/2 stop setting.
1/3 increments are more precise. Even if you read f/5.6 the ISO needed for the same exposure as with 100-400 will be a little higher or the image will be slightly underexposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

highdesertmesa

EOS R6 | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
306
367
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
1/3 increments are more precise. Even if you read f/5.6 the ISO needed for the same exposure as with 100-400 will be a little higher or the image will be slightly underexposed.
I tested it in full manual. SS/A/ISO all set to a fixed value and changing from 1/3 and f/6.3 to 1/2 and f/5.6 gives a brighter exposure. Canon might be jacking with the sensor gain without recording it of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Sep 18, 2019
6
2
Just applying the focal length/aperture, the 500 f/2.8 would have a front element diameter of 178 mm, the 600 f/4 = 150 mm, and the 500 f/4 = 125 mm. I would expect this to be expensive, but 28 mm is 1.1 inches, so the diameter would be 1.1 inches greater than the current 600 f/4.

But, what a statement lens. Love all three of these rumored lenses.
Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!

Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.

We will see...

John Moore
Location Imaging
 
Sep 18, 2019
6
2
Have none of you guys held a 400 2.8 IS III?
It's extremely light.
Of course the 500 2.8 would be huge but I don't believe Canon would even be considering this lens if they couldn't keep the weight down to a manageable level.
I held one for 5 1/2 hours last night on top of a monopod! No problem!

JFM
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
983
409
Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!

Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.

We will see...

John Moore
Location Imaging
:)

The 400 f/2.8 would be 143 mm.

Actual max diameters are be bit more as there is housing. TDP is a good resource, here is comparing the max diameter of the recent 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Really, pretty consistent, the basic formula for the front element give 143 mm and 150 mm for the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, respectively. Then, the max diameter listed on TDP is 169 and 176 mm. The exact same 7 mm difference. If we can assume the housing is that same 26 mm, then the 500 f/2.8 would be 201 mm diameter.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
290
239
You're forgetting the 24mm needed for the EF-RF adapter, so it's actually 9mm shorter when used on a camera.
No argument, but I was referring actual length affecting weight. If you throw in the adapter, the 100-400 is even heavier.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,683
911
:)

The 400 f/2.8 would be 143 mm.

Actual max diameters are be bit more as there is housing. TDP is a good resource, here is comparing the max diameter of the recent 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Really, pretty consistent, the basic formula for the front element give 143 mm and 150 mm for the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, respectively. Then, the max diameter listed on TDP is 169 and 176 mm. The exact same 7 mm difference. If we can assume the housing is that same 26 mm, then the 500 f/2.8 would be 201 mm diameter.
ha ha that's an 8inch big telescope! :D (although this has 200mm real glass diameter and its materials increase this) but still 20cm (OK 22cm) is almost the length of the 400mm DO II lens!!!!!
 

john1970

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
92
93
Northeastern US
Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!

Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.

We will see...

John Moore
Location Imaging
John,

You make a good point. I also find that the diameter of the 400 mm f2.8 is about the maximum size that I can comfortably take onto a plane. Even if they can reduced the weight of a 500 mm f2.8 to be manageable, the large diameter size would make it difficult to take on trips. For that reason, I personally would prefer a 500 f4, but we shall see what Canon releases in super telephotos over the next few years.