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

[juststeve]

A 500/3.5 might be practical. Its diameter would be the same as a 400/2.8. If DO-ed, perhaps it could be a bit shorter and lighter than the current EF 400/2.8 iii. That might be quite attractive in a world of 600/4s.

 

[lexptr]

Too much statements, while lots of normal lenses are totally missing. Statements are good, but no need too much of them.

 

[Chig]

I really hope the lens is a 500 mm f4. I would buy it on the release date. A 500 mm f2.8 would be huge and too big.

Yep 2.8 is unnecessary especially with mirrorless, f/4 makes more sense or even f/ 5.6

 

[Chig]

If they can figure out how to optimize that 500mm f2.8 size and weight, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would be the ultimate bid in flight/wildlife lens. It would take extenders and be a 700 mm f4 or a 1000 mm f5.6! What a beast! The ultimate shoulder hour, forest, rainy day wildlife lens!

Just need to keep working out to carry this lens and gotta keep working another two years to afford it!

Bob

And then you’d stop it down to f/8 so could get things in focus ‘cause the DOF would be paper thin LOL

 

[gcrimmins]

Back in the days of manual focus lenses, Olympus made a 250mm f/2, and Nikon made a 300mm f/2. So even though Canon has not made either one, it's not like it's never been done before.

 

[sanj]

Love the idea of BOTH these lenses. WOW.

 

[john1970]

I wonder if the two lens would be a 250 mm f2 and and 500 f4? The front element would be essentially the same size in both and that would save on manufacturing cost.

 

[sanj]

And then you’d stop it down to f/8 so could get things in focus ‘cause the DOF would be paper thin LOL

No. DOF is generally not a concern for me as the subject distance would be far enough. Wildlife.

 

[usern4cr]

I initially thought that they'd have to use DO to get the size & weight of the 2 long teles to reasonable levels. But they are making both as L lenses, so maybe they're going to make them all out of glass - really big, heavy & expensive - what Captain Ahab calls "The Great White RRRRRs!"

Or maybe they're L lenses built with DO main element lens. This would be smaller, lighter, cheaper but also be softer in contrast and possibly resolution.

And I can't wait to see the 70-135 f2 ! I'll look forward to holding it, as I'd love to have it if it's not too outrageously big & heavy.

 

[Eclipsed]

As one who almost bit on the 400 2.8 iii when joining Canon for RF, but recoiled at the adapter, and one who might be tempted by the "just right" fast pro lens:

250 f2 is not a "statement lens", it's a just right meat-and-potatoes everyday pro lens compromise between the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 (and 200 f2), with a lot more versatility.

• f2 feels very different from the classic 300 and 400 2.8 so adds diversity - but see below that it is a good substitute. Also prevents direct price comparisons with standard 300 and 400 from other sources.
• For me, it might answer the question of what RF lens I'd jump at to go beyond the RF100-500. A big gain in aperture might appeal more than a small gain, but far more utility than picking a 300 or 400 f2.8.
• The 250 f2 with a 1.4x at 350 f2.8 effectively splits the difference between a 300 ($6000 before update) and 400 ($12k after update) . Could be a very sweet spot. Priced at $10k. I assume a modernized 300 f2.8 iii will be $8k (offered with a de-mountable RF mount revealing an EF mount - or maybe two versions - or maybe EF is done when the R1 is released). This commands a premium halfway to the 400.
• 500 f4 with a 2x TC is a sweet spot, too. With the RF100-500 putting that number in our minds, offering a fast 500 (and super fast below) is compelling.
• This could be the justification for a 3x TC (750 f6). Collect 'em all!
• Suggestion (prediction) for one promo after production is caught up will be to bundle a "free" TC or two. Even if not, this will be heavily promoted in the TC context as a 250/350/500 lens (f2/2.8/4). Those are easy numbers to market.
• 250 f2 is a fair alternative to the 200 f2 for indoor sports and such.
• Without DO but with modern light weight techniques, should come in at about the 300 2.8 ii (2.4kg) and below the lightened 400 2.8 iii (2.8kg).
• With these notes, I just sold one of these to myself - I'll be first on the list.

500 f2.8 is the true statement lens, and experts can advise where it's a better sideline lens than a 400.

• 500 f2.8 is 1.95 the volume and mass of the 400 f2.8 if simply scaled up (mounts don't scale). Price can do the same, but this should intro at $17,995 (50% more than 400), maybe a couple thousand more. Lightening lessons demonstrated on the 400 iii are critical for this.

 

[Eclipsed]

Yep 2.8 is unnecessary especially with mirrorless, f/4 makes more sense or even f/ 5.6

The 250 f2 is the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.

 

[richperson]

As one who almost bit on the 400 2.8 iii when joining Canon for RF, but recoiled at the adapter, and one who might be tempted by the "just right" fast pro lens:

250 f2 is not a "statement lens", it's a just right meat-and-potatoes everyday pro lens compromise between the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 (and 200 f2), with a lot more versatility.

• f2 feels very different from the classic 300 and 400 2.8 so adds diversity - but see below that it is a good substitute. Also prevents direct price comparisons with standard 300 and 400 from other sources.
• For me, it might answer the question of what RF lens I'd jump at to go beyond the RF100-500. A big gain in aperture might appeal more than a small gain, but far more utility that picking a 300 or 400 f2.8.
• The 250 f2 with a 1.4x at 350 f2.8 effectively splits the difference between a 300 ($6000 before update) and 400 ($12k after update) . Could be a very sweet spot. Priced at $10k. I assume a modernized 300 f2.8 iii will be $8k (offered with a de-mountable RF mount revealing an EF mount - or maybe two versions - or maybe EF is done when the R1 is released). This commands a premium halfway to the 400.
• 500 f4 with a 2x TC is a sweet spot, too. With the RF100-500 putting that number in our minds, offering a fast 500 (and super fast below) is compelling.
• This could be the justification for a 3x TC (750 f6). Collect 'em all!
• Suggestion (prediction) for one promo after production is caught up will be to bundle a "free" TC or two. Even if not, this will be heavily promoted in the TC context at a 250/350/500 lens (f2/2.8/4). Those are easy numbers to market.
• 250 f2 is a fair alternative to the 200 f2 for indoor sports and such.
• Without DO but with modern light weight techniques, should come in at about the 300 2.8 ii (2.4kg) and below the lightened 400 2.8 iii (2.8kg).
• With these notes, I just sold one of these to myself - I'll be first on the list.

500 f2.8 is the true statement lens, and experts can advise where it's a better sideline lens than a 400.

• 500 f2.8 is 1.95 the volume and mass of the 400 f2.8 if simply scaled up (mounts don't scale). Price can do the same, but this should intro at $17,995 (50% more than 400), maybe a couple thousand more. Lightening lessons demonstrated on the 400 iii are critical for this.

They need a true sports R now, but I agree with the above. The 500 f/2.8 could be a lens that would draw some pros given nobody else makes it. I'm also guessing it won't be a much, if any, larger than the EF 400mm f/2.8 iii. The RF lenses produced to this point have generally been smaller or the same as their EF counterparts. I can't see that changing despite what some here think.

 

[dwarven]

The 250 f2 is the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.

And it's an 800mm f/4 mounted on a future R7 crop body with the 2x. Sounds pretty dang sweet to me.

 

[H. Jones]

• The 250 f2 with a 1.4x at 350 f2.8 effectively splits the difference between a 300 ($6000 before update) and 400 ($12k after update) . Could be a very sweet spot. Priced at $10k. I assume a modernized 300 f2.8 iii will be $8k (offered with a de-mountable RF mount revealing an EF mount - or maybe two versions - or maybe EF is done when the R1 is released). This commands a premium halfway to the 400.
• 500 f4 with a 2x TC is a sweet spot, too. With the RF100-500 putting that number in our minds, offering a fast 500 (and super fast below) is compelling.

All great points here, but this just really sold me on this lens. It really is a goldilocks lens--I find myself as someone who could use a 250 F/2 for indoor sports, a 350 f/2.8 for night field sports, and a 500 f/4 for daytime field sports or birding... This lens would really cover all of the bases I need for my different segments of work, while definitely being much smaller than buying a dedicated 400mm f/2.8.

And it's an 800mm f/4 mounted on a future R7 crop body with the 2x. Sounds pretty dang sweet to me.

Plus a 800mm f/4 on the 17mp 1.6x crop mode of the R5, which has been an absolute pleasure to use.

 

[Joules]

The 250 f2 is the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.

With the upcoming high-res R, you might not even need the TC. 90+ MP is some serious reach, and I could totally see Canon introducing lenses in the near future that will still perform well below the diffraction limit once they creep up their MP numbers above 100.

For those that are not interested, the EF variant of the more traditional focal length and aperture combinations do still exists. And some have also gotten a refresh fairly recently. Eventually RF will cover all it has to, but for the time being it makes total sense to push the technology further and offer the market something new that is different from what the countless EF users already have sitting on their shelves, ready to be simply adapted.

 

[Billybob]

They need a true sports R now, but I agree with the above. The 500 f/2.8 could be a lens that would draw some pros given nobody else makes it. I'm also guessing it won't be a much, if any, larger than the EF 400mm f/2.8 iii. The RF lenses produced to this point have generally been smaller or the same as their EF counterparts. I can't see that changing despite what some here think.

There are no free lunches. Mirrorless allows smaller size on the wide end, but not so much on the long end. In order to keep the 100-500L roughly the same size as the 100-400L, Canon went with a smaller max aperture at the long end. Here, the proposed new lens has the same aperture as the 400 but goes out to 500mm. Unless Canon employs DO or other exotic new technology, the lens will necessarily be (much) larger and (much) heavier. An earlier poster predicted 1.95x the weight. I think that Canon can cut that to 1.5x the weight, which still leaves us with a 9-10lb lens.

As much as I'd love to have an f/2.8 lens that goes out to 500, 7lbs is about the max that I'm willing to consider. But like everyone else, I'm hoping that Canon can pull a rabbit out of its hat and shock the world.

 

[wsmith96]

Ah instead of a smaller and lighter RF 500mm f/5.6 we will get a blackhole

Consider the 250 f/2 with a 2x converter which would get you a 500 f/4 - maybe that's the play on this lens for those who've been on the fence for getting a big white. It'll be expensive enough to entice those holding out, but hopefully the combo will be less expensive than the 500 f/2.8.

 

[Eclipsed]

There are no free lunches. Mirrorless allows smaller size on the wide end, but not so much on the long end. In order to keep the 100-500L roughly the same size as the 100-400L, Canon went with a smaller max aperture at the long end. Here, the proposed new lens has the same aperture as the 400 but goes out to 500mm. Unless Canon employs DO or other exotic new technology, the lens will necessarily be (much) larger and (much) heavier. An earlier poster predicted 1.95x the weight. I think that Canon can cut that to 1.5x the weight, which still leaves us with a 9-10lb lens.

As much as I'd love to have an f/2.8 lens that goes out to 500, 7lbs is about the max that I'm willing to consider. But like everyone else, I'm hoping that Canon can pull a rabbit out of its hat and shock the world.

I predict the 250 f2 will be 5.3 pounds (2.4kg - same as current 300 f2.8 that has not had the lightening treatment).

 

[Eclipsed]

Consider the 250 f/2 with a 2x converter which would get you a 500 f/4 - maybe that's the play on this lens for those who've been on the fence for getting a big white. It'll be expensive enough to entice those holding out, but hopefully the combo will be less expensive than the 500 f/2.8.

And compared to a big 250-500 zoom (think 200-400 f2.8) it can be significantly lighter as a "set" of prime lens(es).

 

[zim]

500 f/2.8 comes with a free R5.... Well that's one way to get an R5

Weight? No problem that's what my man servant is for