Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The 100-500 is also in part the new 70-200//2.8, because instead of f/2.8 trinity from 17-200, you've now got (or will have soon) an f/4 *-7.1) trinity from 10-500. For "most shots" you don't need the extra stops, thx to 1) IBIS and IS , 2) far sharper and less ISO-sensitive sensors and 3) AF that doesn't require f/2.8 to work.
Even in cases you NEED bokeh, the 24-105/4 at 105/4 has the same amount of bokeh the 24-70/2.8 did at 70/2.8, and at 500/7.1 you have the same 71mm aperture the 200/2.8 does wide open. So for doing "portraits without a dedicated portrait lens" you're about as well set-up.
Many togs work in confines spaces. e.g. weddings, events, studios. In a studio there is often no way to back up in order to use 105 mm instead of 70 mm. At events you are stuck in the press box with no way to back up. Weddings are similar. Most togs choose their focal length first and then their aperture. For events and weddings a 100-500 is not a substitute for the 70-200/2.8
That said, I have often in the past relied on fast lenses for a brighter viewfinder and better focus (whether AF or MF). With mirrorless/EVF and DPAF, large aperture isn't as big of a deal for these two aspects. Also I feel more comfortable these days cranking up the iso a bit to get faster shutterspeeds.
True, but I plan on getting either an Aquatica or Nauticam housing for the R5 and EF fisheye may not fit as well in the housing than a native RF lens. I prefer the smaller footprints of Aquatica and Nauticam for big camera housings. The Ikelite's bulk doesn't do it for me.Definitely very useful underwater but I wouldn't see a big difference in quality needed over the EF version.
My Ikelite housing with the R5 is working very well for me
Your budget is a little higher than mine
Nice gear but I can’t justify it for the amount of diving I do. Ikelite is definitely bulky... I use a trim weight when I use my 8” dome but not needed for my macro setup.
Based on the ikelite port chart for rf mount and the only difference is the port length based on the overall lens length. The only direct ef/rf lens is the 16-35mm f2.8iii vs rf version. 92mm vs 78mm. The width is not an issue ie that is the overall port system for ikelite’s dl system and fits all lens... even the 11-24mm
I've been thinking a lot about the 100-500mm vs the 100-400mm II on the R5 and will make up my mind when I can get the RF and test them directly against each other. Unlike you, I have decided not to go with the 800/11 as an accompaniment to a zoom because I couldn't go on a hike carrying both the 100-500mm and 800mm - you may well be younger and fitter than me and use cameras in a different way. So far, I am very, very happy with the 100-400mm II + TCs on the R5 and get up to 800mm. But, if the 100-500mm is better then I'll upgrade.In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance.
The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.
I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.
If you would rather Canon provided less optimal RF lenses just for the sake of allowing the normal use of a TC, then I would suggest that you try to be happy that their EF lenses and EF-to-RF TC's can do just that, and in fact they perform better on the R... bodies than they used to on the EF bodies.
Well, I may be fit for my age, but my age is in the Grandpa territory. If I go on a hike, there is no way I'll take the 100-500 and 800. If the 100-500 supported the whole zoom range with a TC then I probably would buy one to use, just as you do, but to change a 100-500 into a 420-700 or 600-1000 and lose the 100-whatever range isn't worth it to me, as I can use cropping in post to get a good enough further reach (with the 45MP R5) while retaining the 100-whatever range. If I took a 2nd lens it would probably be the RF 15-35 f2.8L IS which I'm *really* happy with (but would prefer a RF 17-70 f4(or so)L IS if they ever made one).
Since you already have the EF 100-400 which can use a 1.4 or 2x TC adapter then I think you're better off using that combo as you currently do, and save your money for other lenses, bodies, or other stuff in the future. I'm new to the Canon line, so I don't have any EF lenses and so I would rather buy whatever RF lenses make sense for me as they come out.
One other consideration that probably doesn't apply to you (but it does for me and some others here) is that the 100-400mm is usable on EF-M cameras (with adapter) and the 100-500mm never will be. So I was glad to have just bought one even when the 100-500 came out. On the other end of the spectrum, I was perfectly happy to buy the RF 15-35 (though I am still paying for it), but that is because I have tolerably good lenses in that range that work on the EF-M and I wouldn't normally use my M6-II for that sort of work anyway.
