What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?

[BPhoto06]

Canon RF 17-40mm f4L and RF 17-35mm F2.8L both with or without IS. I won't complain.

 

[Dockland]

It's small and light, which is a huge plus when you go out hiking with the camera or hand hold for a period of time. The Sony 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is heavy. Many can manage it, as some do hand holding a 600mm f/4. But, the 100-500mm, and the 100-400mm II, are a lightweight pleasure to use.

Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?

 

[AlanF]

Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?

There is a very light RF600mm f/11 but it's not nearly in the same league optically.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?

The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is slightly lighter. I suspect Canon could produce a 500mm f/5.6 DO that is 100-200g lighter than the 100-500 L, but that might not be as compelling as the PF if you saw a 100-500 L and 500 L both about $3000 next to each other. A 600mm f/6.3 on the other hand would also be light but give something not existing, might even be lighter than the 100-500.

 

[Sporgon]

An EF 70-200 f/4 IS