What’s Coming Next from Canon?

[riker]

It's lighter by 200g only when its tripod ring is removed. The in-use weight is only 90g less - see the-digital-picture.com

View attachment 229571

Damn, girl!
My whole world collapsing.
Well, still got that 90g, +100mm, better IS and AF.
Will be hard to sleep tonight, thanks

 

[Del Paso]

Don't think about it, just do
The 100-500 is 200g lighter than the 100-400 and a 16y newer lens with better IS, AF, etc.
For me it's very important because it's my #1 travel lens even when just backpacking around places like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc, so wight matters a lot.

It gets even lighter if you replace its enormous lens shade with the one made for the RF 50mm f/1,2. I never had any flares issues despite it being shorter.
Edit: The second one I bought for the RF 70-200 f/4.
Sure, you look a bit less professional...

 

[jeff89]

Actually, some blurring of a dragonfly's wings in flight is rather attractive and parallels shooting helicopters and prop aircraft when, I believe, the devotees want the propellers and rotors blurred. I've shot 1000s of dragonflies in flight and have quite a few with crisp wings. The head-on one has a blurred body but that to me adds life to the photo. All taken with the RF 100-500 on the R5 or R5ii - you need a light lens to swivel fast.

View attachment 229579View attachment 229580View attachment 229581View attachment 229582View attachment 229583

To me, i like the detail better, but I can definitely understand your helicopter and prop analogy. Frozen blades in flight ain’t natural.

To those of us in the fixed wing community, the wisdom on the rotary wing community is “Helicopter lives are kinda like cat lives, but you never know how many of them there are, so you don’t want to go using them unnecessarily.”

In flight school I flew the T-34C, then at Cherry Point, the TAV8B’s mid to late 90’s. During the 70’s the AV-8A’s were dubbed the “Carolina Yard Darts”.

 

[AlanF]

Damn, girl!
My whole world collapsing.
Well, still got that 90g, +100mm, better IS and AF.
Will be hard to sleep tonight, thanks

I thought it was the weight when hiking that bothered you, not when sleeping.

 

[riker]

It gets even lighter if you replace its enormous lens shade with the one made for the RF 50mm f/1,2. I never had any flares issues despite it being shorter.
Edit: The second one I bought for the RF 70-200 f/4.
Sure, you look a bit less professional...

Interesting approach, I'll check.
I have all of them, 100-500, 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 and I love all, always a hard choice which one to take. Trying to foresee the future what situations I will encounter. It's usually the 100-500 or the 70-200/4.

 

[riker]

 

[Surab]

Don't think about it, just do
The 100-500 is 200g lighter than the 100-400 and a 16y newer lens with better IS, AF, etc.
For me it's very important because it's my #1 travel lens even when just backpacking around places like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc, so wight matters a lot.

hahaha no no, there has been a misunderstanding: the RF 100-400mm is one of the reasons I bought into the RF mount: for its size and price at the provided quality. I can't justify spending ~3k on a lens. I don't make money with my gear and I prefer to use the rest of my disposable income for travels.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]

Canon makes great zoom lenses! I am a staunch evangelist for the 70-200Z (including w/ 2x). All of these taken with the 2x on:

Which camera are you using that with? I'm considering getting the 70-200Z later this year, because I keep running into having not enough light with the RF24-105 F/4L and the RF100-500L combination. It won't fix physics, I'll still need to stop down to get enough in focus, but having the option to use f/2.8 and a 2x is very attractive. And it turns out Panamoz has the lens much, much cheaper than local stores.