Will the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II replacement for the RF mount be a zoom?

[Chaitanya]

I am speculating that this could be announced in the late summer/early fall of 2023 along with a development announcement of the R1. In typical Canon fashion they are releasing the lenses before the bodies. For reference, Canon released the RF 70-200 mm f2.8 lens in November 2019 and the R5 was released in July 2020.

I suspect both will be Olympics special release from Canon along with replacement for R5.

 

[davidespinosa]

Arithmetic progression of focal lengths (difference = 100):
100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200

Geometric progression of focal lengths (ratio = 1.414):
100, 141, 200, 283, 400, 566, 800, 1131

Geometric progression of focal lengths, rounding a bit:
100, 135, 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, 1200

IMO the geometric progression makes more sense than the arithmetic progression.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

How popular was the 500mm/f4 compared to the 600mm/f4? Did many people spend a five figure amount on a prime lens, but found that 600mm is too long? I could only imagine that in very specific scenarios like in sports where photographers have a fixed position, but 600mm would be to narrow to catch a scene. I most other scenarios like wildlife or paparazzi photography 600mm always seem better, as you have to crop afterwards anyway. So Canon had reasons to make the 500mm lens more attractive. That only makes sense though if they charge more for that lens than for the 600mm/f4.

 

[mimbu]

No, it will be another rebadged EF lens with a permanent flange adapter added on. Can't believe Canon sells these, or that people actually buy them!

 

[mimbu]

How popular was the 500mm/f4 compared to the 600mm/f4? Did many people spend a five figure amount on a prime lens, but found that 600mm is too long? I could only imagine that in very specific scenarios like in sports where photographers have a fixed position, but 600mm would be to narrow to catch a scene. I most other scenarios like wildlife or paparazzi photography 600mm always seem better, as you have to crop afterwards anyway. So Canon had reasons to make the 500mm lens more attractive. That only makes sense though if they charge more for that lens than for the 600mm/f4.

The 500/4 was a popular lens for motorsports, and it was a popular focal length for those who didn't want to lug around a 600/4 in the days when they weighed 5.4kg. These days a 600/4 weighs less than a 300/2.8 used to so the weight factor is much less of an issue. With that in mind a 100-500/4 or 200-500/4 would make more sense than a 500/4 prime, I think.

 

[Gladiola]

Zooming is nice, but I bet most shooters will take 99% of shots at 500 and 700 mm (tc engaged).

I agree in this class you don't need a zoom just 500mm and beyond.

 

[john1970]

How popular was the 500mm/f4 compared to the 600mm/f4? Did many people spend a five figure amount on a prime lens, but found that 600mm is too long? I could only imagine that in very specific scenarios like in sports where photographers have a fixed position, but 600mm would be to narrow to catch a scene. I most other scenarios like wildlife or paparazzi photography 600mm always seem better, as you have to crop afterwards anyway. So Canon had reasons to make the 500mm lens more attractive. That only makes sense though if they charge more for that lens than for the 600mm/f4.

I preferred the 500 mm f4 vs. the 600 mm f4 due to weight and I find the smaller diameter lens barrel easier to travel with and hand hold. If Canon manages to keep the weight of the 200-500 mm f4 around 7 lbs I will likely purchase.

 

[mpmark]

If correct, I am sure a 200-500 f/4+TC will be a great lens but not for me. I was hoping that Canon would make a 500 f/4 prime with similar weight reductions to the new 400 / 600 mm lens offerings. My EF 300mm f/2.8 II looks to have extended its use for me. Not all bad news as my bank manager will be happy.

That’s exactly what I was waiting for. At this point I moved on, got tired of waiting.

 

[Marximusprime]

There's no way I could justify it, even though it sounds fantastic. I currently have the 500 II. I'll probably hold on to it for a while, although I've seen the EF 600 III go for about $9k on eBay, and I could probably justify that (after selling the 500).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I also recall rumors of a 500 mm f4.5/f5 DO lens being test as well and wonder if Canon is going to use DO in this lens to keep weight and dimensions down.

I can't see Canon using DO in a lens such as this one.
If Canon is going to abandon non DO big white primes then it would make sense to still make lower aperture big white primes like a 500 f/4.5 or f/5 DO.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In typical Canon fashion they are releasing the lenses before the bodies.

I wish they had done that with the RF 24 L, RF 35 L, and RF-S 11-20.

 

[john1970]

I can't see Canon using DO in a lens such as this one.
If Canon is going to abandon non DO big white primes then it would make sense to still make lower aperture big white primes like a 500 f/4.5 or f/5 DO.

That might very well be the case. My hypothesis is that it will be a 500 mm f5 DO, which will be a similar front element size to the 400 mm f4 DO lens. A 500 mm f4.5 DO is only a ⅓ stop slower than a 200-500 mm f4.

 

[danfaz]

No, it will be another rebadged EF lens with a permanent flange adapter added on. Can't believe Canon sells these, or that people actually buy them!

What will be a re-badged EF lens?

 

[derrald]

I preferred the 500 mm f4 vs. the 600 mm f4 due to weight and I find the smaller diameter lens barrel easier to travel with and hand hold. If Canon manages to keep the weight of the 200-500 mm f4 around 7 lbs I will likely purchase.

Agreed, I bought the 500 II when it was first released because (at the time) I was able to hand hold it for short durations. The 600 would have been a non-starter. I believe it was also $1k less which I put towards a 100-400 later.

Unfortunately, as I have aged I have used my 500 less and less. I find the 100-500 RF an amazing lens that works in most situations. I still use the 500 when I'm in a blind or a car, but really, the 100-500 has almost completely replaced a lens I spent $11k on.

Personally, I'm uncertain if I will buy the new 500 (or whatever iteration). The old one works great with an adapter and I have less need for it, but who knows!

 

[markschneider]

I've held off on the 600/800 f/11 lenses as they would not be ideal shooting wildlife at dawn and dusk. This new lens would be amazing, esp with 1.4x. Let's see if rumor turns to fact!

 

[MiJax]

Personally, I would have preferred a prime RF 500 f/4 1.4x (or even 2.0x) instead because I just don't run in to situations where I wish I had a 200 or 300mm on the camera very often. If those lengths are expected, I'd rather have a 70-200 on and save the weight and possibly gain the light gathering of a 2.8. I also can't see this coming in under $13k, or under 8lbs. Honestly, I'd expect closer to just under 9 lbs if they don't use DO optics. But with DO optics, I can see this coming down significantly. A couple of years ago Canon announced they are open to using DO optics in L lenses so its definitely on the table. We'll see what they are cooking up, but I haven't been terribly happy with Canon lens offering lately. The bodies have been excellent, but the lenses have left me shaking my head.

 

[john1970]

Personally, I would have preferred a prime RF 500 f/4 1.4x (or even 2.0x) instead because I just don't run in to situations where I wish I had a 200 or 300mm on the camera very often. If those lengths are expected, I'd rather have a 70-200 on and save the weight and possibly gain the light gathering of a 2.8. I also can't see this coming in under $13k, or under 8lbs. Honestly, I'd expect closer to just under 9 lbs if they don't use DO optics. But with DO optics, I can see this coming down significantly. A couple of years ago Canon announced they are open to using DO optics in L lenses so its definitely on the table. We'll see what they are cooking up, but I haven't been terribly happy with Canon lens offering lately. The bodies have been excellent, but the lenses have left me shaking my head.

Your concerns about weight are noted. The Canon EF 300 mm f2.8 lens weighed in at 5.29 lbs and the RF100-300 mm f2.8 weighs in at 5.7 lbs. I am hoping the same moderate increase applies here. If the 200-500 mm f4 weighs more than 7.5 lbs I will give the purchase a second thought.

 

[sanj]

Great Lens for my wildlife needs. A nagging question: even with the technological advancement, will the IQ match that of a prime 500mm?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Great Lens for my wildlife needs. A nagging question: even with the technological advancement, will the IQ match that of a prime 500mm?

To the extent that the 100-300 is analogous, the MTFs tell the story (300/2.8L II on the left).

 

[scyrene]

Personally, I would have preferred a prime RF 500 f/4 1.4x (or even 2.0x) instead because I just don't run in to situations where I wish I had a 200 or 300mm on the camera very often. If those lengths are expected, I'd rather have a 70-200 on and save the weight and possibly gain the light gathering of a 2.8. I also can't see this coming in under $13k, or under 8lbs. Honestly, I'd expect closer to just under 9 lbs if they don't use DO optics. But with DO optics, I can see this coming down significantly. A couple of years ago Canon announced they are open to using DO optics in L lenses so its definitely on the table. We'll see what they are cooking up, but I haven't been terribly happy with Canon lens offering lately. The bodies have been excellent, but the lenses have left me shaking my head.

In the past I saw it said that DO was about saving length on long lenses, but the weight is driven to a significant extent by the volume of glass, not the tubes holding them together - so a DO lens would be shorter, but not much lighter than a conventional equivalent. I don't know how true that is, especially now, but don't count on it for making a lens very light.

On your other point, what do you dislike about the lenses?