Will the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II replacement for the RF mount be a zoom?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Seems kind of silly. One can purchase a high quality 200-600 from Sony for about $1k + change. I’m supposed to fork out 10x that for a lens that has less native reach while being ever slightly faster? Drop in the 1.4x and it is a tad longer reach but equally slow? Fail.
Upvote
0
Sony 200-600mm is F6.3 at 600mm.
Canon 200-500mm would be F4 at 500mm, and with 1.4x extender engaged would be F4.5 at 600mm, and F5.6 at 700mm.
"With the TC engaged, you'll get a 280-700mm f/5.6L IS USM." - Canon Rumors
So the Canon would be by far the best lens, with a 200-700mm range and a full stop wider (and a very much higher price).
Wide max apertures are highly desirable for a lens of this type, that will be mainly used as a sports or wildlife/birding lens.
The Sony is an excellent lens, focuses very fast and very affordable.
Canon should really be trying to match that, by providing a "budget" 200-600mm F5.6-8 or similar.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
You forgot to say that this lens will be so good the other brands are doomed.You should say it without the asterisks:
Zooming good! (I counted 4 letters so...).
Edit:
Oops, ****.
Upvote
0
Haha, I was expecting a retort from you Neuro!
I have no need for a 200-600mm myself, as I find the RF100-500mm and 1.4x more than adequate for my needs. I was "wishing" on behalf of other Canon friends, who actually have the 600/11, but can't afford or justify the price of the RF100-500mm. They need an affordable zoom for birding, that reaches 600mm and isn't restricted to F11.
If Canon was willing to produce it, then they definitely "should" - after all, they banged out the remarkably good RF100-400mm and it doesn't cannibalise sales of the RF100-500mm, as they appeal to people in different economic circumstances. OK, I've got both, RF100-500mm and RF100-400mm, and so does @AlanF, but we're probably exceptions to the rule.
Upvote
0
I think all 3 of us "exceptions" bought the RF100-500mm and extender first, and later added the RF100-400mm as a lightweight option.
But there are a lot of keen birders and sports fans who just can't afford to spend that freely. And you can't blame any of them for looking over their shoulder at what is available to Sony uses, in the form of their 200-600.
You mention the RF600/11 and 800/11, neither of which Sony make, but I very much doubt if Sony users are looking at them enviously, as they have a huge array of affordable options available, such as the 200-600mm and various "birding" zooms from Tamron and Sigma.
Many people have been waiting for Sigma or Tamron to launch an affordable 200-600-ish zoom in RF, but I can't see Canon allowing them to produce one until Canon themselves have covered that niche. I'm sure it's within Canon's capabilities to produce such a lens, and judging by the popularity of the Sony 200-600mm and the (EF) Sigma 150-600mm, it would be a winner for them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They didn't offer one during the long EF years, did they? Why now? Alternatively, the 100-400 is the affordable zoom for birding. Not sure how they could go much longer/wider aperture without heading towards the price of the 100-500.
Incidentally I got an RF 100-400 today! I just can't afford the 100-500, even secondhand.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Lol. The 50/1.2L is only slightly faster than the 50/1.8. Sure would be silly to pay 10x as much.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Yes, DO will definitely create a shorter lens with less magnesium, but it will also allow the use of two large plastic lens elements which is significantly lighter than two large glass elements. Unfortunately its not one of the largest two elements so the savings is capped, but a smaller lens construction and lighter elements (potentially the 3rd and 4th largest elements) will be useful. Also note, DO lenses were "supposed" to be cheaper as well, so its possible Canon could finally deliver on that promise, which would be welcome.
Either way, I'm a past DO owner and honestly, wasn't fully satisfied. So, I'm not sure if I'd buy in again. So, I'm hoping for a conventional prime lens with a 1.4x, at 6.5lbs.
Upvote
0
I did not realize that DO lenses were made of plastic. Back in the day when I shot Nikon I had there 300 mm f4 PF lens and I thought it was not very good although I have heard the the Canon EF 400 mm DO Version 2 lens was much improved.
If Canon builds a 200-500 mm lens with built in 1.4x TC at 6.5 lbs I will be very shocked. The recently announced RF 100-300 mm f2.8 without a built in TC weighed in at 5.7/5.8 lbs.
Upvote
0
Serious question: What are the parameters we evaluate a lens on: 1. Sharpness (MFT), 2. Focus speed 3. Weight 4. Bokeh and? Will the zoom match the prime in all these (and more)? Perhaps not. But the ability to zoom must surpass any minor differences. Right? At least until the time they launch a new 500mm f4 and it beats the zoom substantially in every department...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Nor should you, @MiJax is wrong (or maybe he also believes that gold-plated jewelry is ‘made of gold’).
Canon states, “Canon DO lens … is composed of spherical glass lenses and special plastic diffraction lattices. The diffraction lattices are a few micrometers thick (1 micrometer = 0.001millimeter).”
DO lenses are lighter, but that’s in large part due to an optical design requiring fewer large elements toward the front of the lens.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
For me, the prime parameter is the overall specification vs. my needs. Shooting indoor events with a 70-200/2.8, I’m wide open at the highest ISO I am comfortable with, and I need more reach. I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8, since I was reluctant to buy the EF at this point, but really the 100-300 is ideal since it allows framing a small group or an individual without changing lenses.
Second consideration for me is optical performance – sharpness and bokeh mainly, since CA (especially lateral), distortion and vignetting are easily corrected, and coma/astigmatism aren’t relevant for my use. . From the sharpness standpoint, the 100-300 seems as sharp as the 300/2.8 II, one of the sharpest lenses available. Bokeh in sample images looks good, too.
Not really concerned about focus speed – current lenses are all very fast. I’m not sure if the 100-300 has the dual power drive feature other big white RF lenses have, enabling faster AF with the R3 (and presumably the R1).
Weight is fine in this case, typically low on my list of concerns anyway since I can handhold the 1D X + 600/4 II combo and the R3 + 100-300/2.8 is much lighter.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
