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

[AlanF]

The 100-500 is currently £2819. I think Canon could sell a budget-range 200-600/5.6-8 (no tripod foot, no case, no hood, etc) for not much more than half that amount.

I don't think it would eat into sales of the RF100-500. Those who can afford it would still choose it, but those who can't afford it (and there are many in that position) would likely jump at the cheaper option. So it would provide additional sales, rather than cannibalise the 100-500.

As for the cost of a 200-600/8 zoom, if Sony can sell thousands of them for £1499, why can't Canon? You say you think the niche is smaller than I suggest, but it's a big enough niche for Sony, and I see lots of their 200-600 in birding hides and on safaris.

How many Sony 100-400s that sell at £600 more than their 200-600s do you see in hides and on safaris? Not many I would guess because the birders went for the longer cheaper lens when it came out, which would be the likely scenario if Canon brought out a cheap but good 200-600.

 

[entoman]

I still wonder why Sony don't charge more for their 200-600.

It's a real bargain for Sony users. The only downside is that it's a bit long and difficult to fit into a rucksack. I know several people who use them and get extremely sharp results and nice bokeh. AF with A9ii and A1 is extremely good. Build quality is good enough for most situations, although probably not a lens to use next to a goal mouth. Sony could easily charge £2200 and still sell plenty of them to birders.

 

[scyrene]

As for the cost of a 200-600/8 zoom, if Sony can sell thousands of them for £1499, why can't Canon? You say you think the niche is smaller than I suggest, but it's a big enough niche for Sony, and I see lots of their 200-600 in birding hides and on safaris.

Is that the release price or the current street price? Most RF products are relatively expensive, so I would generally expect them to be a little more than rivals' equivalents. Does Sony have as crowded a lineup at those focal lengths, offering equivalents of the 100-400, 100-500, 600 etc (I genuinely don't know their product range)? Different manufacturers can divide the niches in different ways.

 

[sanj]

A cheap and sharp RF 200-600 f/8 would seriously eat into sales of the 100-500mm.

Noooo

 

[sanj]

I still wonder why Sony don't charge more for their 200-600.
Maybe they'll retain my suggestion?

I have used the Sony 200-600 very many times in Africa. It is a superb lens.

 

[sanj]

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.

Yes. Agree. Perhaps my question is if MFT chart the gold standard for judging a lens...

 

[scyrene]

Canon's lack of interest in catering for budget birders is disappointing to many.

I missed this. Seriously? The 600 and 800 are precisely Canon catering to budget birders. Obviously a rather left field approach but you can hardly claim they aren't trying.

 

[entoman]

Is that the release price or the current street price? Most RF products are relatively expensive, so I would generally expect them to be a little more than rivals' equivalents. Does Sony have as crowded a lineup at those focal lengths, offering equivalents of the 100-400, 100-500, 600 etc (I genuinely don't know their product range)? Different manufacturers can divide the niches in different ways.

The Sony 200-600 is currently £1599 but has a cashback reducing it to £1499 in the UK.

The Canon RF100-500 is currently £2979 but has a cashback reducing it to £2819 in the UK.

So here, the Canon is ***DOUBLE*** the price of the Sony.

Canon Europe/UK have been ripping us off for years.

Edit: I refuse to buy anything from Canon UK - I get almost everything on the grey market.

 

[entoman]

I missed this. Seriously? The 600 and 800 are precisely Canon catering to budget birders. Obviously a rather left field approach but you can hardly claim they aren't trying.

Yes, those lenses are aimed at budget birders, they are primarily for people who want to play with long focal lengths experimentally to see how they get on, rather than at more "serious" users. They are a fine for that purpose, but a poor substitute for a zoom with a wider max aperture.

The point, which I and many others have made numerous times, is that Canon's lens range consists of ultra-expensive high end exotica, and ultra cheap bottom end. There are very few lenses in the middle range, other than the RF100-400.

Given the non-availability of third party alternatives, it would be nice if Canon produced at least a couple of other mid-level lenses, such as a 200-600/5.6-8. Unfortunately for serious birders with middle-ground budgets, they don't see it as a priority.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, those lenses are aimed at budget birders, they are primarily for people who want to play with long focal lengths experimentally to see how they get on, rather than at more "serious" users. They are a fine for that purpose, but a poor substitute for a zoom with a wider max aperture.

The point, which I and many others have made numerous times, is that Canon's lens range consists of ultra-expensive high end exotica, and ultra cheap bottom end. There are very few lenses in the middle range, other than the RF100-400.

Given the non-availability of third party alternatives, it would be nice if Canon produced at least a couple of other mid-level lenses, such as a 200-600/5.6-8. Unfortunately for serious birders with middle-ground budgets, they don't see it as a priority.

Are you really saying that @scyrene and I are not serious users?

 

[john1970]

I think Canon could make a budget 200-600 mm f5.6-f6.3/7.1 to compete directly with the budget Sony offering. Maybe they will?? Nikon also has a 200-600 mm lens on the Z mount roadmap, which might also give Canon some addition competition in this space.

Don't get me wrong I love the 100-500 mm RF at only 3 lbs.

 

[entoman]

Are you really saying that @scyrene and I are not serious users?

No I'm not saying any such thing. I prefer to generalise from my own observations, about how I perceive gear to be used within various budgets and levels of photographic "seriousness" of users. I don't wish to debate or challenge the seriousness or levels of expertise of individuals, or stick my nose into other people's budgets.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The point, which I and many others have made numerous times, is that Canon's lens range consists of ultra-expensive high end exotica, and ultra cheap bottom end. There are very few lenses in the middle range, other than the RF100-400.

Not disagreeing about Canon’s current stratification into two tiers, but I’d say that applies to the RF 100-400 as well. At a current $550 price (was $500 a few months ago when I bought it), I’d say it’s solidly in the lower tier. It’s optically good, as are many of the lower-tier RF lenses.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, those lenses are aimed at budget birders, they are primarily for people who want to play with long focal lengths experimentally to see how they get on, rather than at more "serious" users. They are a fine for that purpose, but a poor substitute for a zoom with a wider max aperture.

The point, which I and many others have made numerous times, is that Canon's lens range consists of ultra-expensive high end exotica, and ultra cheap bottom end. There are very few lenses in the middle range, other than the RF100-400.

Given the non-availability of third party alternatives, it would be nice if Canon produced at least a couple of other mid-level lenses, such as a 200-600/5.6-8. Unfortunately for serious birders with middle-ground budgets, they don't see it as a priority.

The lack of mid-range RF lens options in general is striking, but perhaps there just isn't room for them any more - other manufacturers' choices notwithstanding. However I think Canon has filled out the long lens RF range very quickly and in some ways more comprehensively than they did for EF. In all those years the only way to go beyond 400mm natively was to spend ~5x more, now we have more options. I still contend the lineup is pretty much complete, with the possible exception of this rumoured -500mm zoom.

I would quibble about the primes being a "poor substitute" though. While I gather the EF 100-400s were extremely popular with bird photographers, primes have always been a mainstay of the genre. No zoom ever has enough focal length (can any lens? ;p )

 

[mimbu]

What will be a re-badged EF lens?

The current "RF" 400/2.8 and 600/4 are rebadged EF lenses with flange adapters permanently attached. The 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are the same rebadged EF 400/2.8 and 600/4 but with 2x TCs permanently attached. It's unbelievable to me that (a) Canon has fallen so far that they have done this and (b) that people are willing to spend up to $20k on such lenses.

So, if Canon is going to bring out an "RF" 500/4 prime, why wouldn't they do the same thing? People have already shown they are willing to fork over many many thousands of dollars for rebadged EF lenses. Canon may as well continue to milk it for as long as they can.

 

[entoman]

The lack of mid-range RF lens options in general is striking, but perhaps there just isn't room for them any more - other manufacturers' choices notwithstanding. However I think Canon has filled out the long lens RF range very quickly and in some ways more comprehensively than they did for EF. In all those years the only way to go beyond 400mm natively was to spend ~5x more, now we have more options. I still contend the lineup is pretty much complete, with the possible exception of this rumoured -500mm zoom.

I would quibble about the primes being a "poor substitute" though. While I gather the EF 100-400s were extremely popular with bird photographers, primes have always been a mainstay of the genre. No zoom ever has enough focal length (can any lens? ;p )

Yes, it's great that there are now affordable options for long focal lengths, and I'm grateful to Canon for that. The RF lineup at the top end is very comprehensive, more than enough for most pros and affluent amateurs. Likewise the bottom end is very complete - everything from 16-800mm and plenty of zooms. It's just the middle ground that IMO needs more coverage.

The most affordable native RF alternative to the 800/11 seems to be the 800/22 that results from putting a 2x extender on the RF100-400. It zooms back and focuses closer, but the F22 aperture and detrimental effects of the 2x extender seriously undermine its usability and performance. That's why I bought the 800/11 instead (which I've since sold).

A better but much more expensive alternative is to put the 1.4x extender on the RF100-500, which gives a range of 420-700mm and F10 at the long end. That's what I use now, and as expected, it's far better in almost every regard to either the 800/11 or 600/11.

I'm very happy with what I've got. My plea for middle-ground lenses comes from listening to my birding friends, who become very frustrated when they see folk with a very nice, affordable Sony 200-600mm, but find nothing comparable in the Canon range.

FWIW, my recommendation to these guys (and gals) is to buy a mint used *EF* 100-400 and attach it to an R7, with or without a 1.4x extender. It's an excellent combination at a modest price.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, if Canon is going to bring out an "RF" 500/4 prime, why wouldn't they do the same thing?

Because those bolt-on adapter RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are the EF MkIII designs that were released after the R series came out, while the EF 300/2.8 and 500/4 are MkII designs from over a decade ago.

 

[[email protected]]

I still wonder why Sony don't charge more for their 200-600.
Maybe they'll retain my suggestion?

I was shooting Sony when they came out with their 200-600. Was amazing for the price. At the time, I owned their excellent (and at the time lightest-by-far) 600mm f/4. The price of the 200-600 was crazy low and surprised everyone. But Sony was under pressure at the time because super telephoto was a great weakness among its lens line-up.

I found I used the 200-600 much, much more than the big f/4 lens simply because it was smaller, and as I moved around the woods, it wasn't like I was carrying a suitcase around, bumping into things. Because the f/4 was so light (this was before the EF 600 f/4 III, by the way), I would sometimes take it instead for darker days in the woods, where the light was at great premium.

But the image quality on the 200-600 was really adequate for most things, including magazine resolution images after big crops. It was also super-fast focusing. This is a picture of a crazy brittany coming at you around minimum focus distance at around 200mm (the weaker IQ end of the focal range).

I bought into the Canon RF mount before the Canon 100-500 came around, and I sorely missed that 200-600. Because of the extra native focal length and the fact that the Canon 100-500 doesn't take teleconverters in a convenient manner (IQ is great, but the retracted length becomes awkward), I'd probably prefer the 200-600 if Canon offered one identical to the Sony.

I am not holding my breath for this, though.

 

[entoman]

How many Sony 100-400s that sell at £600 more than their 200-600s do you see in hides and on safaris? Not many I would guess because the birders went for the longer cheaper lens when it came out, which would be the likely scenario if Canon brought out a cheap but good 200-600.

I'd guess that Sony probably sells so many of the 200-600 that it more than compensates for fewer sales of their 100-400.

The Canon 100-500 is ridiculously overpriced compared to either of the Sony zooms. Canon caters for extremes but not the middle ground. Their strategy is clearly to have one set of very expensive exotica for the fairly affluent user group, and another set of very much cheaper lenses aimed primarily at those on much lower budgets. Nothing much in-between, despite it being likely that the majority of bird, animal and sports enthusiasts probably fall somewhere in the middle ground regarding their budgets and photographic ambitions/experience.

They offer F4 versions, as well as F2.8 versions of the "trinity" but nothing really in the middle ground when it comes to wideangles, or long telephotos/zooms.

If Canon now brought out a 200-600mm comparable in price and performance to the Sony, it would be highly popular with birders who currently can only afford a 600/11. Those people in most cases probably can't afford an RF100-500. A good affordable 200-600 would only mildly eat into sales of the RF100-500, because those who can afford the latter will choose it anyway, due to the wider max aperture, much more rugged and weather resistant build, better optical performance, and provision of hood, case and tripod foot.

Sometimes, I think our love of Canon gear can make us blind to their shortcomings.

 

[tron]

A 500 f/5 DO lens which means more than a 400 II DO lens size and cost or a cheaper one like Nikon 500 5.6 DO lens would be interesting I believe.