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

[neuroanatomist]

I don't see why that would stop Canon, since Canon users seem happy to hand over large quantities of money for recycled EF glass on RF mount.

The fact that we’re getting a 100-300/2.8 instead of the EF 300/2.8 II with an adapter bolted in indicates that Canon sees it differently than you.

 

[Rzrsharp]

Canon gets severely mocked for the RF 800 f/5.6 but that is pretty much what they were thinking.
Most birders preferred using a 600 f/4 x 1.4 TC over the EF 800 f/5.6 because of the MFD and lighter weight even though they cost the same and the 800 f/5.6 was significantly sharper.
Nikon went ahead and made a 600 f/4 x 1.4.

800/5.6=143mm
600/4=150mm (yes, 600/4 is thicker than 800/5.6).

RF600/F4+1.4x that @840mm/F5.6 collects more light (or more light enter into the lens) than 800/F5.6.

In theory, 600mm/F4 + 1.4x should be better than 800/5.6.

 

[masterpix]

A 200-500/4 with built-in 1.4x would be a nice upgrade to the EF 200-400/4 + 1.4x. I'm not sure I believe that such a lens would be the size/weight of the EF 500/4 II. The RF 100-300/2.8 is 7.5 cm / 3" longer and 240 g / 0.5 lb heavier than the EF 300/2.8 II, so I really don't see how they could make a 200-500/4 with a built-in TC and end up at the same size as the EF 500/4 II.

Personally, I will stick with the 600/4 over the 500/4 (practically for my typical use, it's really 840/5.6 vs. 700/5.6), though if the R1 comes in with a pixel density high enough to obviate the extra 140mm (which is reasonably likely), I may consider swapping my 600/4 II for this rumored lens if it becomes a product).

Mind that since the sensor is closer to the back element of the lens than that of the EF lens, it might reduce some of the optics and allow lower weight.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mind that since the sensor is closer to the back element of the lens than that of the EF lens, it might reduce some of the optics and allow lower weight.

The same logic should apply to the RF 100-300/2.8, but it’s longer and heavier than the 300/2.8 II and doesn’t have the TC rumored for the 200-500/4. Ya canna change the laws o’ physics.

 

[David - Sydney]

A zoom is quite possible, given that Canon have replaced the 300/2.8 with a zoom. A very exciting prospect for those who can afford it.

On the other hand, they could opt for a compact and lightweight 500/4 prime, and throw in a couple of marketing "features", although I'm not sure what they would be.

Either way, Canon has shown that it wants to offer features that "lift" RF lenses above their EF nearest equivalents, so we can be sure of something exciting.

I would agree except for the RF400/600/800 vs EF equivalents barring slightly faster AF speeds, slightly mechanical stronger and lighter removing the separate R mount adapter and 0.5 stop CIPA IS rating.

 

[MiJax]

DO elements are not plastic, they are glass. Quotes from Canon "It is composed of spherical glass lenses and special plastic diffraction lattices. The diffraction lattices are a few micrometers thick (1 micrometer = 0.001millimeter).".
That lattices are thin plastic layer like coating or glue. Doublet (lens) maybe cemented of two lens with plastic adhesive, for example, epoxy. Normally we don't call them plastic.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I may have oversimplified that. They are a glass/plastic sandwich (mostly glass). But I would be surprised to find they were only a micron thick. Are you sure about that part?

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

I think that there is still a niche for ultra wide angle/wide aperture/low coma native lens eg RF14mm/1.8
Even without AF would be fine but I can't imagine Canon releasing a manual lens today.
There is also the rumoured RS TS-E 14mm

To your point
- There is also no RF equivalent for the EF11-24mm/4. Given the filter issue which is solved by the R mount adapter, I don't see a huge incentive for a RF10-xx lens
- There is also no RF equivalent for the 8-15mm fisheye

Of course, Canon does have the RF5.2mm VR lens.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

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.

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

But Canon is also measuring their profit/revenue as well.
Selling less RF100-500mm but at double the price of the Sony may be a good strategy for them.
Add in the RF600/800 f11 and RF100-400 (plus EF100-400) and I would estimate that they are ahead overall.

I ended up being a new telephoto buyer for Canon. I don't have any TCs but being able to crop on the R5 helps for those rare times that 500mm isn't enough for me. Sample size n=1

I bought the RF100-500mm as my EF70-200/2.8 + 2x TC couldn't migrate to R mount. It was on special and I could justify it vs EF100-400mm + 1.4TC which was really the only other option. Second hand EF100-400mm were very hard to find and the price was holding up surprisingly well whereas other lenses were about half the retail price

 

[neuroanatomist]

I may have oversimplified that. They are a glass/plastic sandwich (mostly glass). But I would be surprised to find they were only a micron thick. Are you sure about that part?

Yes, the plastic diffraction grating is only a few µm thick and applied to a glass substrate. That’s how diffraction gratings for a wide variety of techniques and instruments are made (hyperspectral imaging, spectrophotometers, etc.).

Interesting that you now say DO elements are mostly glass, when initially you stated that DO lenses weigh less because they use, "Two large plastic lens elements which is significantly lighter than two large glass elements." Sorry, you weren't oversimplifying – you were just wrong.

As I posted previously in response to you (albeit indirectly), Canon states DO lenses are spherical glass with a plastic diffraction lattice a few µm thick. I didn't link the source for the quote in that earlier reply, but it's here:

The 3rd Generation DO Lens：Gapless dual-layered diffractive optical elements

In September 2014, Canon announced the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM compact super telephoto lens that incorporates the newly developed gapless dual-layered diffractive optical element. The gapless dual-layered diffractive optical element aims to improve the diffraction flare issue found in existing...

www.canon.com.hk

@Rzrsharp quoted that source as well, attributed as a statement from Canon. Are you suggesting that Canon doesn’t know how they engineered their own lenses? That would be surprising.

 

[David - Sydney]

Because the AF sensors on DSLRs didn't works at f/11. With mirrorless, they can make it work. Thus, the advent off 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11.

And mirrorless can focus at f22 (f11+2x TC) whereas the limit for DLSR was f8 for some bodies with centre point or limited AF points depending on how much you wanted to spend.

Newer sensors are also much better in general for high ISO so the darker lenses can still produce reasonable images for a reasonable lens cost. The advent of Topaz denoise and now AI denoise option in LR etc now makes good images possible with cheaper equipment.

Maybe the ubiquity of camera phones has helped to push the sales of reasonably priced telephoto setups. More people interested in photography in general but seeing the limitations for long distance subjects on phones.
There are many, many options from Canon/Sony/Nikon/Fuji etc with APS-C to FF bodies and cheaper (new or second hand) telephoto lenses to basically suit any budget. Spoilt for choice

 

[David - Sydney]

This is the lens I am waiting for if it turns out to be true. Let's just hope we keep drop in filters.

Given that the front element will be ~125mm + frame, the front filter size would mean one one option...

Nisi has a 127mm UV, CPL but no ND (sorry motorsports panners)

B&W (Schneider-Kreuznach), Gobe (Urth), Breakthrough, Cokin, Singh-Ray, Hoya all stop at 112mm
Singh-Ray and Hoya go to 105mm
Others have custom filter holders that wouldn't work with a hood and were designed for UWA lenses unless a hood could be combined somehow.

The only other options are drop-in filters. The EF200-400/4 has a gel holder as standard and a 52mm CPL drop in from Canon.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

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.

Being dependent on my old, used 500/4 MK I myself, you make a good point. (That is, I think you do... because I can't afford to buy a new version of any of Canon's long primes! )

 

[SwissFrank]

Assuming it has the image resolution of the 500 f/4 II or better (which is hard to imagine, but I like to dream) this would be a winner of a lens.

It sounds like the 100-300/2.8 has about managed it. The 100-500 by my tests (in the lens forum with SHOOTOUT in the title) is basically as sharp as the RF100Mac and substantially sharper than the 135/2, which was the sharpest black EF lens for a long time (maybe only beaten by the 180Mac and I hear maybe the 35/1.4 MkII??) I don't know how Canon are doing it but they're doing it.

 

[SwissFrank]

"Not that $14-15K is a bargain..."

The real question to me is cost of ownership: how much do I pay, minus, how much do I sell it for. I try to buy all my gear used (for instance getting a mint R5 for $2775 18 months ago), take care of it, and try to sell for a good price instead of sell fast. I may have made money on at least some purchases.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The real question to me is cost of ownership: how much do I pay, minus, how much do I sell it for. I try to buy all my gear used (for instance getting a mint R5 for $2775 18 months ago), take care of it, and try to sell for a good price instead of sell fast. I may have made money on at least some purchases.

That’s reasonable. The only gear I’ve bought used were lenses that I wasn’t sure I really wanted. In all cases but one, my instinct to buy used instead of new was correct and I ultimately sold the lens. Used lenses like the 300/4L, 28-300L, 70-300 DO, and a few others, the only one I kept was the MP-E 65 (for which I paid $500, half the retail cost at the time). I eschewed the oft-given advice to 'rent a lens in you're not sure', IMO that's wasted money. I got to use the lenses for several months instead of a few days, and on used lenses bought then sold I have a net financial gain overall.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In theory, 600mm/F4 + 1.4x should be better than 800/5.6.

I heard that it is not but not many people have tested all of the lenses.
I heard that the Canon RF 600 f/4 is better at 600 mm and the RF 800 f/5.6 is better at 800 mm.
Still, having both in one lens would be a big advantage.
I also hear that the Nikon 400 f/2.8 x 1.4 is the best 400 mm lens even without ever using the extender.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I heard that it is not but not many people have tested all of the lenses.
I heard that the Canon RF 600 f/4 is better at 600 mm and the RF 800 f/5.6 is better at 800 mm.
Still, having both in one lens would be a big advantage.
I also hear that the Nikon 400 f/2.8 x 1.4 is the best 400 mm lens even without ever using the extender.

That's true for RF, but it wasn't for EF. The EF 600/4 II and III with the 1.4x TC was optically better than the EF 800/5.6 (as well as being longer, lighter and cheaper), but the latter was from 2008 and shared the design features of the MkI supertele lenses, over which the MkII versions offered significant optical improvements. Unlike the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, the RF 800/5.6 is a 'new' design (compared to the EF 800/5.6, I mean – the RF version is essentially the EF 400/2.8 III with a dedicated 2x TC in the design).

 

[AlanF]

Only one copy of each tested and the usual caveats but TDP has the RF 600m at 840mm sharper than the RF 800mm at f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1597&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
And the 600 with 2x at 1200mm sharper than the 800 with 1.4x at 1120mm.

Canon RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

Only one copy of each tested and the usual caveats but TDP has the RF 600m at 840mm sharper than the RF 800mm at f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1597&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
And the 600 with 2x at 1200mm sharper than the 800 with 1.4x at 1120mm.

Canon RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[AlanF]

View attachment 208891

Also, the 600 is at 840mm, which means if the target is the same distance from both lenses, the MTFs for resolution by the 840mm lens will be effectively another 5% higher than the 800mm lens. I am remain to be convinced that Canon could not have done better by designing an 800mm from scratch instead of putting a 2xTC on a 400mm.