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

[Chiphadzuwa]

@Chiphadzuwa

I think this is a better thread for discussing long lenses.
Also, as you pointed out, Neuro is a pain and acts like he owns the forum.
But he's very consistent, so it's easy to ignore him.
And he says lots of good stuff too.

Thank you davidspinosa. I agree on all counts. And after all, sheer genius requires no social skill. It's just nice to have.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens cost the same as the Nikon 120-300 mm f2.8 lens. Price is the same as the competition and the weight a significantly less.

Impossible. At least, if you believe those on this forum who claim Canon is completely failing to compete with Nikon.

 

[mimbu]

The Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens cost the same as the Nikon 120-300 mm f2.8 lens. Price is the same as the competition and the weight a significantly less.

The Nikon is a much older design and was not designed as a replacement for their 300/2.8 but as an additional option. If Nikon decides to bring out a 120-300/2.8 on Z mount you can expect that it will be similar in weight to the Canon.

So Nikon users had the choice of spending $5500 on a 300/2.8 or spending much more on the 120-300. Canon is not giving you that choice. $10k as the only 300/2.8 option is pretty absurd.

 

[kaihp]

I wonder if this means future lenses in the series will also lack the drop in filter slot, allowing optics to be placed closer to the mount resulting in a shorter overall length, such as the focusing group in the 100-300/2.8.

Isn't "a shorter overall length" a bit of a stretch when it comes to the actual RF 100-300mm design vs the RF 300/2.8? - as I recall the 100-300mm lens itself is a good 3 inches longer than the 300/2.8 (ignoring the lens hood and the required EF-RF adapter's ~1inch/24mm).

While I'm totally ignorant of optics design, I'm happy to believe that placing the focusing group closer to the sensor can in theory make the overall lens design (still not counting the hood) shorter than with the EF designs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Isn't "a shorter overall length" a bit of a stretch when it comes to the actual RF 100-300mm design vs the RF 300/2.8? - as I recall the 100-300mm lens itself is a good 3 inches longer than the 300/2.8 (ignoring the lens hood and the required EF-RF adapter's ~1inch/24mm).

While I'm totally ignorant of optics design, I'm happy to believe that placing the focusing group closer to the sensor can in theory make the overall lens design (still not counting the hood) shorter than with the EF designs.

Not as in ‘shorter than the 300/2.8’, but rather shorter than the 100-300/2.8 would be if a drop in slot was included.

The 100-300 hood is shorter to accommodate the wide end of the zoom. Unfortunately, that means it will be less effective at the long end of the zoom range.

 

[AlanF]

Not as in ‘shorter than the 300/2.8’, but rather shorter than the 100-300/2.8 would be if a drop in slot was included.

The 100-300 hood is shorter to accommodate the wide end of the zoom. Unfortunately, that means it will be less effective at the long end of the zoom range.

Let's start a Kickstarter to sell adjustable hoods for the 100-300mm. We could make a small fortune.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Let's start a Kickstarter to sell adjustable hoods for the 100-300mm. We could make a small fortune.

Lol. Very small.

That’s a feature of the old EF 24-70/2.8 MkI that I liked – the reverse zoom meant the hood was effective (optically) throughout the zoom range instead of mainly at the wide end.

 

[Czardoom]

The Nikon is a much older design and was not designed as a replacement for their 300/2.8 but as an additional option. If Nikon decides to bring out a 120-300/2.8 on Z mount you can expect that it will be similar in weight to the Canon.

So Nikon users had the choice of spending $5500 on a 300/2.8 or spending much more on the 120-300. Canon is not giving you that choice. $10k as the only 300/2.8 option is pretty absurd.

And guess what...the new Canon RF 100-300 2.8 was probably also not designed as a replacement for their EF 300/2.8, but as an additional option. Canon probably knows that those owning a 300 2.8 are probably quite happy with it and are not going to buy another similar lens UNLESS they really want the option of a zoom. Let's not forget that when Canon introduced the RF mount, they did not consider it - or call it - a replacement for EF, but a new system to work alongside the EF mount. Of course, mirrorless has ended up "replacing" EF for all practical purposes in the high end market, but certainly much faster than Canon thought initially. Lenses take years to develop, especially if they are a new optical formula, so this lens's specs may very well have been chosen before the RF mount was even introduced, so no surprise that it is not a direct replacement to me, as many of the other RF lenses (like the 100-500) are not direct replacements.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, Canon see that they can pull $10000 from each person who would otherwise have purchased a $6000 300/2.8.

Canon gave us the option of using EF lenses with no drawbacks on RF bodies. Even if they don't release a 300mm prime, you have many cheaper options from their back catalogue.

 

[tron]

Yes, Canon see that they can pull $10000 from each person who would otherwise have purchased a $6000 300/2.8.

Only from people who would benefit from a 2.8 100-300 zoom. I will not so I will keep my excellent 300 2.8L IS II. Even this is very rarely used but when necessary it's excellent!

 

[kaihp]

Not as in ‘shorter than the 300/2.8’, but rather shorter than the 100-300/2.8 would be if a drop in slot was included.

Ah, that way. Could be. Obviously Canon has seen a value in moving the focusing group at the very closest end - lower weight and hence the option to get either lighter or faster (or both) focusing motor(s) seems obvious to my untrained eye.

I won't be in the market for the 100-300 zoom, nor the potential 200-500 w 1.4x TC that have floating rumours about. The 200-400 is hefty enough as it is. A zooming 500/4 is likely to be even bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Length wise even the 24mm for the EF-RF adapter means the 200-400 won't fit in my gear bag 'my usual way' (body above the lens in a separate 'pocket').

 

[KingTut]

My thoughts agree with yours. I do not see how they keep the weight and dimensions similar to the EF 500 mm f4 II lens.

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. A 200-500 mm f4.5 DO lens with 1.4x TC built-in would be a very interesting addition to Canon's lineup.

Canon has done a great job of filling out the supertelephoto options for the RF mount, but there is one glaring omission in the line-up thus far, and that’s an RF version of the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II. Canon has historically upgraded the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses at the same time,

See full article...

 

[tron]

EF line boasts a short super tele lens the 400mm DO f/4 IS II.

It would be nice if RF line had an equivalent (more or less) lens.

A 500mm f/5 could be that.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I think you meant diffractive not refractive lenses?

Yes, funny typo, since refraction is the basic physical effect of conventional lenses - thank you!

 

[justaCanonuser]

What about price? When I was choosing between the 500 and 600 (mark IIs in that case), although the longer lens was my preference, I couldn't justify the 25-30% extra cost for another 100mm.

In fact this was true with the past 500 vs. 600mm lenses. But since the 500mm lenses were already expensive, Canon's management may think that they do not want to split this relatively small market segment further anymore - but that's speculation (which is allowed here )

 

[EOS 4 Life]

While I'm totally ignorant of optics design, I'm happy to believe that placing the focusing group closer to the sensor can in theory make the overall lens design (still not counting the hood) shorter than with the EF designs.

That would be incorrect which is why it made sense for Canon to instead make a zoom lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The Nikon is a much older design and was not designed as a replacement for their 300/2.8 but as an additional option. If Nikon decides to bring out a 120-300/2.8 on Z mount you can expect that it will be similar in weight to the Canon.

Right now Nikon has neither one for the Z mount.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A zooming 500/4 is likely to be even bigger, heavier and more expensive.

More expensive is a given.
I am not so convinced about the other two.

 

[neuroanatomist]

More expensive is a given.
I am not so convinced about the other two.

Why would the 500/4 be different from the 300/2.8 in that regard?

 

[masterpix]

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.

If there was an EF 100-300/2.8 it would be much more complex and heavier than the RF 100-300/2.8. The fact that the sensor is closer to the back side of the lens allows better optics with less glass.