Close Menu

    Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM

    By Updated:72 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    rf100500 - Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM

    Canon announced the development of the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM alongside the EOS R5, but now we have the full specifications for the new super-telephoto zoom.

    Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM  Specifications:

    • 20 elements in 14 groups
    • 1 Super UD element
    • 6 UD elements
    • Minimum focusing distance 0.9m (wide end)
    • Maximum magnification 0.33 (telephoto)
    • 5 stops of IS
    • 77mm filter diameter
    • Size: 93.8mm x 207.6mm
    • Weight: 1370g
    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    72 comments

    2. Still debating whether it’s better to go only to 200 but be at 2.8, or have this great, great zoom range
      Very interesting lens I’d love to try on my R!
    4. If it has F5.6 at 400mm this lens will be a must buy.

      If it is a affine progression, it should be:
      100mm f/4
      200mm f/4.8
      300mm f/5,6
      400mm f/6.3
      500mm f/7.1
    5. That is a significant weight saving over the EF 100-400 Mark ii. Did not expect that!

      To not only maintain but slightly improve on maximum magnification is also really excellent.

      I’m now assuming a relatively quick progression through the maximum aperture range - it will almost certainly be f/6.3 by at least 400mm - but honestly given the above I’m ok with that.

      No fluorite element I see, but no less than six UD elements and one Super UD element might make up for that? Anyone more knowledgable about this please feel free to chime in.

      It will be emotional, for sure, but I fear my 100-400 Mark ii’s days might be numbered.
    6. sounds very promissing. Let's see the IQ... ;)

      Only slightly bigger than the EF 100-400L. (208 mm vs. 193 mm).
      But lighter than that (1370g vs. 1.640g)

      You're forgetting to account for the adapter, on an R series it will be shorter than the 100-400 + adapter.
    7. You're forgetting to account for the adapter, on an R series it will be shorter than the 100-400 + adapter.
      And I was about to type that in my first post, too.
      But I thought it was too obvious :ROFLMAO:
    8. And I was about to type that in my first post, too.
      But I thought it was too obvious :ROFLMAO:

      Well, the adapters start at 120 gram, so not only do adapters effect overall length, weight is also an issue.
    9. Still debating whether it’s better to go only to 200 but be at 2.8, or have this great, great zoom range
      Very interesting lens I’d love to try on my R!
      Yes! I'm also trying to make this choice. Unfortunately I think the likelihood that the 70-200mm won't take the extenders will probably make the decision for me. Very much looking forward to learning more during the announcement! The magnification on this lens is exciting! I hope the IQ lives up to expectations!
    13. I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable

      btw what do you guys mean with the iq
    14. Yes! I'm also trying to make this choice. Unfortunately I think the likelihood that the 70-200mm won't take the extenders will probably make the decision for me. Very much looking forward to learning more during the announcement! The magnification on this lens is exciting! I hope the IQ lives up to expectations!
      I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...
    16. I have the EF 100-400L II. If this new lens was a f/5.6 maximum I would consider it a huge upgrade over my current lens. As it stands it's gain 100mm on the long end but lose 2/3rds of a stop in the process. This translates to, almost but not quite, doubling the ISO to maintain the same shutter speed. It seems like more of a compromise than an upgrade to me. The one positive is they kept 77mm filter threads which is great for landscapes. I use GNDs for sunsets and Solid NDs for long exposures. Not having to rebuy my filters is a positive. Still, I am not sure if I want this or if my EF 100-400L II is good enough for me for a while.
    17. Also closer min focus distance.

      Since the 100-400mm is more like 200mm at MFD, I care more about the magnification factor than the distance :) Which the RF improves upon a bit, 0.33x vs 0.31x.
    18. I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...
      I think the only path forward is to buy both lenses... Long reach is just as important as low light and shallow DOF. Sigh.

      Does this mean we will get a second RF 70-200mm F2.8 someday that takes TCs? Will the upcoming RF 70-200mm F4 take TCs? so many questions...

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment