Earlier today I mentioned a possible second lens being announced for the RF mount alongside the new kit lens, the RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, but that I wasn't quite sure what it was.
I have been told that an RF 100-500mm lens is coming, unfortunately, I have not been given the aperture range of the lens, nor if it will be an L lens.
We have also received some hints that RF teleconverters are on the way as well.
More to come…
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.
Jack
I have been given hints that RF extenders are coming. I'm going to update the post.
If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a very small and affordable supertele.
I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.
- A
I always thought the 100-400 was a bit short, expecially in comparison to the sigma/tamron/nikon at-least-500 zooms.
This with an R5 would put me solidly into the mirrorless world. Seriously, I'd be working to move some of my EF collection out, pending the IQ and price.
I was just talking about that exact thing on another forum. The 100-400 IS II is an exceptionally good zoom, but it's only 400. You can get good 560 with a 1.4X, but then it's an F/8, which starts presenting a challenge in low-light situations when you need shutter speed. Like birding in the thick forest.
It's all about 600mm + f/6.3 to me. It's the difference between this lens being somewhere in the same time zone as the Nikon 200-500 5.6's price or being front-elemented out of that price entirely.
Also, how does DPAF impact the rules of teleconverter-ability? How do EF extenders work on adapted EOS Rs (or in LiveView on SLRs for that matter)? If f/5.6 still an absolute must-have to allow an 1.4x to focus?
- A
Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.
^^^ This.
- A
The White Whale? Thar she be!
No one said it would be white.
f/6.3 and a cost target under $2k might not see it be an L lens at all. Imagine this, but bigger:
It could happen.
- A