Canon is obviously working on RF mount versions of the legendary EF 200mm f/2L IS, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses. I expect the 300mm and 500mm lenses to be announced in late 2022 or in 2023. As for an RF 200mm f/2L IS, maybe further down the road as it's a pretty niche lens.

Canon RF 200mm f/2L IS USM

  • Focal length 200.00mm
  • F-number 2.06
  • Half angle of view 6.17°
  • Image height 21.64mm
  • Lens overall length 196.01mm
  • Back focus 38.50mm

Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

  • Focal length 292.53mm
  • F-number 2.90
  • Half angle of view 4.23°
  • Image height 21.64mm
  • Lens overall length 273.92mm
  • Back focus 76.35mm

Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

  • Focal length 489.05mm
  • F-number 4.12
  • Half angle of view 2.53°
  • Image height 21.64mm
  • Lens overall length 411.08mm
  • Back focus 100.00mm
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.

44 comments

  1. Wondering if we ever will see replacement to 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 lenses.
    I doubt it. I think the 100-500 is the 'replacement' for them, in the sense that that EF 100-400 (1998) came out after both the 400/5.6 (1993) and the 300/4 IS (1997), and the 100-400 was updated to a MkII in 2014 while the two primes were not.
  2. I wonder if any of these lenses will use DO to further reduce weight. Moreover, I suspect that these lenses will be announced in parallel with the R1 flagship.
    Sadly no, because the RF 500mm f4 in this patent is 2,8 cm longer than the current EF 500mm f4. The DO lenses are lighter and much shorter.
  3. I'm going to be honest here for a second. I really want that 200mm f/2, but, I will likely settle for the 300mm as it will probably be years for the 200 if it ever comes out at all...
  4. Sadly no, because the RF 500mm f4 in this patent is 2,8 cm longer than the current EF 500mm f4. The DO lenses are lighter and much shorter.
    Agree that it won't be DO. However, the length of this lens patent (if it becomes a real lens) will be closer to the EF version than you suggest. The EF 500mm f/4L IS II is 383mm, that's the spec of the actual lens. The 411mm length above is the length of the optical formula, which is true for all lens patents. To estimate the length of the real lens based on a patent, you need to subtract the flange focal distance, which is 20mm for RF. Thus, the RF lens described here would be ~391mm long, only 8mm longer than the EF version.
  5. I'm going to be honest here for a second. I really want that 200mm f/2, but, I will likely settle for the 300mm as it will probably be years for the 200 if it ever comes out at all...
    The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.
  6. Would be nice if each weighed ~1kg.
    Given the likely prices of these (calling it now, 300mm $8000, 200mm $9500, 500mm $11000), if you can afford the lens, then you can afford a sherpa to lug it for you thus weight is a non-issue.:)
  7. The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.
    I had one once. Loved it deeply :love: . Used it a lot for fashion. I sold it to finance (partially) my move into MF... but oh I do miss it!
    One other great quality of the EF 200 f/2L IS.... super easy to sell at good prices :ROFLMAO:
    Well I am sad now
  8. Nothing like the EF 200's rendering. An RF? Hope it's similar and not Sigma sticker look.
    Sigma sticker look?

    You mean like in this photo (which is not mine!)?

    And the photos about half way down in this review?
  9. Sigma sticker look?

    You mean like in this photo (which is not mine!)?

    And the photos about half way down in this review?
    Somewhat. The Hard Rock hoodie pretty much. Not sure if you know what I mean or are guessing? Too much separation basically. A layered look. I think people like it to tell you the truth as if it's a critical level of DoF quality.
  10. For the 200...why not go all the way and do an f1.8...I would love to own one again.
    The f/1.8L was 1/3 stop faster (and had the “Eye of Sauron” nickname LOL) but, if they are copying existing designs, the f/2L was by far the superior lens.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment