There has been a ton of talk for probably a year now about an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM, and in more recent months, there has also been talking of a lens that would “cannibalize sales of an existing RF lens,” but that wouldn’t be the aforementioned f/4L “big white.” As that lens will cost five figures.
There are now more hints that it will be some kind of an internal zoom RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM that will be faster than f/7.1. A lot of shooters prefer internal zoom lenses, and a zoom range similar to 100-500 would do extremely well.
We now have two RF 70-200 f/2.8 variants to choose from, one for people who want a small size and one for people who want a shorter throw internal zoom for a consistent feel when shooting.
There has likely been a lot of crossover in information about these 500mm zoom lenses, and we hope that things will clear up soon. I do think we’ll get some lens announcements for CP+, even if we don’t get the EOS R6 Mark III announcement before then.
Coincidentally (or not), Richard has posted a patent application in which a Canon RF 125-500mm F5-6.3L IS is listed as one of the embodiments.
Patents, at times, can lead in advance of lenses. When Canon delays the project, the patent will still go through based on Canon’s original timeline, but it’s not often.
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Unless the new one costs lots more, is heavier, is built like a Sony, is longer and optically inferior (this I doubt).;)
I suspect that I will be most interested in a price drop of the current 100-500L more than the new lens, but we will see. I currently use the EF 100-400 II primarily as a travel telephoto. I am just trying to think of advantages of another 100-500L other than 1/3 stops of aperture here or there and an internal zoom. It is a bit difficult to think that they could make the lens much sharper than the 100-500L. It already has a very fast and accurate AF, but Canon has introduced new AF technologies since the current 100-500L, so perhaps an improvement there. They could make it compatible with TCs for the entire focal length range. That would be a tempting advantage.
Potentially exciting. I will eventually upgrade from the EF 100-400 II. It is nice to have options.
This just went from being a rumor to a fact. Bring back CR3 and slap it on this one.
:LOL:
I did the same for the 50 f/1.4 VCM. So, for those wanting the 50 1.4, you are welcome. I had bought the RF 50 f/1.2 a few weeks prior to the 50 1.4 announcement.
Less weight (fully removable tripod collar, no adapter needed), shorter (no adapter) and, of course, + 100mm. Additionally, I can now leave the 1,4 X extender at home (500mm vs. 560mm). A bit of cropping does the trick. Again, weight advantage, this matters in the Alps...
Optical quality was no consideration, the 100-400 never disappointed me. I paid about $2200 for a brand new one, so, I didn\'t hesitate.
If the new RF 125-500L takes a 1.4xTC well and gives 175-700 mm f/7.1-9, potentially with better IQ at 700 mm than the current 200-800 (which falls off a bit >600mm) depending on the size and weight, then this could potentially replace two of my lenses.
I am officially interested. And, if the above ends up being correct, this is going to cannibalize the sales of two lenses: the 100-500L and 200-800.
Oh yeah, of course Canon could always make the lens even lighter as it is.
Yes, internal zoom is something special compared to the 100-500 and 200-800, but otherwise they seem too close to those lenses to me.
Personally, I don't like a 30 cm long internal tele zoom over a 20 cm long retracted lens - even if that internal one would take a TC from 100 to 500 mm.
The latter (original) is much more convenient IMO.
The RF 100-500mm just barely fits in both my backpacks (peakdesign 20 L for city travels - 34 L Rotation for hiking) when not attached to the camera. So, the collapsible design works great for me! :) I can pack it mounted to the camera as well, but for the PD it needs some rearranging and limits the storage space. For the 34 L rotation, it is just a bit unpleasant to carry when mounted.
What’s been going on with the potentially new teleconverters? I agree that I would rather see the 100-500 come down and price and then Canon introduce new teleconverters that may work with a less protruding front element or has a lever to adjust magnification.