# Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be announced this year [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 8, 2020)

> *Update*: We don’t believe this lens is coming in 2020 anymore.
> 
> We have been told by a great source that Canon plans to announce an RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens sometime this year.  Though we don’t exactly know when.
> Back in September, we saw a patent for such an optical formula. and it makes a lot of sense that such a lens would hit the RF mount sooner than later.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Jim Corbett (Jan 8, 2020)

Which kind of suggests that a faster R body is on the way as well? It has to be!


----------



## CDR (Jan 8, 2020)

Whew - maybe I need to start softening up the bank manager.....


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 8, 2020)

Suggesting it might be about the same size as the RF 70-200 would be quite a exceptional little lens to always have on you.

Edit: While I am super excited about this, would be lovely to have a 200-500 f/5.6. The 70-200 range is covered by so many other lenses but getting past 400 is currently expensive or Nikon.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 8, 2020)

The R/RF system is becoming more and more interesting to me.
Unfortunately the right body - for me - is still missing


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 8, 2020)

Hope the lens has similar or better close focus capability of EF 100-400mm mk II lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 8, 2020)

GAAAAHHHH !!!!!! 
If I don't quickly sell my EOS R, I won't have any money left for food.
Fact is : the RF lenses are really tempting !
Looks like many banks are going to be be robbed in a close future by impoverished EOS R owners...


----------



## Berowne (Jan 8, 2020)

70-400 or rather 70-300?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 8, 2020)

Berowne said:


> 70-400 or rather 70-300?



I'd much rather see a 70-400. The max apertures at the end of the focal length ranges are consistent with the 100-400s, and the key to getting it small might be that it goes down to 70mm.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 8, 2020)

Darn it, that's my lens! How did they know about it?
Just the perfect pair for the RF 24-105mm!


----------



## edoorn (Jan 8, 2020)

hotdamn, that's interesting...


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 8, 2020)

Me: Should I buy the 70–300 or the 100–400?

Canon: Well hello there.


----------



## Stuart (Jan 8, 2020)

Is this a new way to differentiate offering from 3rd party providers - longer focal ranges at the same apertures.
Or is this because there won't be any APS-c RF mounts?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 8, 2020)

Great to see the 70-300 and 100-400 rolled into one lens, especially if it's a bit smaller than the EF 100-400L II. But - and I know it's been said a thousand times - it's *useless* without a body which performs for long lens subjects. And teleconverters, and extension tubes, and (please) an RF mount body with the 90D sensor.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 8, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Suggesting it might be about the same size as the RF 70-200 would be quite a exceptional little lens to always have on you.
> 
> Edit: While I am super excited about this, would be lovely to have a 200-500 f/5.6. The 70-200 range is covered by so many other lenses but getting past 400 is currently expensive or Nikon.



There’s always the Sigma 150-600 option was well. But I agree; a 500 or 600 mm long end that doesn’t break the bank would be welcome.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 8, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Is this a new way to differentiate offering from 3rd party providers - longer focal ranges at the same apertures.
> Or is this because there won't be any APS-c RF mounts?


No, this is a great way to satisfy a "photographer's dream" 
100mm end of 100-400 is a bit too long at time for sports.
70-400 is your 100-400 with a wider end. Just perfect.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 8, 2020)

If it weighs the same as the RF 70-200 that would really be amazing. The 100-400s have always been about as heavy as the 70-200 2.8s, and I'd love to see the same weight reduction achieved on the RF version of those on this RF 70-400!

The RF system gets more and more appealing when you are talking about weight savings. Nice lightweight f4s (ultrawide/70-200) would really round out a great a versatile zoom lens line-up from 15-400mm for the RF mount.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 8, 2020)

I can't wait to see what cameras are released to go along with these.


----------



## amorse (Jan 8, 2020)

That's exciting! Though I wonder if they would have to make some optical compromises in order to get the size down. I thought I'd heard the 100-400 as it currently is, is one of Canon's toughest-to-make lenses, so I feel like miniaturizing that must come with a compromise or two...

But I could definitely see that in my bag should I jump on board with the R system any time soon.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 8, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Edit: While I am super excited about this, would be lovely to have a 200-500 f/5.6.


Then it won't be a safari drive lens (unless you are carrying two white lenses on two bodies with you).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2020)

The 100-400mm II has been heavily discounted again, which may be a sign that something is up. I have certainly got my money's worth from both of mine.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 8, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Then it won't be a safari drive lens (unless you are carrying two white lenses on two bodies with you).



Personally all of my wildlife photos are at least 200mm. My 70-200 only goes below 200 when people are my subject, so I would gladly drop the wide end for a bit more reach.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2020)

The state of affairs:

_Customer: I would like to shoot up to 400mm with a new Canon lens that does not require crop or teleconverters to get there._​_Canon: Of course! Here are six lens options, starting at $1,199. All of them are pretty terrific -- you really can't go wrong._​​_Customer: You know what? I actually need 401mm._​_Canon: Ooh. That's bad news for you. We at Canon believe that crossing The 401mm Barrier requires $8,999 solutions._​_Customer: WHAT?! Nikon has a 200-500 f/5.6 for under $1,400!_​_Canon: [Nervous laughter] I'mmmmmm pretty sure that's not a thing. [Ninja smoke bomb, exit stage left]_​
I'm happy for current EF White Unicorn users with this news, but:

EF needs a 200-500 f/5.6 IS offering
RF people should be able to get up to 600mm with no EF f/5.6 requirement
One might argue that the RF -600mm option is in greater need than an RF 70-400 as RF folks can adapt their various -400mm lenses already.

- A


----------



## gdanmitchell (Jan 8, 2020)

Interesting.

The reported size (similar to f/2.8 70-200) makes sense, as the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8 is quite similar in size to the EF 100-400mm v.2 lens. 

If it is optically as good as the existing EF 100-400, this should be a popular lens. It would also mean that a lot of photographers not needed f/2.8 in zooms could forego the 70-200mm lenses and work with this new lens plus either a 24-105 or (future) 24-70 f/4. 

Going a bit further with that idea, landscape photographers could end up with a fine three-lens kit where four used to be required — for example, something along the lines of RF 15-35mm f/4*, 24-70mm f/4*, and this new 70-400mm lens.

Dan

* These focal length/aperture lenses don't yet exist in RF, though they do in EF.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> The reported size (similar to f/2.8 70-200) makes sense, as the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8 is quite similar in size to the EF 100-400mm v.2 lens.




You might want to read the OP again:
_"to be about the same size as the recently released Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM."_​
The sexy take of this rumor is that it might be as big collapsed (shortest FL, the 'bag size') as the RF 70-200 2.8 is when it is collapsed. The EF 70-200 2.8s and the EF 100-400L II are only about the same size today becuase the 70-200s are internal zooming / do not change in external length. The RF 70-200 2.8 rather famously changed all that.

As things currently stand between the EF 100-400L II and the new RF 70-200 2.8, some sort of dark arts telescoping witchcraft would be required to pull that off. To cover that much of a length difference, one could imagine a 'multi-tubed' telescope barrel a la the cheaper non-L larger FL multiplier zooms out there.




- A


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 8, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> No, this is a great way to satisfy a "photographer's dream"
> 100mm end of 100-400 is a bit too long at time for sports.
> 70-400 is your 100-400 with a wider end. Just perfect.



I was delighted to find that the RF 70-200 handles at 70mm like any one kilo midrange zoom. It acts like a long normal lens for daily life grab shots. 70 is a very handy focal length for a lens that happens to be on your camera when you need to grab a shot.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jan 8, 2020)

Been beaten pretty soundly above, but I will voice my desire for more reach at the far end in exchange for the expanded width at the short end. I am good with the speed and size of the lens, but as I use the 100-400 today I find I am in need for more reach way more often then I am in need of more width. 

As stated, will make a great outdoor sports lens but is still lacking as a wildlife and intimate landscape lens. Would like to see Canon take this market seriously and not rely on third parties to fill this niche. Nikon and Sony both have very nice offerings in this arena. I have shot side by side with them and the reach and quality is quite useful.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 8, 2020)

I wonder what an RF 180-480 f3.5-5.6L IS DO or a 200-500 f4.0-6.3L IS DO would run? ...$1,599 or $2,299 at intro? Higher? 

What if Canon stuns the photo world and when introducing a more PRO oriented R also introduces an RF 600mm f4.0L IS DO that is 3/4 the weight of the current EF version III and 3/4 the length of that lens? What would any of you PROs and/or well-heeled Enthusiasts pay for such a lens? $8,999?


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 8, 2020)

amorse said:


> That's exciting! Though I wonder if they would have to make some optical compromises in order to get the size down. I thought I'd heard the 100-400 as it currently is, is one of Canon's toughest-to-make lenses, so I feel like miniaturizing that must come with a compromise or two...



I'd speculate that the RF mount opened up some optical design options that let them add the 70-100 range to the system.


----------



## Southstorm (Jan 8, 2020)

Totally awesome!


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jan 8, 2020)

Canon pls stop (don't)


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 8, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> landscape photographers could end up with a fine three-lens kit where four used to be required — for example, something along the lines of RF 15-35mm f/4*, 24-70mm f/4*, and this new 70-400mm lens.



True, and I'd suggest one might well drop the middle one, or replace with a fast 50mm or pancake "bodycap".


----------



## Canon1966 (Jan 8, 2020)

I would love to see a 200-600 to compete with Sony's.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The state of affairs:
> 
> _Customer: I would like to shoot up to 400mm with a new Canon lens that does not require crop or teleconverters to get there._​_Canon: Of course! Here are six lens options, starting at $1,199. All of them are pretty terrific -- you really can't go wrong._​​_Customer: You know what? I actually need 401mm._​_Canon: Ooh. That's bad news for you. We at Canon believe that crossing The 401mm Barrier requires $8,999 solutions._​_Customer: WHAT?! Nikon has a 200-500 f/5.6 for under $1,400!_​_Canon: [Nervous laughter] I'mmmmmm pretty sure that's not a thing. [Ninja smoke bomb, exit stage left]_​
> I'm happy for current EF White Unicorn users with this news, but:
> ...


The benchmark for a longer zoom is now the 200-600mm f/6.3 a la Sony, it's a cracking lens with IQ and AF way ahead of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. However, both those lenses are too heavy for me, and the Sony too big. 70-400mm is the best compromise for a lightweight lens for hiking and safari. I am finding that attached to something as pixel dense as the 90D the 100-400mm II is providing a good long effective focal length as well as versatility. I, personally, want Canon to produce a really lightweight 500mm f/5.6 DO prime to rival the Nikon, as well as a 300mm DO.


----------



## KirkD (Jan 8, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> Been beaten pretty soundly above, but I will voice my desire for more reach at the far end in exchange for the expanded width at the short end. I am good with the speed and size of the lens, but as I use the 100-400 today I find I am in need for more reach way more often then I am in need of more width.


Totally agree. My Canon 100-400 II is one of my most heavily used lenses, and at least 90% of all my shots are taken at 400mm. More reach is preferable.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Extremely tasty Canon and good focal range, punter can move from say 24-70 f2.8 lens and then bolt on the 70-400 lens for telephoto work.

Well done Canon.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 8, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



The wildlife photographers trinity will now be complete - 24-70, 70-200, 100-400. If only they would realease the pro mirrorless R body! A RF 200-500/600 f4 - 5.6 w/ 1.4x TC and a weight reduction over the EF 200-400 would also be nice. I might even be happy with a 200-600 similar to the Sony as a light weight alternative for some trips. II am debating whether to replace my 1dx II with the 1dxIII or wait for a Pro R. I would like to switch out my 200-400 to something lighter, but hesitant to buy another EF lens until I know the future of the R bodies. I know, we are never satisfied!


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The benchmark for a longer zoom is now the 200-600mm f/6.3 a la Sony, it's a cracking lens with IQ and AF way ahead of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. However, both those lenses are too heavy for me, and the Sony too big. 70-400mm is the best compromise for a lightweight lens for hiking and safari. I am finding that attached to something as pixel dense as the 90D the 100-400mm II is providing a good long effective focal length as well as versatility. I, personally, want Canon to produce a really lightweight 500mm f/5.6 DO prime to rival the Nikon, as well as a 300mm DO.



I think it bears noting that for wildlife and others subjects where cropping is the norm, a 50% improvement in image quality (with suitable camera sensor) is as good as a 50% increase in focal length.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 8, 2020)

amorse said:


> That's exciting! Though I wonder if they would have to make some optical compromises in order to get the size down. I thought I'd heard the 100-400 as it currently is, is one of Canon's toughest-to-make lenses, so I feel like miniaturizing that must come with a compromise or two...
> 
> But I could definitely see that in my bag should I jump on board with the R system any time soon.



Optical compromises will need to be made if they are both decreasing the size and extending the zoom range. I hope this means we will also see a high-end RF crop body.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2020)

Ah, the age old debate. Guys, while trying to decide between wider vs longer, have a heart-to-heart with your partner before making any changes to your current equipment.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jan 8, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I think it bears noting that for wildlife and others subjects where cropping is the norm, a 50% improvement in image quality (with suitable camera sensor) is as good as a 50% increase in focal length.


That why I shoot with the 5DSR! Crappy focusing and low light capability but in the right conditions it give you croppable reach and resolution that far exceeds other Canon offerings.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jan 8, 2020)

Tom W said:


> There’s always the Sigma 150-600 option was well. But I agree; a 500 or 600 mm long end that doesn’t break the bank would be welcome.


I tested the Sigma 150-600 last July on an RP and on my M50 body, and found it problematic. Severe focus hunting on both bodies, but worse on the RP. Subject was fast-moving racing boats similar to my profile pic. Frequently in servo focus, the lens would wander off the subject and pick something in the background or foreground to focus on for a few frames. Also run away chromatic aberration that was bad enough that I had trouble correcting it in Lightroom. And from about 225mm down - especially on the full frame camera - there was a lot of vignetting. That went away on the crop sensor camera except at the bottom end. To validate what I found, I rented a 100-400 and a 1.4x for another event in September, and the results were superior, even with the teleconverter on. For my part, I’ll take a pass and wait to see what this lens has to offer. I get that it costs more, but I’d rather save up and spend the money and get a lens that won’t frustrate me with its results.

To be fair, the Sigma 150-600’s worst faults can be corrected with careful post-production processing. But I’d rather spend my time shooting. I think a lot of it has to do with my being an older dog learning newer tricks, too. I have been shooting with a Canon SLR since high school, which was a LONG time ago. I am still programmed to shoot with the final results in mind, not what I can correct in post. So I still look at extensive precessing work as correcting what I did wrong rather than enhancing things. That part of my thinking hasn’t changed with the times, and that makes me part of the weak spot.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 8, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Hope the lens has similar or better close focus capability of EF 100-400mm mk II lens.



Exactly my thought.
That would make it the lens of the year at least.
Especially if it got even closer at 400mm.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 8, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Suggesting it might be about the same size as the RF 70-200 would be quite a exceptional little lens to always have on you.
> 
> Edit: While I am super excited about this, would be lovely to have a 200-500 f/5.6. The 70-200 range is covered by so many other lenses but getting past 400 is currently expensive or Nikon.



For birders perhaps the 200-500. But as an excellent all around telephoto lens 70-400mm is a dream come true. That 30mm wider is huge.


----------



## jeliel (Jan 8, 2020)

pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 8, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> For birders perhaps the 200-500. But as an excellent all around telephoto lens 70-400mm is a dream come true. That 30mm wider is huge.



I am more foxes and similar sized animals that don't want to be close to me than little birds. 200mm onwards is my domain, I would be happier with a 200-400 once that comes to RF. But if they could make a cheeper 200-500 f/5.6 then that would be the killer lens.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 8, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> Been beaten pretty soundly above, but I will voice my desire for more reach at the far end in exchange for the expanded width at the short end. I am good with the speed and size of the lens, but as I use the 100-400 today I find I am in need for more reach way more often then I am in need of more width.
> 
> As stated, will make a great outdoor sports lens but is still lacking as a wildlife and intimate landscape lens. Would like to see Canon take this market seriously and not rely on third parties to fill this niche. Nikon and Sony both have very nice offerings in this arena. I have shot side by side with them and the reach and quality is quite useful.



And many of us would like and could use a bit wider as this lens is designated.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I think it bears noting that for wildlife and others subjects where cropping is the norm, a 50% improvement in image quality (with suitable camera sensor) is as good as a 50% increase in focal length.


It's increase in sensor resolution that is the factor that corresponds to an increase in focal length, providing the lens is up to it. Image quality has important contributions from acutance, noise, dynamic range etc which make the image look good without necessarily increasing resolution.


----------



## mattfish1 (Jan 8, 2020)

I too would like to see something closer to the 600 end. I have the original Tamron 150-600 which was great on my older bodies, but is fairly useless on my R, even after updating the firmware. I might try renting the newer 60-600 to see if that's any better, but I don't want to run into the same issue down the road where the lens doesn't work on a new body. I do lots of birds and other wildlife, so 90% of my shots are at 600


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> That why I shoot with the 5DSR! Crappy focusing and low light capability but in the right conditions it give you croppable reach and resolution that far exceeds other Canon offerings.


The 90D (and M6II) exceeds the 5DSR for croppable reach and resolution. I use and like both bodies (90D and 5DSR).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> I tested the Sigma 150-600 last July on an RP and on my M50 body, and found it problematic. Severe focus hunting on both bodies, but worse on the RP. Subject was fast-moving racing boats similar to my profile pic. Frequently in servo focus, the lens would wander off the subject and pick something in the background or foreground to focus on for a few frames. Also run away chromatic aberration that was bad enough that I had trouble correcting it in Lightroom. And from about 225mm down - especially on the full frame camera - there was a lot of vignetting. That went away on the crop sensor camera except at the bottom end. To validate what I found, I rented a 100-400 and a 1.4x for another event in September, and the results were superior, even with the teleconverter on. For my part, I’ll take a pass and wait to see what this lens has to offer. I get that it costs more, but I’d rather save up and spend the money and get a lens that won’t frustrate me with its results.
> 
> To be fair, the Sigma 150-600’s worst faults can be corrected with careful post-production processing. But I’d rather spend my time shooting. I think a lot of it has to do with my being an older dog learning newer tricks, too. I have been shooting with a Canon SLR since high school, which was a LONG time ago. I am still programmed to shoot with the final results in mind, not what I can correct in post. So I still look at extensive precessing work as correcting what I did wrong rather than enhancing things. That part of my thinking hasn’t changed with the times, and that makes me part of the weak spot.


You have tested a poor copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C. Optically, mine behaves very well on all my Canon bodies and is a match for my 100-400mm IIs at 400mm and better than them with the 1.4xTCs, and about the same at 600mm as my 400mm DO II with a 1.4xTC. The Canons have much better AF for BIF. There are lots of great shots from others in the Bird Portraits thread with the Sigma C.


----------



## navastronia (Jan 8, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> For birders perhaps the 200-500. But as an excellent all around telephoto lens 70-400mm is a dream come true. That 30mm wider is huge.



Yes, and as others have said, you could actually walk _around_ with just a 70-400 at large events with diverse activities (carnivals, festivals) and not feel like you would miss moments because of not having a wide enough focal length.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2020)

jeliel said:


> pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...




Non désolé. Unlikely to be offered in more than one color. That's something they'd consider doing for a lens they would kit with a body, but that would have to be a very high volume lens (say for 24-105 standard zoom) and the market would have to have an appetite for two different colored _bodies_ as well. Right now I thought EOS R and EOS RP are only in black.

But fear not: I'm sure the postmarket community would offer a sleeve/coating for the lens if you need it. See how many they already make for the various 100-400 lenses:






lenscoat 100-400 | B&H Photo Video


Shop B&H's in stock, large inventory for fast shipping, great service and everyday low prices on lenscoat 100-400. For more info, please call 800-947-4415




www.bhphotovideo.com





- A


----------



## knight427 (Jan 8, 2020)

As a 100-400ii owner, below is what I was hoping for from this lens (which I've thought a lot about since the RF 70-200 f/2.8 came out).

In order of preference, this was my wish list:

1) More reach
200-500 f/5.6 at same size/weight as EF 100-400ii was my dream

2) More light
anything-400 f/4, even 4.5 (marketers nightmare) at same size as EF 100-400ii...I know, this was unrealistic by both physics and marketing

3) More smaller 
keep specs the same, just do the magic on this that they did on RF 70-200

So obviously I got 3 plus a little at the wide end. While I haven't gone RF yet, I'm really glad I did't jump over to Fuji during the X-H1 blowout. Canon's "lenses first" strategy is working on me, keeping me in the system. At this point I wish Canon would modify the 90D into an RF mount camera, then I'd just keep my badly depreciated 6D for astro and portraits, and adapt my 100-400ii to this hypothetical camera while saving up for the RF 70-200 and RF 70-400.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2020)

knight427 said:


> 3) More smaller
> keep specs the same, just do the magic on this that they did on RF 70-200




The RF isn't magical, it's just externally zooming. It's just a design decision. They did not cheat the laws of physics, bend light through the Tesseract or strike a bargain with the devil.

They just rethought whether the tank-like professional internal zoom build still made sense in 2020, now that the market has a nontrivial percentage of people who care about bag size.

​
An RF 70-400 could be smaller than the EF 100-400s, sure, but it will take _more_ than what you see above to do that (because the 100-400 already does this).

- A


----------



## Daner (Jan 8, 2020)

This looks good for many reasons, and could hopefully be coupled with the release of a RF 1.4x extender for those who feel that they need a bit more reach. (I have had good use of my EF 1.4x Mk. III with several lenses, including my 100-400 Mk. II.)


----------



## Canon1966 (Jan 8, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Totally agree. My Canon 100-400 II is one of my most heavily used lenses, and at least 90% of all my shots are taken at 400mm. More reach is preferable.


I would love a 200-600!


----------



## flip314 (Jan 8, 2020)

The 100-400 was already the telephoto lens I was most looking forward to, but that extra 30mm on the short side would be killer! 70mm sometimes saves me on my 70-300 IS II USM.

I'm not sure how I feel about multi-barrel extension though (as some people have *speculated* in this thread), those always look ugly and cheap to me.


----------



## knight427 (Jan 8, 2020)

I use magical in jest, as an engineer, I’m aware of not only physics, but design trade-offs. But part of this rumor says the RF 70-400 will be similar in size to the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Additionally, the RF lenses are exploiting optical design and body materials to save weight w/o compromising on durability. So I expect the RF 70-400 won’t end up as small as the 70-200, but it do expect it to be smaller than the 100-400ii and noticeably lighter with a shifted center-of-gravity back toward the camera body (reducing torque).


----------



## efmshark (Jan 8, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> If it weighs the same as the RF 70-200 that would really be amazing. The 100-400s have always been about as heavy as the 70-200 2.8s, and I'd love to see the same weight reduction achieved on the RF version of those on this RF 70-400!
> 
> The RF system gets more and more appealing when you are talking about weight savings. Nice lightweight f4s (ultrawide/70-200) would really round out a great a versatile zoom lens line-up from 15-400mm for the RF mount.


400mm f/5.6 front element is basically the same size as 200mm f/2.8 front element, so there's no reason these two RF lenses are not comparable in weight. Canon may have to come up with some kind of a double-barrel extension if the folded length of the 70-400mm is to be as short, though.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2020)

flip314 said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about multi-barrel extension though (as some people have *speculated* in this thread), those always look ugly and cheap to me.




FTR: Total speculation on my part. I have no idea if the real estate exists to do this.

But FWIW, see a Twitter exchange between yours truly (at link) and Uncle Rog (take link to Twitter, he replied to me) on if the move to external zooming may be problematic. (He doesn't seem to think so.)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1204431077047189505
- A


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 8, 2020)

I've yet to jump into the R world...but a significantly lighter zoom-to-400 lens R lens with the quality of the EF 100-400 II (my most oft-used large sensor Canon lens) will pull me a bit closer to the edge...


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 8, 2020)

jeliel said:


> pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...


I hope not, white is a much more adequate color in hot climates.
Try holding a black lens in Nevada in summertime..., not to mention the lense's metal and - or glass dilatation which can easily jeopardise the optical quality.


----------



## flip314 (Jan 8, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> FTR: Total speculation on my part. I have no idea if the real estate exists to do this.
> 
> But FWIW, see a Twitter exchange between yours truly (at link) and Uncle Rog (take link to Twitter, he replied to me) on if the move to external zooming may be problematic. (He doesn't seem to think so.)
> 
> ...



I personally have no problem with external zoom (I don't even own any internal zoom lenses), but most of the high-quality zooms have a single extending barrel. Some cheaper zooms (especially with extreme zoom ranges), like the Tamron 18-400mm will have multiple separate barrels that extend. Besides the fact that I think it looks cheap, it's adding more potential points of failure.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I hope not, white is a much more adequate color in hot climates.
> Try holding a black lens in Nevada in summertime..., not to mention the lense's metal and - or glass dilatation which can easily jeopardise the optical quality.


I can vouch for the lens is better white than black in Nevada's summers.


----------



## flip314 (Jan 9, 2020)

jeliel said:


> pourriez-vous l'offrir en deux couleurs au choix? Blanc ou noir par exemple ...



Pourquoi pas paisley?


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 9, 2020)

Sounds like a great start on the telephoto end for the R cameras. 100-400 used to be on my camera about 90% of the time....right up until I got the 200-600. Now I hardly ever pull out the 100-400 on either canon or sony. I know this 70-400 will be a fantastic lens but I really hope it is a precursor to a longer zoom. I can wait for both the right lens and a R camera that meets my needs since the Sony A7RIV with the 200-600 is what I need for now.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 9, 2020)

5.6 ? I can draw faster


----------



## Dantana (Jan 9, 2020)

Classic CR response patter

Canon: We're going to make an RF version of one of our most popular EF lenses, but it's going to be smaller and will have more range on the wide end.

CR1: Longer!

CR2: Faster!

CR3: I hate the R!

CR4: Cool!

CR5: No CR4, you're wrong. It's not a different lens entirely that I have been thinking about for the last 25 years!


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> 5.6 ? I can draw faster


geez, that's what we need, more gun references.


----------



## navastronia (Jan 9, 2020)

Dantana said:


> Classic CR response patter
> 
> Canon: We're going to make an RF version of one of our most popular EF lenses, but it's going to be smaller and will have more range on the wide end.
> 
> ...



This is, uh . . . well, let's just call it our "culture!"


----------



## masterpix (Jan 9, 2020)

CDR said:


> Whew - maybe I need to start softening up the bank manager.....


more likely robb the bank


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Personally all of my wildlife photos are at least 200mm. My 70-200 only goes below 200 when people are my subject, so I would gladly drop the wide end for a bit more reach.


This one was shot @100mm on a full-frame body.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 9, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> If it weighs the same as the RF 70-200 that would really be amazing. The 100-400s have always been about as heavy as the 70-200 2.8s, and I'd love to see the same weight reduction achieved on the RF version of those on this RF 70-400!
> 
> The RF system gets more and more appealing when you are talking about weight savings. Nice lightweight f4s (ultrawide/70-200) would really round out a great a versatile zoom lens line-up from 15-400mm for the RF mount.


100-400 lens was always an extending design. The new RF 70-200 is already extending and very compact and light. My guesstimate for the 70-400 lens weight is approx the weight of the EF 100-400 II L give or take. 100-400 lens is already very light for what it is.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 9, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> True, and I'd suggest one might well drop the middle one, or replace with a fast 50mm or pancake "bodycap".


A pancake lens in RF system would be around 28mm -ish focal length due to a shorter flange distance. So...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Yes, and as others have said, you could actually walk _around_ with just a 70-400 at large events with diverse activities (carnivals, festivals) and not feel like you would miss moments because of not having a wide enough focal length.


70mm is more than likely to be still quite a bit too long at carnivals and festivals. You typically work 24-50mm range there unless taking individual candid portraits and even as wide as 16mm (16-35 lens) for a crowd shot at carnivals. Just my 2c.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Personally all of my wildlife photos are at least 200mm. My 70-200 only goes below 200 when people are my subject, so I would gladly drop the wide end for a bit more reach.


I want my zooms to be sharpest when fully extended. If they can throw in a bit extra wide angle at the expense of it being softer there, then I will be happy as the sharpness isn't so crucial for close ups when the frame is filled.


----------



## degos (Jan 9, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I'd speculate that the RF mount opened up some optical design options that let them add the 70-100 range to the system.



The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range. The mount diameter is identical to EF.

Everything else that people are talking about here ( advanced materials, rear-shift of lens elements ) is already possible and implemented in some cases for EF mount. 

Don't forget that the EF 100-400 II was a miracle of a lens when it was introduced, the image quality and durability was a huge advance over the original lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 9, 2020)

“... The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range. The mount diameter is identical to EF...”

I see, this is why the 28-70/2.0 high quality zooms are abundant in EF, Nikon or any other DSLR mounts. Right.. and that RF 85/1.2 goodness is nothing to sneeze at as there are many similar optically spectacular 85/1.2 lenses already available in DSLR world. Well... none of the above.
According to Canon engineers, RF Mount afforded designs of previously unheard optical formulas.
As far as I remember, Sigma CEO was a bit jealous about Canon RF 28-70/2.0. And he is truly an optical design innovator.


----------



## SteB1 (Jan 9, 2020)

Personally I would far rather see an equivalent of the Sony 200-600mm internal zoom. I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have. Whereas Canon hasn't got anything like this new Sony 200-600mm. This lens and the Sony A7r mkIV, where you can use it in 26mp crop mode, is making me seriously wonder about the Sony system. For any nature photographer who wanders around in the field, this sort of combo is near perfect. It's not just the focal length range, but the fixed length and internal zoom, which makes zooming in with a flying bird so much easier. If you read reviews by Sony wildlife shooters, most them that have their 100-400mm lens are saying that the 200-600mm in practical terms is much better because of the extra range and internal zoom.

I think Canon needs to learn by just how well this Sony lens is being received by nature photographers. It would be much easier to stick with Canon because I have a shed load of macro lenses, flashes etc. I also think Canon needs to learn from the example that it is possible to have an all round camera that is high resolution, but can shoot fast, have high speed AF and be used as a crop camera.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 9, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> Personally I would far rather see an equivalent of the Sony 200-600mm internal zoom. I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have. Whereas Canon hasn't got anything like this new Sony 200-600mm. This lens and the Sony A7r mkIV, where you can use it in 26mp crop mode, is making me seriously wonder about the Sony system. For any nature photographer who wanders around in the field, this sort of combo is near perfect. It's not just the focal length range, but the fixed length and internal zoom, which makes zooming in with a flying bird so much easier. If you read reviews by Sony wildlife shooters, most them that have their 100-400mm lens are saying that the 200-600mm in practical terms is much better because of the extra range and internal zoom.
> 
> I think Canon needs to learn by just how well this Sony lens is being received by nature photographers. It would be much easier to stick with Canon because I have a shed load of macro lenses, flashes etc. I also think Canon needs to learn from the example that it is possible to have an all round camera that is high resolution, but can shoot fast, have high speed AF and be used as a crop camera.



Then get a Sony if it is such a God send to us humans and get an adapter to use your shed load of Canon lenses.
I love the telescoping zoom as when packing it for travel it is so compact.
12 5/8" vs 7 5/8" is 5" or a wide angle lens and the 100-400. Also for those who do not live doing birds but have large and diverse interests the unique to Canon only of the close focus capability of the 100-400 MII is absolutely amazing.
Perhaps canon will make a longer 200-600mm type lens. And if they do good for them, but for a broader base of users for the RF system the 70-400mm will be exciting. And those bodies, I imagine if the 1DX MIII and the upcoming RS? is an indicator, there will be some mind blowing QUALITY cameras by Canon that are well built and do not act like toys.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have.


Yes, let's completely forget about those who do not have something like this, and forget about new buyers of such a lens. This is something people seem to forget about: That just because "I" have it and don't need or want it then nobody else does or should. The market is fluid with people exiting and entering all the time, and people who just stay put. Just because you have something that satisfies you does not mean "most" do. You know, it just may be that people in the RF ecosystem want a native lens and also may want a lens that goes wider and is more compact when stored. Ever think of that?

Some people new to the RF system are happy to adapt their EF lenses. Some want to go all native. There's nothing wrong with either choice. That's a personal decision. There are lenses I had in EF that I wish were already available in RF that are not. I would never be so presumptuous as to think my choices and desires were those of most other people.

As far as Sony goes; have at it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2020)

Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it. 

Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 9, 2020)

I hope my powerball investments allow me to afford all of the RF lenses I want.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 100-400 lens was always an extending design. The new RF 70-200 is already extending and very compact and light. My guesstimate for the 70-400 lens weight is approx the weight of the EF 100-400 II L give or take. 100-400 lens is already very light for what it is.



Not sure how the 100-400 II is very light for what it is when it's wider, longer, and over 200g heavier than its predecessor. 

And if you're under the assumption that the only reason the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF versions is because it extends externally versus internally I think you may be mistaken. 

The bulk of the weight on most full-frame lenses comes from the glass and when you compare the optical formulas for the EF and RF 70-200 lenses you'll find out where all the weight difference is coming from (6 less lenses in the RF).

The RF mount has enabled Canon to start from scratch with their optical designs, and from what we've seen with the 70-200 there seems to be opportunity to reduce weight significantly on the tele zooms with new optical formulas. I'm hoping (almost expecting) that this rumored lens will be lighter than the EF 100-400.

Over the last 5 years, even on their EF superteles Canon has been focused on weight reduction and has delivered. The 100-400Lii is really an outlier when it comes to being heaving than its predecessor. It is a big heavy lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> Personally I would far rather see an equivalent of the Sony 200-600mm internal zoom. I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have. Whereas Canon hasn't got anything like this new Sony 200-600mm. This lens and the Sony A7r mkIV, where you can use it in 26mp crop mode, is making me seriously wonder about the Sony system. For any nature photographer who wanders around in the field, this sort of combo is near perfect. It's not just the focal length range, but the fixed length and internal zoom, which makes zooming in with a flying bird so much easier. If you read reviews by Sony wildlife shooters, most them that have their 100-400mm lens are saying that the 200-600mm in practical terms is much better because of the extra range and internal zoom.
> 
> I think Canon needs to learn by just how well this Sony lens is being received by nature photographers. It would be much easier to stick with Canon because I have a shed load of macro lenses, flashes etc. I also think Canon needs to learn from the example that it is possible to have an all round camera that is high resolution, but can shoot fast, have high speed AF and be used as a crop camera.


I read the reviews by Sony shooters and there is pretty much agreement by the ones I follow and trust that the A7RIV is weak for birds in flight and that the A9 or A9II is required to drive the 200-600mm. And you need an extender because of the low pixel density of the A9.


----------



## Kharan (Jan 9, 2020)

Damn it, if this pans out (along with an RP successor that ditches the "prehistoric technology approach"), I can see myself switching. A portable, sharp, around 1 kg. xx-400mm lens is a dream of mine.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jan 9, 2020)

Me: Opens link for RF 70-400 rumor, hears choir of angels singing

The idea of having 70-400 range in something close to the size of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is mind-blowing. This will be close in length to my adapted EF 70-300L with 100mm more reach. Insane.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 9, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I've already got the excellent 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II, and I suspect most Canon users who need this type of lens have.


Well, I don't have it and I wasn't gonna buy the EF mount one because I'm not buying any new EF lenses now, with the RF mount in full swing.
This newly announced lens is exactly what I was waiting for since for me it's the perfect match for the RF 24-105 lens.
Canon, please make it already and take my money!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 9, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Not sure how the 100-400 II is very light for what it is when it's wider, longer, and over 200g heavier than its predecessor.
> 
> And if you're under the assumption that the only reason the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF versions is because it extends externally versus internally I think you may be mistaken.
> 
> ...


At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
> Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
> Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
> How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size?


The weight of the 100-400mm II with the lenshood and tripod foot is 1.7kg. The Sony lens is 115g less. The Sigma and Tamron are lighter still but they are only f/6.3. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is lighter than the 100-400mm II at 1.46kg.


----------



## knight427 (Jan 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.
> 
> Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.



Before you sell it...

There is a full moon tomorrow (tonight will be good too). Set up to take a shot of it fairly low (so the camera is easier to work on the tripod). Get your kids out to "help" as much as they are able. Be sure to let them press the shutter button. Focusing isn't too hard for them if you've done all the stuff to get Live View Zoom working and their arms are long enough. Put their name obnoxiously large in the watermark and post it so grandparents can see. Be sure to get a print or two so they can show their friends.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> At 1.5kg it isn't that heavy for a 400mm lens. EF 70 200/2.8 ii weight is around 1.45kg.
> Yes, the RF variant may end up being somewhat lighter. Lets discuss then.
> Speaking of being an outlier when it comes to being heavier...
> How the RF 85/1.2 and RF 50/1.2 stack up against EF peers with regards to weight and size?


Yes the fast primes are beasts no doubt about that, don't think the RF mount makes much of difference there. 

But I've got hope for the future tele zooms!


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.
> 
> Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.


I second *knight427'*s recommendation for moon shots, but also, I bet you'll regret the sale in 12-24months time if you go through with it. So, unless raising the funds is required of course, I'd say hang on for now - it remains a good lens (and, following knight427's thrust, find some further uses for the focal range - 200-300mm can be interesting perspective for portraits, for example).
Cheers.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 9, 2020)

degos said:


> The RF mount's shorter register distance doesn't provide optical benefits until down into the wide-angle / UWA range.



Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.


Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor _does_ allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 9, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Which explains why no one (but me) is worrying about when or if they will introduce RF versions of the big white lenses - because they will be identical to the EF lenses but with a longer rear housing and more spece before the rearmost lens element.



Did anyone notice if eyeAF/face detect works better with RF lenses than EF lenses? I don't know if I'm imagining it but I think I tend to get RF lenses locking into faces/eyes better than the EF lenses on the R. If so, I'm wondering if the increased bandwidth between the lens and body helps... I should try this with the 24-70s...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor _does_ allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.


The long telephotos from Canon and Nikon have the rear element set well back inside the lens unlike in short telephotos or standard or wide angle lenses. So, the lens designers have deliberately chosen to have the rear element quite far from the sensor.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Did anyone notice if eyeAF/face detect works better with RF lenses than EF lenses? I don't know if I'm imagining it but I think I tend to get RF lenses locking into faces/eyes better than the EF lenses on the R. If so, I'm wondering if the increased bandwidth between the lens and body helps... I should try this with the 24-70s...


It would make sense to me that the RF lenses are faster at this. I know mine lock on lightning quick (eye-AF) even with a moving subject.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The long telephotos from Canon and Nikon have the rear element set well back inside the lens unlike in short telephotos or standard or wide angle lenses. So, the lens designers have deliberately chosen to have the rear element quite far from the sensor.


...quite far from the mount surface, actually. Could be explained by the need to support teleconverters (which, for both Nikon and Canon, protrude into the lens).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2020)

Kit. said:


> ...quite far from the mount surface, actually. Could be explained by the need to support teleconverters (which, for both Nikon and Canon, protrude into the lens).


I had already checked that. The TCs go in about 5mm leaving another 25mm+.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I read the reviews by Sony shooters and there is pretty much agreement by the ones I follow and trust that the A7RIV is weak for birds in flight and that the A9 or A9II is required to drive the 200-600mm. And you need an extender because of the low pixel density of the A9.


Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Lately I only have a couple weekends a year to use my 100-400 II for nature photography. My kids are still a few years too young to be in sports, and even for that, the lens really needs a lot of light to avoid very high ISO's...Mulling over selling it.
> 
> Great for bright days or static subjects, great for shorebirds...Some birds in flight. But I rarely have a chance to use it.


Your kids might be too young now but once they get older, getting into sports, you'll find that focal range very useful. I suggest to wait, if you can, because you might regret selling it.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 10, 2020)

stochasticmotions said:


> Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used.


For sure you'll get less shots in focus than with the A9 but for the ones you do get in focus, there are 61MP to work with, not 24. The detail level has to be fantastic.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2020)

stochasticmotions said:


> Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.


The Birds in Flight and Portrait threads are replete with excellent sharp shots of BIF taken with a wide variety of lenses and bodies, and I have no doubt you take excellent photos too - it would be nice if you joined in and posted some. For relatively slow moving birds against a clear background the keeper rate is very high with most systems. The more erratic the movement, the higher the speed and the more complex the background, the fewer the keepers, until they tend to zero, but with luck the impossible shot can be recorded. I am always looking for the best gear to improve my keeper rate for BIF and for general use, and I will buy any make or lens I can hand hold. The A7RIV clearly fulfils your expectations, so congratulations, but it doesn't the extreme BIF shooters I follow. Similarly, I am happy with the 5DSR (and now 90D) for most of the time, but others scorn them. For difficult BIF shots, I have recently purchased another set up favoured by the affcionados, the D500/500PF combo, and it has gotten me shots I could only dream about. But, for most of my bird photography I am sticking with Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> For sure you'll get less shots in focus than with the A9 but for the ones you do get in focus, there are 61MP to work with, not 24. The detail level has to be fantastic.


By that token, the M6II and 90D will outresolve both as they have an 83 Mpx equivalence. And, they are much cheaper. What you also have to consider is aperture and diffraction: f/6.3 is narrower than the diffraction limited aperture of the A7RIV of f/6 and so you are wasting some of the resolution already; and noise at the isos for BIF, at the higher isos of 800 and above resolution is increasingly lowered


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The weight of the 100-400mm II with the lenshood and tripod foot is 1.7kg. The Sony lens is 115g less. The Sigma and Tamron are lighter still but they are only f/6.3. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is lighter than the 100-400mm II at 1.46kg.


Thank you, Alan for setting the numbers straight. Much appreciated.
I typically shoot with 70-200 and 100-400 "barefooted" (tripod collar and foot removed for 70-200 and foot for 100-400) so to speak  Therefore my numbers correct more or less at least for my use case.
I found that EF mount of 5DIV handles 1.5kg lens hanging of it just fine. A lighter 70-400 lens is most welcome, however I am really contain with the current 100-400 lens ergonomics.


----------



## Bert63 (Jan 10, 2020)

Could me a winner if it's optically superior to the current lens. 

The 100-400L II and 1.4X III are a permanent fixture on one of my two primary cameras - the EOS-R and 5D4. The 100-400L II also spends time on my 7D2 but not nearly as much as it used to.

To buy this lens would be to buy a lens that would exclude the other two bodies on my shelf and that would be a hard step for me to take unless there was a strong driver (better performance/images/faster focus/etc) but the weight thing isn't even in the equation for me.

I'm so used to my right arm being three inches longer than my left from carrying my "brick" around that I'm used to it. It's like it isn't even there. That my change as I age - I'm 56 - but for now it doesn't bother me at all.

Add in a new teleconverter - say a 2X - that doesn't noticably impact image quality and I might become enthusiastic.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 10, 2020)

Whenever I hike in the mountains or visit places I've never been before, I carry the 5 DIV with 100-400 always on a Capture Peak clip mounted on a backpack shoulder strap.
Access is easy and quick and I hardly feel the weight, additionally, there is no camera swinging against my hip like with a Black Rapid strap.
I'd never sell this (my most used) great lens!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you, Alan for setting the numbers straight. Much appreciated.
> I typically shoot with 70-200 and 100-400 "barefooted" (tripod collar and foot removed for 70-200 and foot for 100-400) so to speak  Therefore my numbers correct more or less at least for my use case.
> I found that EF mount of 5DIV handles 1.5kg lens hanging of it just fine. A lighter 70-400 lens is most welcome, however I am really contain with the current 100-400 lens ergonomics.


I carry my 5DIV/5DSR + 100-400mmII on a BlackRapid with connectors to the tripod foot and the camera to spread the load, have a back up if one attachment fails and also not have the camera fall off if just the lens held. I can manage and enjoy those combos on long hikes and for extensive hand holding but am reluctant if not able to carry more weight. The double attachment means there is less swinging of the lens against my hip.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The benchmark for a longer zoom is now the 200-600mm f/6.3 a la Sony, it's a cracking lens with IQ and AF way ahead of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. However, both those lenses are too heavy for me, and the Sony too big. 70-400mm is the best compromise for a lightweight lens for hiking and safari. I am finding that attached to something as pixel dense as the 90D the 100-400mm II is providing a good long effective focal length as well as versatility. I, personally, want Canon to produce a really lightweight 500mm f/5.6 DO prime to rival the Nikon, as well as a 300mm DO.


...THIS!


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Except that it's not true. Moving the rear (negative) element in a telephoto lens closer to the sensor _does_ allow for more compact (albeit not by much) and less front-heavy design. The front (positive) element won't be narrower, but can be closer to the sensor plane.



Interesting. A true RF version of a big white with its own optical design might be a little shorter, which would be welcome. However until RF takes over the pro market in ~5 years (or arguably more) there's no motivation to develop a new optical system that is unusable on EF mounts. Easy to create either a RF rear housing for current and future EF designs, or a universal version with a detach-for-EF "de-adapter."


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> ...THIS!


I am getting out of touch and hand to look up what THIS means! https://www.internetslang.com/THIS-meaning-definition.asp. THIS!


----------



## SteB1 (Jan 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes, let's completely forget about those who do not have something like this, and forget about new buyers of such a lens. This is something people seem to forget about: That just because "I" have it and don't need or want it then nobody else does or should. The market is fluid with people exiting and entering all the time, and people who just stay put. Just because you have something that satisfies you does not mean "most" do. You know, it just may be that people in the RF ecosystem want a native lens and also may want a lens that goes wider and is more compact when stored. Ever think of that?
> 
> Some people new to the RF system are happy to adapt their EF lenses. Some want to go all native. There's nothing wrong with either choice. That's a personal decision. There are lenses I had in EF that I wish were already available in RF that are not. I would never be so presumptuous as to think my choices and desires were those of most other people.
> 
> As far as Sony goes; have at it.


My point is that for a long time there were rumours, if I remember rightly backed up by other information that Canon was developing a 200-600mm lens for the EF system. I'm not saying that Canon shouldn't produce a 100-400mm RF lens. What I am saying is that Canon should learn how and why the Sony 200-600mm lens has been so well received. First it is competitively priced, cheaper than their 100-400mm lens. It performs very well. The extra focal length is a big advantage, and the fixed length and internal zoom is a huge advantage. Anyone who has ever had a flying bird suddenly change direction and fly towards you, knows how difficult it is with an extending zoom with a large throw, to react to this.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2020)

stochasticmotions said:


> Definitely not my experience with the A7RIV. It may not be as good as the A9 but it is still better for birds in flight than nearly anything I have used. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter at f/9 it is still very good. Definitely much better than by 5DS with the 500mm II f/4 (with or without the 1.4 teleconverter) which would be the closest combination I own for comparison in term of length and high resolution. Even the A7III is great with the 200-600, the A7RII that I have definitely can't keep up but it wasn't great with the 100-400 either.


Here is a thread started two days on dpr by Sony users about problems with the A7RIV with the 100-400mm and 200-600mm, with posts about many owners reporting problems of focussing and tracking with the camera and these lenses and even how they didn't have the problems with their Canon gear. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63508971
It reinforces what I have read in fredmiranda Sony forums; A9 great for BIF, Sony A7RIV is the opposite.


----------



## jedy (Jan 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Then get a Sony if it is such a God send to us humans and get an adapter to use your shed load of Canon lenses.
> I love the telescoping zoom as when packing it for travel it is so compact.
> 12 5/8" vs 7 5/8" is 5" or a wide angle lens and the 100-400. Also for those who do not live doing birds but have large and diverse interests the unique to Canon only of the close focus capability of the 100-400 MII is absolutely amazing.
> Perhaps canon will make a longer 200-600mm type lens. And if they do good for them, but for a broader base of users for the RF system the 70-400mm will be exciting. And those bodies, I imagine if the 1DX MIII and the upcoming RS? is an indicator, there will be some mind blowing QUALITY cameras by Canon that are well built and do not act like toys.


The usual Sony are toys and Canon gear that doesn’t exist yet will blow away the competition comment. You know for a fact a high end Canon R will do what Sony cameras can’t? The point is, it’s pointless making these sorts of statements when there nothing to back them up, especially as the Canon gear in question isn’t in production yet. People said Canon’s first mirrorless would blow away the competition and it didn’t. In fact it got a lot of complaints from long time Canon users. Be careful making such bold statements about unreleased camera gear. Besides, I would Say Sony’s issues with birding have more to do with mirrorless technology not quite there yet compared to DSLR than simply a Sony issue.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Here is a thread started two days on dpr by Sony users about problems with the A7RIV with the 100-400mm and 200-600mm, with posts about many owners reporting problems of focussing and tracking with the camera and these lenses and even how they didn't have the problems with their Canon gear. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63508971
> It reinforces what I have read in fredmiranda Sony forums; A9 great for BIF, Sony A7RIV is the opposite.


Thanks, I'll check it out and see if I can replicate any of the issues.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 13, 2020)

A RF 70-400mm would be a lens I would love, particularly if it will be relatively compact and lightweight, with great optics. If it extends, and that means that when non-extended it is more compact and portable, that is ideal for my uses. I don't need the lens to be faster than f/5.6 for this focal length (when I need truly 'fast glass', I use primes, between f/1.4 and f/2).

Currently I own the Canon EF 70-300mm L Is, which is a great match on my 80D (and previously lived on my 7D). It has great IQ, and the size meant I take it with me on many photo outings, day trips and longer duration travel to many locations. 

If Canon can come out with a RF body that meets (at least some of) my main wildlife photography needs, I will likely jump to their mirrorless FF (i.e. RF) platform. Most of my main RF photographic needs include a suitable EVF for tracking fast action and decent FPS and sufficient megapixels to allow some decent cropping of smaller subjects, e.g. birds.

Canon, it looks like our long-term relationship may well continue well into the future.....


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 13, 2020)

amorse said:


> That's exciting! Though I wonder if they would have to make some optical compromises in order to get the size down. I thought I'd heard the 100-400 as it currently is, is one of Canon's toughest-to-make lenses, so I feel like miniaturizing that must come with a compromise or two...
> 
> But I could definitely see that in my bag should I jump on board with the R system any time soon.



Maybe... But maybe the shorter flange distance (same mount diameter) is a gain that balances out any compromise. Guess we will see.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2020)

stochasticmotions said:


> Thanks, I'll check it out and see if I can replicate any of the issues.


The Digital Picture has just done a very complimentary review of the A7RIV his one negative area is in AF-C for action photography:
"As mentioned, I spent a lot of time photographing wildlife and AF-C AF accuracy with these subjects was not so stellar. Every-other-shot-sharp scenarios were rather common with the odd shots often usable but just slightly out of focus. It seemed that the AF system was wavering the focus distance even when the animal was not moving. " He is hoping it can be fixed with a firmware update.








Sony Alpha 7R IV, IVA Review


Is the Sony Alpha a7R IV Mirrorless Digital Camera right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Joules (Jan 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Maybe... But maybe the shorter flange distance (same mount diameter) is a gain that balances out any compromise. Guess we will see.


From the initial material that Canon released, it seems that a major advantage of the RF mount is the ability to design the lenses with far greater rear elements. The assumption that Tele RF glass can't be made smaller just because of the flange distance may or may not be true. But there's definitely more to it that just the distance.


----------



## geffy (Jan 16, 2020)

wow, its not a Sony world anymore


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 18, 2020)

Canon is coming out with amazing lenses. I'm a non-professional, more into still-photography than movies, and want to move up from MFT to FF. I hope their upcoming R body(s) will compete with the A7... line and exceed it in well designed ergonomics & (especially)menu system so that I can happily buy into the R system.

I want high quality lenses that I can hand-hold comfortably, and so the largest front element for me needs to stay between 70 and 75mm to keep the size and weight reasonable. That means f/2.8 could be up to 210mm, f/4 up to 300mm, f/5.6 up to 420mm, and f/8 up to 600mm. This 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6 should be a wonderful lens for f/5.6, and I hope they keep the same high image quality with this 5.7x zoom. Now could they do the same quality 5.7x to get something close to a 24-135mm f/2.2-2.8, 35-200mm f/2.2-2.8, 55-300mm f/3-4, and 105-600mm f/6-8 ?

If they had a high quality 105-600mm f/6-8 then I could see myself buying 2 of their new bodies with that lens for all telephoto work on one, and the 24-70(or 100)mm f/2.8 for wide angle to portraits on the other. That would probably cost $8-12K in total, but still well within my reach and I would happily buy it.

Canon has an opportunity to have cellphone, MFT, APS-C and DSLR users jump into FF with their R system instead of the current leader A7... system. I hope they succeed in this.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Canon is coming out with amazing lenses. I'm a non-professional, more into still-photography than movies, and want to move up from MFT to FF. I hope their upcoming R body(s) will compete with the A7... line and exceed it in well designed ergonomics & (especially)menu system so that I can happily buy into the R system.
> 
> I want high quality lenses that I can hand-hold comfortably, and so the largest front element for me needs to stay between 70 and 75mm to keep the size and weight reasonable. That means f/2.8 could be up to 210mm, f/4 up to 300mm, f/5.6 up to 420mm, and f/8 up to 600mm. This 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6 should be a wonderful lens for f/5.6, and I hope they keep the same high image quality with this 5.7x zoom. Now could they do the same quality 5.7x to get something close to a 24-135mm f/2.2-2.8, 35-200mm f/2.2-2.8, 55-300mm f/3-4, and 105-600mm f/6-8 ?
> 
> ...



I think you need a bigger element if you want to get to a useable 150-600 in low light. The f6-f8 would be a non-starter for me because it would not provide enough light for wildlife photographers in early / late light without driving the shutter too low or the ISO too hight (noise). My preference would be a f5.6, but no more than an f6.3, which gets into a similar range as the Sigma/Tamron. I just want better IQ and faster AF than the Sigma/Tamron. The other issues will be how far into the zoom range the lens requires f5.6 or f6.3


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 19, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I think you need a bigger element if you want to get to a useable 150-600 in low light. The f6-f8 would be a non-starter for me because it would not provide enough light for wildlife photographers in early / late light without driving the shutter too low or the ISO too hight (noise). My preference would be a f5.6, but no more than an f6.3, which gets into a similar range as the Sigma/Tamron. I just want better IQ and faster AF than the Sigma/Tamron. The other issues will be how far into the zoom range the lens requires f5.6 or f6.3


I understand your worry about f/8 being too dim for low light use. But at 600mm you would have to get a much bigger front element (> 107mm) to get f/5.6 and it would be much bigger & heavier - which might be ok for you and many others, but it would just be too big for me to carry. If I had to keep the lens at or below f/5.6 I would rather use the 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6, and crop(1.5x) when I want 600mm (which would result in a smaller MP image at f/8). In fact, even if they offered a 105-600mm f/6-8 I might prefer the 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6, relying on crop as needed, and hope the smaller MP image was still detailed enough.

I can tell you that I have the Olympus 300mm f/4 pro lens which at 2x crop is equivalent to a FF 600mm f/8 lens. It is about as big & heavy as I can comfortably (enough) carry. I have taken stunning hand-held photos with it (thanks to it's 6.5 stop dual IS). My only complaint is that it is not a zoom and so it is hard to do good BIF(emphasis on flight) shots on it and having a zoom would fix that. I have not been bothered by low light issues with it.

And you could even consider a possible RF 55(or so)-300mm f/3-4 and use a 2x crop of it to get 110mm(or so)-600mm f/6-8. That would reduce the MP size by 4x, so you'd need a hi-res image sensor (80MP) to result in a 20MP image which would be the same as with the (2x crop) Oly 300mm f/4. The main difference is that you could now also use that RF lens for 55(or so)-300mm shots at full MP size at f/3-4 which would be great! I might even choose that best as a 2nd zoom with the RF 24-70(or 100) f/2.8 lens.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I understand your worry about f/8 being too dim for low light use. But at 600mm you would have to get a much bigger front element (> 107mm) to get f/5.6 and it would be much bigger & heavier - which might be ok for you and many others, but it would just be too big for me to carry.
> 
> I can tell you that I have the Oly 300mm f/4 pro lens which at 2x crop is equivalent to a 600mm f/8 lens. It is about as big & heavy as I can comfortably (enough) carry. I have taken stunning hand-held photos with it (thanks to it's 6.5 stop dual IS). My only complaint is that it is not a zoom and so it is hard to impossible to do good BIF(emphasis on flight) shots on it and having a zoom would fix that. I have not been bothered by low light issues with it.



The problem is that IS doesn't help you with subject movement. I have had many situations where I am pushing up into high ISO (12,800) when using f5.6 at the minimum shutter speed required to capture the animal.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 19, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> The problem is that IS doesn't help you with subject movement. I have had many situations where I am pushing up into high ISO (12,800) when using f5.6 at the minimum shutter speed required to capture the animal.


You're correct - current IS doesn't help with subject movement (AFAIK). If you're happy with a bigger & heavier lens then I hope Canon offers you the choice (I commend Canon for offering so many great lens choices). I do think that future cameras might use IS movement to track objects *during* the exposure which would help with that (so that the moving subject stays in focus even if it smears the background). But then again, that would still give a bad photo that would be fixed by shorter exposure needing bigger aperture - sigh!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I understand your worry about f/8 being too dim for low light use. But at 600mm you would have to get a much bigger front element (> 107mm) to get f/5.6 and it would be much bigger & heavier - which might be ok for you and many others, but it would just be too big for me to carry. If I had to keep the lens at or below f/5.6 I would rather use the 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6, and crop(1.5x) when I want 600mm (which would result in a smaller MP image at f/8). In fact, even if they offered a 105-600mm f/6-8 I might prefer the 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6, relying on crop as needed, and hope the smaller MP image was still detailed enough.
> 
> I can tell you that I have the Olympus 300mm f/4 pro lens which at 2x crop is equivalent to a FF 600mm f/8 lens. It is about as big & heavy as I can comfortably (enough) carry. I have taken stunning hand-held photos with it (thanks to it's 6.5 stop dual IS). My only complaint is that it is not a zoom and so it is hard to do good BIF(emphasis on flight) shots on it and having a zoom would fix that. I have not been bothered by low light issues with it.
> 
> And you could even consider a possible RF 55(or so)-300mm f/3-4 and use a 2x crop of it to get 110mm(or so)-600mm f/6-8. That would reduce the MP size by 4x, so you'd need a hi-res image sensor (80MP) to result in a 20MP image which would be the same as with the (2x crop) Oly 300mm f/4. The main difference is that you could now also use that RF lens for 55(or so)-300mm shots at full MP size at f/3-4 which would be great! I might even choose that best as a 2nd zoom with the RF 24-100 f/2.8 lens.


The current 90D and M6 II have smaller pixels than the highest density Olympus sensor, 3.19 vs 3.32 micron pixels. The current 100-400mm II on them gives you as much reach as the 300mm Pro + 1.4xTC on an Olympus, and that is a nice light Canon combination. A 70-400mm on an 83 Mpx R would be quite a useful BIF and perched bird combo.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The current 90D and M6 II have smaller pixels than the highest density Olympus sensor, 3.19 vs 3.32 micron pixels. The current 100-400mm II on them gives you as much reach as the 300mm Pro + 1.4xTC on an Olympus, and that is a nice light Canon combination. A 70-400mm on an 83 Mpx R would be quite a useful BIF and perched bird combo.


Canon APS-C has 1.6x crop factor (correct me if I'm wrong). So a 400mm on them is 640mm on FF. Oly has 2.0x crop factor. So a 300 on them with a 1.4TC gives 840mm on FF. They would be closer to each other if you dropped the TC from the Oly so you'd get 600mm on FF.

I agree that a RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be extremely useful for BIF and perched bird combo (and so many other great things!). It might be the best extra-wide-range tele-zoom for non-professionals there is for awhile. If you have a RF 24-70 f/2.8 and want a zoom for good portrait use (f/2.8) then you need a RF 70-200mm f/2.8, so adding a 70-400mm may be too redundant (and you'd instead want a 200-600 etc.). But if Canon came out with the RF 24-100mm f/2.8 they patented recently then it would cover the portrait range enough (at f/2.8) so you might consider just getting the RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for non-portrait telephoto use (and only 2 zooms would allow you to buy just 2 bodies if you don't like swapping lenses, and I don't like swapping them if possible)

Oh, I hope Canon comes out with some great R bodies soon!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Canon APS-C has 1.6x crop factor (correct me if I'm wrong). So a 400mm on them is 640mm on FF. Oly has 2.0x crop factor. So a 300 on them with a 1.4TC gives 840mm on FF. They would be closer to each other if you dropped the TC from the Oly so you'd get 600mm on FF.
> 
> I agree that a RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be extremely useful for BIF and perched bird combo (and so many other great things!). It might be the best extra-wide-range tele-zoom for non-professionals there is for awhile. I'd certainly love to have it - oh, I hope Canon comes out with some great R bodies soon!


I used the term "reach", which means resolution. The calculation you present is for "field of view", which is different from reach. For example, a 300mm lens on an 80 Mpx FF sensor has the same field of view as a 300mm lens on a 20 Mpx FF sensor, but the 80 MPx has twice the resolution or "reach". This is because pixel density comes into the calculation of reach or resolution. A 32.5 Mpx Canon APS-C sensor (pixel size equivalent to a 83 Mpx FF) has slightly higher resolution than a 20 Mpx MFT sensor (equivalent to an 80 Mpx FF), 3.19 vs 3.32 micron pixels. A 300mm lens on a 32.5 Mpx Canon APS-C sensor or an 83 Mpx FF sensor will just outresolve a 300mm on a 20 Mpx MFT, that is they all have very similar "reach" but very different fields of view.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I used the term "reach", which means resolution. The calculation you present is for "field of view", which is different from reach. For example, a 300mm lens on an 80 Mpx FF sensor has the same field of view as a 300mm lens on a 20 Mpx FF sensor, but the 80 MPx has twice the resolution or "reach". This is because pixel density comes into the calculation of reach or resolution. A 32.5 Mpx Canon APS-C sensor (pixel size equivalent to a 83 Mpx FF) has slightly higher resolution than a 20 Mpx MFT sensor (equivalent to an 80 Mpx FF), 3.19 vs 3.32 micron pixels. A 300mm lens on a 32.5 Mpx Canon APS-C sensor or an 83 Mpx FF sensor will just outresolve a 300mm on a 20 Mpx MFT, that is they all have very similar "reach" but very different fields of view.


Thanks for the explanation. Could you post what the equation(s) is? I'd be interested in looking at it.


----------



## Joules (Jan 20, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the explanation. Could you post what the equation(s) is? I'd be interested in looking at it.


What Alan is describing is the ability to crop beyond the crop factor of your format.

The common formats with their dimensions and following area and crop factor play a role here:

FF
36 mm * 24 mm = 864 mm^2
Diagonal of 43.27 mm
Crop factor 1 (Reference) 

Canon APS-C
22.2 mm * 14.8 mm = 328.56 mm^2
Diagonal of 26.68 mm
Crop factor 1.62 (43.27/26.68)

Mirco Four Thirds
17.3 mm * 13.0 mm = 224.9 mm^2
Diagonal of 21.64 mm
Crop factor 2 (43.27/21.64)

The different areas mean that for a given lens, each sensor format will show a different field of view, regardless of resolution. But on the larger formats, given enough resolution you can crop down so that you are left with an area that's the size of one of the smaller formats.

The term resolution is ambiguous. It can mean the absolute number of pixel in an image, for instance. Or it can be a measure of actual detail if it is given as a density. 

Cropping an APS-C image down to a MFT format reduces the total resolution down to 224.9 / 328.56 = 0.685 ~ 68.5 %. Meaning if your total APS-C resolution is 32.5 MP (EOS M6 II, EOS 90D) you'd end up with 22.3 MP. Which is more than MFT has to offer and why more megapixels on an identical sensor size can deliver more detail should be intuitive. 

An alternative way to get to this right away is to simply look at the pixel density or like Alan did, the size of each pixel. For a 32.5 MP Canon APS-C that would be 328,56 * 10^-6 m / (32.5 * 10^6) = 10.109 Micrometer^2, and taking the square root it get's you 3.18 Micrometer which is the width and height of a pixel that Alan gave. There's some rounding error involved.

So square root of (sensor area divided by number of pixels).


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> Cropping an APS-C image down to a MFT format reduces the total resolution down to 224.9 / 328.56 = 0.685 ~ 68.5 %. Meaning if your total APS-C resolution is 32.5 MP (EOS M6 II, EOS 90D) you'd end up with 22.3 MP. Which is more than MFT has to offer and why more megapixels on an identical sensor size can deliver more detail should be intuitive.



That assumes the lens' resolving power is good enough to get a real gain from the additional resolution.

IIRC, past threads indicated there's always some gain, but it drops like 1/X^2, so in the example above it could be somewhere from a little less than the 10% sensor resolution difference (reasonable for good tele lens) to nearly nothing.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> An alternative way to get to this right away is to simply look at the pixel density or like Alan did, the size of each pixel. For a 32.5 MP Canon APS-C that would be 328,56 * 10^-6 m / (32.5 * 10^6) = 10.109 Micrometer^2, and taking the square root it get's you 3.18 Micrometer which is the width and height of a pixel that Alan gave. There's some rounding error involved.
> 
> So square root of (sensor area divided by number of pixels).



This question may just serve to show my ignorance, but isn't there something else going on too? I'm going to have to describe what I mean when I really need to draw a picture, so please bear with me:

Take a 50 millimeter lens, for some (notional) Full Frame mount X. It has to project an image of the subject onto a sensor, and that image has to be of a certain precise width by the time it hits the focal plane. If it's too big, then the camera will behave as if it's cropping, too small and it will need cropping after the fact.

A different mount, Full Frame Mount Y, with its 50 millimeter lens presumably must project the same subject to the SAME width, or you will have two different "sizes" of image on the two different full frame sensors, and 50mm won't be behaving identically on the two mounts. But note, the X and Y lenses might, due to the mount design, be at very different distances from the sensor.

So it's not just the physical size of the pixels, it's the angle they subtend on the projected image. Now one would HOPE that the full frame sensor in every full frame camera subtends the same angle on the image (given the same focal length of lens); and therefore that comparing, say, 24MP sensors on the two cameras actually is comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges...but I don't know. Is this standardized so that not just the size of full frame sensors is identical, but also their field of view?


----------



## Joules (Jan 20, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> IIRC, past threads indicated there's always some gain, but it drops like 1/X^2, so in the example above it could be somewhere from a little less than the 10% sensor resolution difference (reasonable for good tele lens) to nearly nothing.


A difference of 20 vs 22 MP is basically nearly nothing. I don't think anybody here claims differently. But more is more, even if it is a negligible difference. This was just about some theory, not making any statement on the pros and cons of sensor formats, I think. 



SteveC said:


> one would HOPE that the full frame sensor in every full frame camera subtends the same angle on the image (given the same focal length of lens); and therefore that comparing, say, 24MP sensors on the two cameras actually is comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges...but I don't know. Is this standardized


I'm not sure if I understand the question or can really answer it. I believe you're asking if the field of view depends on more than the focal length? Basically, asking if the lens has to properly scale the image so that some technical distance within the lens actually correlates to the field of view we know as 50mm?

Reading the Wiki on the matter, it appears that the focal length as we use it is an effective value anyway and is directly related to the FOV, with the only other variable affecting it being the sensor diagonal:

"Focal length (f) and field of view (FOV) of a lens are inversely proportional. For a standard rectilinear lens, FOV = 2 arctan (x/(2f)), where x is the diagonal of the film"

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length

So if it's labeled 50mm, that's what you get - in combination with your sensor diagonal. And that is a variable that you can shrink to you liking using cropping. Was that what you were going after?


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 20, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> That assumes the lens' resolving power is good enough to get a real gain from the additional resolution.
> 
> IIRC, past threads indicated there's always some gain, but it drops like 1/X^2, so in the example above it could be somewhere from a little less than the 10% sensor resolution difference (reasonable for good tele lens) to nearly nothing.


I see that this is proportional to 1 / pixel area. So as the pixels shrink down to almost nothing this number goes through the roof. Personally, I don't see much value in this resultant value. But I do thank you all for explaining it to me.

One thing that's not being considered here is that a FF picture which is stored as a FF picture and later cropped down 2x to get a MFT size image is not really the same as taking a MFT image. When you crop after the fact, you can adjust where you want to crop from within the entire FF image. I often find I want some off-center portion of the image that would not exist if initially stored as the smaller image, and so the freedom to crop anywhere from a larger image into the smaller size is much more important than just storing the smaller image in the first place.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> So if it's labeled 50mm, that's what you get - in combination with your sensor diagonal. And that is a variable that you can shrink to you liking using cropping. Was that what you were going after?



I think it is, thanks! it tells me they compensate for it, and a (say) Sony 50mm on a Sony full frame will have the same FOV as a Canon 50 mm on a Canon EF body, or a Canon R 50 on a Canon R body, all three pics taken from the same place. Since the sensors are of identical size and presuably identical aspect ratio (right?), the SOLE determinant of how much a pixel sees compared to the others should therefore be the size of the pixel on that sensor.

Needless to say the Canon picture will look better than the Sony one.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 1, 2020)

I just wanted to bump this thread as this is likely my next RF purchase...


----------



## erader (Feb 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> No, this is a great way to satisfy a "photographer's dream"
> 100mm end of 100-400 is a bit too long at time for sports.
> 70-400 is your 100-400 with a wider end. Just perfect.



100mm isn't a great starting point for landscapes either


----------

