# Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2021)

> Canon will soon announce the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. The first super-telephoto lenses for the RF mount. They aren’t stopping there.
> I have been told the that two following lenses are also in development and will arrive next year.
> Canon RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
> This new DO super-telephoto lens will be the smallest and lightest lens of its kind. It’s a completely new optical formula for the RF mount.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 13, 2021)

A 200-500 F/4 would be *insane.*

Add a built in 1.4x and you'd get a 200-700 F/4-5.6L. That lens on its own would probably draw a lot of people towards the RF mount. It moves the 200-400 more towards wildlife photographers, especially small bird photographers, while making it even more useful for large field sports photographers.

Honestly a 120-300 F/2.8 and a 200-500 F/4 1.4x would probably be the only two big lenses I'd ever need ‍


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

200-500 f/4.0 L IS USM.... I wouldn't need any other lens.


----------



## risto0 (Apr 13, 2021)

i would like to see 400-600mm f4.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 200-500 f/4.0 L IS USM.... I wouldn't need any other lens.


You couldn't afford anything else either


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> You couldn't afford anything else either



One big white a year is affordable for most I would think. But I think a 300 f/2.8, 200-500 f/4.0, and a 600mm f/4.0 covers most wildlife. I am still sticking with Nikon for now, but that 200-500 could live on its own body for life.


----------



## Marximusprime (Apr 13, 2021)

I regularly keep a 2x on my 500 f/4 II. Slap a 2x on that zoom...400-1000 with the ability to crop to 1600...done. I'm sure it'll be heavy and very expensive, though, two reasons that kept me from being interested in the 200-400 (although I see now that used 200-400s in good condition on eBay are about what I paid for my 500).


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> One big white a year is affordable for most I would think. But I think a 300 f/2.8, 200-500 f/4.0, and a 600mm f/4.0 covers most wildlife. I am still sticking with Nikon for now, but that 200-500 could live on its own body for life.



Uhhm, for _some _definition of "most" I guess  Even a single big white is _nowhere near_ affordable to the vast majority of photographers in the world, never mind one per year! That's definitely 1% territory (or more like 0.01% territory, globally speaking).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Uhhm, for _some _definition of "most" I guess  Even a single big white is _nowhere near_ affordable to the vast majority of photographers in the world, never mind one per year! That's definitely 1% territory (or more like 0.01% territory, globally speaking).



I can only speak for Scottish photographers. £10,000-£15,000 is a lot of money in anyones book but definitely not a once in a lifetime buy here.


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> One big white a year is affordable for most I would think. But I think a 300 f/2.8, 200-500 f/4.0, and a 600mm f/4.0 covers most wildlife. I am still sticking with Nikon for now, but that 200-500 could live on its own body for life.



Some bubble you’re living in. Wish I was there! Must be nicely sheltered.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 13, 2021)

Cool so they put 10cm fresnell pair as main lense of 400mm and same kind of to more middle of 500mm.
Like RF 600 and RF 800


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Some bubble you’re living in. Wish I was there! Must be nicely sheltered.



It usually bloody cold. Lots of rain, wind, snow, and ice that targets your ears.


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It usually bloody cold. Lots of rain, wind, snow, and ice that targets your ears.



Mitigated by the money falling from the sky? Fair trade. Just having fun.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 13, 2021)

*Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM sounds very impressive - but also large and heavy. Already the 200-400mm L seems unwieldy to me. Would not be a taker myself.*​


----------



## SV (Apr 13, 2021)

Would much prefer that Canon come out with something similar to what Sony has done with the 200-600


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> *Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM sounds very impressive - but also large and heavy. Already the 200-400mm L seems unwieldy to me. Would not be a taker myself.*​



I think it's a hide lens. When you aren't able to move and the animals are coming in at various ranges and you need to sit put. Shove it on a tripod with a gimbal and have a nice sit down with a flask of tea while happily photographing a bear as easily as a fox from the same distance.


----------



## Jacksonhole Jeff (Apr 13, 2021)

200-500 F4 would be nice for sure i'll buy one soon as they come out!!! But a 200-600 would even be better!!


----------



## dilbert (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> One big white a year is affordable for most I would think.



Yup, most of the 1%ers could afford a big white lens once a year.

Otherwise, get off your bike.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Yup, most of the 1%ers could afford a big white lens once a year.
> 
> Otherwise, get off your bike.



I would think a 1%er could afford one a month or more. I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need. 1% earners are on vastly different incomes than normal people.


----------



## Joules (Apr 13, 2021)

This is weird. If Canon will really sell the EF 400 mm 2.8 III and EF 600 mm 4.0 III with a permanently attached EF to RF adapter as their respective RF versions (as the Nokishita images suggest) that sends a message of Tele not benefitting from the change to RF.

Obviously, Canon doesn't do public roadmaps. But leaving it at that when in reality such designs are coming in the near future strikes me as odd


----------



## docsmith (Apr 13, 2021)

200-500 f/4? 

I was wondering what it would take for me to give up EF glass and buy my first RF. Weight , IQ, and price are still factors, but I have money waiting for something like this.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I would think a 1%er could afford one a month or more. I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need. 1% earners are on vastly different incomes than normal people.


This all seems like a very silly conversation. I make well more than that a year as a professional photographer and avid hobbyist and don't yet own a single big white in close to 10 years working in this business, by that logic I should have the whole line-up already.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need.



You mean after they've paid the rent, car loan, and everything else, normal people have 12000 quid to spend on a camera lens? That's a strange definition of normal.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 13, 2021)

I’m keenly interested in new DO lenses! Suits my needs well.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 13, 2021)

SV said:


> Would much prefer that Canon come out with something similar to what Sony has done with the 200-600


Yeah, but please make it 250-750mm


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I would think a 1%er could afford one a month or more. I am talking about photographers or hobbyists earning under £50,000 a year, you know, a normal income. Even minimum wage means you can afford a big white once every two to three years if it is something you need. 1% earners are on vastly different incomes than normal people.



Taking some of the worlds finest bird photos and roaming alley mammals out of the back window of a studio apartment, but alas, no family or friends to share them with and no place to sit down. No money left to travel to use them. But there’s food, shelter, and many big whites!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> You mean after they've paid the rent, car loan, and everything else, normal people have 12000 quid to spend on a camera lens? That's a strange definition of normal.



Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.

Normal wage here starts at £18,000 to £26,000 per year with £500/month to rent for a 2-3 bed house, £160 council tax, and £200 to food, with £120 covering 4 weekly bus passes. A photographers wage should be way higher than that I should hope. The normal monthly expense for a person is £1000/month assuming they are living alone in a 2 bed house.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 13, 2021)

If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable. 

Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Taking some of the worlds finest bird photos and roaming alley mammals out of the back window of a studio apartment, but alas, no family or friends to share them with and no place to sit down. No money left to travel to use them. But there’s food, shelter, and many big whites!



We don't have studio apartments. You can rent a 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom house for £350 to £500 a month. Studio apartments maybe in a city, but I have never seen one.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 13, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable.
> 
> Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?


OK, I just saw that the EF version of this lense costs 6500 Euro, so forget my comment ;-).


----------



## Fischer (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think it's a hide lens. When you aren't able to move and the animals are coming in at various ranges and you need to sit put. Shove it on a tripod with a gimbal and have a nice sit down with a flask of tea while happily photographing a bear as easily as a fox from the same distance.


I'm sure some people will be thrilled. Can see people bringing it on safari too. But I work too much hand holding.


----------



## GMAX (Apr 13, 2021)

If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> This all seems like a very silly conversation. I make well more than that a year as a professional photographer and avid hobbyist and don't yet own a single big white in close to 10 years working in this business, by that logic I should have the whole line-up already.



If you needed one you would surely have one, even if it meant saving up a few years or not having a car. Many a wildlife shooter have a 300 f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 and perhaps even a 200-400 f/4.0. There isn't a one lens to rule them all and in many cases the only other option is second hand versions of these exact lenses. Though, you know, shooters of these lenses would likely balk at the cost of a 50mm f/1.2 and/or 85mm f/1.2.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

GMAX said:


> If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?



It may be like the Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8, a way to up market a usually more 'affordable' super tele.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Apr 13, 2021)

Joules said:


> This is weird. If Canon will really sell the EF 400 mm 2.8 III and EF 600 mm 4.0 III with a permanently attached EF to RF adapter as their respective RF versions (as the Nokishita images suggest) that sends a message of Tele not benefitting from the change to RF.
> 
> Obviously, Canon doesn't do public roadmaps. But leaving it at that when in reality such designs are coming in the near future strikes me as odd



I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I'm sure some people will be thrilled. Can see people bringing it on safari too. But I work too much hand holding.



Aye, I don't think it is a hand hold lens. But it is a f/4.0 and going to a f/5.6 or f/7.1 can be ISO 12,800 instead of 6400, which can make or break an image you invested a lot of money to get to the location.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much



They could or are perhaps saving the fat 600mm f/4.0 DO which likely sacrifices a wee bit of IQ for a much shorter lens.


----------



## swkitt (Apr 13, 2021)

Shorter and lighter 4/400 DO than the EF version ? I'm in.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 13, 2021)

I suspect the differences will be in IS / IBIS improvements. AF improvements probably. Everything else will be pretty much the same. 



AccipiterQ said:


> I agree; I will say that the 600iii is pretty much perfect though, not sure what RF mount could add, unless they could somehow shorten the lens? I doubt it can get much lighter. I also can't picture IQ going up much


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> *Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM sounds very impressive - but also large and heavy. Already the 200-400mm L seems unwieldy to me. Would not be a taker myself.*​


The 200-400 was my all time favorite lens, but heavy. I am hoping that they will put this one the version III weight loss problem they did with the EF Big Whites. If they can cut this from 8lbs to 6lbs, it would be much more manageable. I don't know how much weight the extension to 500mm will add. I might go for the 400 DO if it does a good job with externs if they can't cut the weight on the 200-500. The 200-500 f4-5.6 w/ internal 1.4x TC @ 5.75 - 6.25lbs would be my dream lens for wildlife.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> They could or are perhaps saving the fat 600mm f/4.0 DO which likely sacrifices a wee bit of IQ for a much shorter lens.



I replied to this as a proxy for the multiple comments about money.

The biggest expense one has direct control over is the car...and that is GREATLY lessened by buying used. (On the other hand, maintenance/repair can almost make up the difference.) And of course, you bought used (unless someone is still selling Volkswagen Beetles at the early 1970s prices).

If you're able to rent a _house_ for 3-500 quid you've got _very_ cheap real estate in Scotland, or at least your piece of it. Rent would easily be three times as much where I live, and for a flat it could well be twice as much. And that certainly makes the difference, right there, between being able to buy a Big White once a year or so...and not.

And not having kids living with you no doubt makes a big difference too.

Personally, I could buy one, if I wanted nothing else, but I don't do _that_ kind of photography often enough to justify it. My gear is already _vastly_ better than I am!


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think it's a hide lens. When you aren't able to move and the animals are coming in at various ranges and you need to sit put. Shove it on a tripod with a gimbal and have a nice sit down with a flask of tea while happily photographing a bear as easily as a fox from the same distance.


The 200-400 w/1.4x TC was also a fantastic safari lens. That said, I have done 5-6 mile hikes with this lens and I am an old guy. One was down a stream in Alaska photographing Kodiak bears.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 13, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable.
> 
> Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?


I think this implying a high quality RF 400mm f4 DO like the EF 400 f4 IS since it was referenced with the Big Whites. This lens would probably price in the $6k - $7k range if it is a replacement for the EF version.


----------



## chasingrealness (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I can only speak for Scottish photographers. £10,000-£15,000 is a lot of money in anyones book but definitely not a once in a lifetime buy here.


I think it all depends on who you’re producing work for and how much you’re getting paid for it.

I don’t do any sports photography, but I’d venture to guess you could easily justify amortizing $10k across about 5-10 jobs in that field. Does that sound reasonable? 

Ps- this is not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious here


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> I think it all depends on who you’re producing work for and how much you’re getting paid for it.
> 
> I don’t do any sports photography, but I’d venture to guess you could easily justify amortizing $10k across about 5-10 jobs in that field. Does that sound reasonable?
> 
> Ps- this is not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious here


The vast majority if people I see shooting sports, and even more so wildlife, with big whites are not getting an income of any size or regularity to buy those big whites, they are virtually all sport or wildlife and photography enthusiasts.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> I think it all depends on who you’re producing work for and how much you’re getting paid for it.
> 
> I don’t do any sports photography, but I’d venture to guess you could easily justify amortizing $10k across about 5-10 jobs in that field. Does that sound reasonable?
> 
> Ps- this is not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious here



Someone is sure to correct me if I am wrong, I am under the assumption that sports shooters are taken to a gear room and assigned a body and lens from whoever they work for. Wildlife folks have to pay ourselves, and most earn their bread and butter on non wildlife shooting. I earn from my photography enough to fund it as a hobby, but my main income is as a programmer and if I went photography full time it would be a major pay drop. Regardless, a working pro will need to invest in these lenses if it fits their subject the same as a taxi driver needs to pay a extortionate licence in some countries.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> The 200-400 w/1.4x TC was also a fantastic safari lens. That said, I have done 5-6 mile hikes with this lens and I am an old guy. One was down a stream in Alaska photographing Kodiak bears.



I am glad to hear it. A 180/200-400/500 always seemed like the ideal lens since my 70-200 stays on 200 and my 500 sometimes is too long. I haven't ever took a shot I liked under 200mm, nothing gets that close.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If you're able to rent a _house_ for 3-500 quid you've got _very_ cheap real estate in Scotland, or at least your piece of it. Rent would easily be three times as much where I live, and for a flat it could well be twice as much. And that certainly makes the difference, right there, between being able to buy a Big White once a year or so...and not.



£300-£500 is normal. Pushing sub £400 more often if the house is brick instead of stone. You can buy a stone house for anywhere over £200,000 or a brick built for anywhere from £40,000 to £150,000 depending on how bad the area is.


----------



## chasingrealness (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Someone is sure to correct me if I am wrong, I am under the assumption that sports shooters are taken to a gear room and assigned a body and lens from whoever they work for. Wildlife folks have to pay ourselves, and most earn their bread and butter on non wildlife shooting. I earn from my photography enough to fund it as a hobby, but my main income is as a programmer and if I went photography full time it would be a major pay drop. Regardless, a working pro will need to invest in these lenses if it fits their subject the same as a taxi driver needs to pay a extortionate licence in some countries.


We’re in similar boats


privatebydesign said:


> The vast majority if people I see shooting sports, and even more so wildlife, with big whites are not getting an income of any size or regularity to buy those big whites, they are virtually all sport or wildlife and photography enthusiasts.


That is really interesting, isn’t it? I mean the pricing on these big whites only makes sense to me when weighed against how much money can be made from them at a certain point. Especially when considering that those of us who are not making money from this focal range of our glass collection can often get by just fine with the cheaper alternatives.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 200-500 f/4.0 L IS USM.... I wouldn't need any other lens.


Yeah, but only combined with full compatibility (not that RF 100-500mm limited twist thing) with the RF extenders ☝Considering of course, if It hasn't got an built-in extender


----------



## lexptr (Apr 13, 2021)

200-500 f4 can be a terrific lens, if IQ will be the same as current 200-400 offer. Hopefully with converter too. That can be a big white I will finally buy one day. The weight gonna be high, though. I'm a tough guy, but still. The 200-400 loses only to 800mm in a weight game. Any ways, the versatility will be very tempting.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Someone is sure to correct me if I am wrong, I am under the assumption that sports shooters are taken to a gear room and assigned a body and lens from whoever they work for. Wildlife folks have to pay ourselves, and most earn their bread and butter on non wildlife shooting. I earn from my photography enough to fund it as a hobby, but my main income is as a programmer and if I went photography full time it would be a major pay drop. Regardless, a working pro will need to invest in these lenses if it fits their subject the same as a taxi driver needs to pay a extortionate licence in some countries.



Unfortunately in this day and age, a large percentage of sports photographers are now freelancers, instead of staffers. Even Sports Illustrated laid off every staffer. That means a significant investment in gear for a very low return in most situations. The vast majority of those I know doing it professionally as freelancers outside of big cities are using 70-200 F/2.8s and 100-400s as their longest glass, not unlike myself. The majority of my assignments can be completed with focal lengths under 200mm, so I haven't seen the need when I have other more pressing needs as a photographer. A few of the bigger-time freelancers I know have their own 300mm F/2.8s as their longest glass, most often the old version I which they've never had the spare cash/need to upgrade, one freelancer I know has their own 400mm F/2.8L IS version 1, and then maybe two of the people I know that do professional NFL/MLB freelancing actually invested in a slightly newer 400mm F/2.8L IS II.

Even when I was on staff at a large newspaper in 2018, we had an 11 year old Nikon 400mm F/2.8 VR I, and our 600mm was actually a manual focus film-era Nikon 600mm. Almost no one actually working in this industry or companies within the industry have the spare cash to upgrade these lenses more than once a decade, maybe two decades. At my current full-time job, our only long glass beyond the 70-200 is a 300mm F/2.8L IS version I purchased in the 2000s.



chasingrealness said:


> We’re in similar boats
> 
> That is really interesting, isn’t it? I mean the pricing on these big whites only makes sense to me when weighed against how much money can be made from them at a certain point. Especially when considering that those of us who are not making money from this focal range of our glass collection can often get by just fine with the cheaper alternatives.


I would hazard a guess that, all things considered, hobbyists occupy more of the big white market than professionals at this point in time. Rich people like to buy expensive stuff, and there's probably more wealthy hobbyists buying 600mm F/4L IS IIIs that don't even know how to use manual exposure on a camera than you would ever imagine. The photo and news industry is not in a good place right now, and even if Getty Images buys 20 600mms in a year, there's hundreds more millionaires and retirees with their 401ks looking at a list of the "best wildlife lenses" on the internet than there are news agencies with the budget left to buy these.

If you want a laugh, go read the reviews on some of the supertelephoto lenses on Amazon and B&H photo. There's just always a ton of people who don't even understand photography posting like, "I randomly bought this for my son's elementary school soccer game and wow!"


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 13, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Some bubble you’re living in. Wish I was there! Must be nicely sheltered.


A bubble is all he can afford to live in after paying for those lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> *Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM sounds very impressive - but also large and heavy. Already the 200-400mm L seems unwieldy to me. Would not be a taker myself.*​


That is a rather bold take.


----------



## frankchn (Apr 13, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> If the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is going to be something like the 600/800 f11 but with f/4 and aproximately in that price range around 800-1100 $/€ it could be interesting. Since it doesn´t have the L in the name it could be affordable.
> 
> Could anybody tell me what the DO stands for?



The DO stands for "Diffractive Optics". Also not possible to hit $1100 re: price. The EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II is $6900, so I would think the RF version will be similar. 

Canon considers the 400/4 DO part of the supertelephoto line-up and it has a price to match.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 13, 2021)

Do people here not know that we can rent lenses?
No one should buy any of these lenses unless they are going to use them often.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 13, 2021)

Interesting, as I’m currently looking at the version 1 of the EF 400mm f/4 IS DO USM, 
And I’m wondering if $2,000 is a good price or too much, or a great price. A few are listed around that. For use on an R6 (and my trusty old EOS 1V) Thoughts appreciated! Or should I look at one of the others? I’ve seen some of the original 300mm f2.8 IS USM L lenses for around that too, just slightly more, but I like the 400mm focal length and the DO is a bit lighter. 



H. Jones said:


> Unfortunately in this day and age, a large percentage of sports photographers are now freelancers, instead of staffers. Even Sports Illustrated laid off every staffer. That means a significant investment in gear for a very low return in most situations. The vast majority of those I know doing it professionally as freelancers outside of big cities are using 70-200 F/2.8s and 100-400s as their longest glass, not unlike myself. The majority of my assignments can be completed with focal lengths under 200mm, so I haven't seen the need when I have other more pressing needs as a photographer. A few of the bigger-time freelancers I know have their own 300mm F/2.8s as their longest glass, most often the old version I which they've never had the spare cash/need to upgrade, one freelancer I know has their own 400mm F/2.8L IS version 1, and then maybe two of the people I know that do professional NFL/MLB freelancing actually invested in a slightly newer 400mm F/2.8L IS II.
> 
> Even when I was on staff at a large newspaper in 2018, we had an 11 year old Nikon 400mm F/2.8 VR I, and our 600mm was actually a manual focus film-era Nikon 600mm. Almost no one actually working in this industry or companies within the industry have the spare cash to upgrade these lenses more than once a decade, maybe two decades. At my current full-time job, our only long glass beyond the 70-200 is a 300mm F/2.8L IS version I purchased in the 2000s.
> 
> ...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Apr 13, 2021)

*Record scratching noise* RF 100-500 was in my future until this rumor.

200-500 f4?!?

And then the thought that it might be the size of a small warhead and have a 5-figure price tag brought me back to earth.

A 400 f/4 DO if really tiny, could be tempting though.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.
> 
> Normal wage here starts at £18,000 to £26,000 per year with £500/month to rent for a 2-3 bed house, £160 council tax, and £200 to food, with £120 covering 4 weekly bus passes. A photographers wage should be way higher than that I should hope. The normal monthly expense for a person is £1000/month assuming they are living alone in a 2 bed house.





Codebunny said:


> £300-£500 is normal. Pushing sub £400 more often if the house is brick instead of stone. You can buy a stone house for anywhere over £200,000 or a brick built for anywhere from £40,000 to £150,000 depending on how bad the area is.



Okay so this is wildly off topic but I have to point a few things out, as I live in Scotland but most forum members don't, and may be swayed by your statements. Your original suggestion that an average photographer could afford a ~£10k lens _per year_ was silly, and you're massaging the figures even as you pull back from it (next it was 'not just once in a lifetime'!). You've ignored income tax, national insurance, and a whole host of other living expenses - phone? Internet? Clothing? A computer to process your photos? Even then, rents are considerably higher than you state - I've just checked and the average for a 2 bed property is only just under £500/mo in a handful of postcodes, most are much higher, and for a 3 bed, far higher still. Buses don't generally take you where a big lens is useful - trust me, I've spent years doing wildlife photography without a car and public transport doesn't tend to go where the birds are (or at the best times for them); it's not impossible, but seems an odd choice if you're also saying a car is affordable (but once again, you've missed off insurance, road tax, fuel, maintenance, etc). Living alone is more expensive than sharing, btw, as some costs are fixed.

Any £10k+ purchase is a big, rare thing for almost everyone, and when it is non-essential, as these lenses are for even the vast majority of photographers, making it sound casual and easy is ridiculous. Saving £100 a month (which is a lot on a modest income!) it would take over _eight years_ (although in any case I suspect more people buy them on credit and pay it back over several years, rather than saving up). Let's be realistic. (This is why the budget super telephoto lenses are so important - far far more people can justify a £1000 lens even with numerous compromises).

I have 1 supertele and couldn't justify getting a second one. Most wildlife photography enthusiasts I've known have at most a couple - the 100-400 and a long prime, say. I would say only the very richest hobbyists have several (not counting people picking old models up secondhand, but even that is expensive).


----------



## AlanF (Apr 13, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> Interesting, as I’m currently looking at the version 1 of the EF 400mm f/4 IS DO USM,
> And I’m wondering if $2,000 is a good price or too much, or a great price. A few are listed around that. For use on an R6 (and my trusty old EOS 1V) Thoughts appreciated! Or should I look at one of the others? I’ve seen some of the original 300mm f2.8 IS USM L lenses for around that too, just slightly more, but I like the 400mm focal length and the DO is a bit lighter.


The original 400/4 DO is a disappointing lens. It has poor contrast and not particularly sharp. You will get better images from a 100-400mm II. The 400 DO II is much better. You can compare the MTFs in https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/


----------



## Ph0t0 (Apr 13, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Do people here not know that we can rent lenses?
> No one should buy any of these lenses unless they are going to use them often.


I think you are the one that does not know that not everyone lives where it is easy or even possible to rent every lens. Especially for a reasonable price.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 13, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Uhhm, for _some _definition of "most" I guess  Even a single big white is _nowhere near_ affordable to the vast majority of photographers in the world, never mind one per year! That's definitely 1% territory (or more like 0.01% territory, globally speaking).


I agree, a 15k per year budget for what many consider hobby is quite a lot.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Okay so this is wildly off topic but I have to point a few things out, as I live in Scotland but most forum members don't, and may be swayed by your statements. Your original suggestion that an average photographer could afford a ~£10k lens _per year_ was silly, and you're massaging the figures even as you pull back from it (next it was 'not just once in a lifetime'!).


Did you also read that my original statement was in reply to someone saying I could never afford one or any photographer. Or that my estimates only changed the taking into account for people living in countries that don't have as high wages?



scyrene said:


> You've ignored income tax, national insurance, and a whole host of other living expenses - phone? Internet? Clothing? A computer to process your photos? Even then, rents are considerably higher than you state - I've just checked and the average for a 2 bed property is only just under £500/mo in a handful of postcodes, most are much higher, and for a 3 bed, far higher still. Buses don't generally take you where a big lens is useful - trust me, I've spent years doing wildlife photography without a car and public transport doesn't tend to go where the birds are (or at the best times for them); it's not impossible, but seems an odd choice if you're also saying a car is affordable (but once again, you've missed off insurance, road tax, fuel, maintenance, etc). Living alone is more expensive than sharing, btw, as some costs are fixed.



I didn't ignore income tax and national insurance. I based my figures on take home pay. The chaps in the co-op take home around £12,000 and the most junior position I can think of with a degree (of which you can get 2 for free) has a take home pay of £26,000. 

I live not to far off St Andrews and a 3 bed stone built house is £500 a month, this is what I pay. If I want a cheeper house I could rent a brick built house. 

No one said anything about taking the bus to your photography destination, I said you don't need to own a car. I worked 20 years without a car and only finally bought one with 11,500 miles on it for £2000 and it sits there. Car insurance is £26/month, road tax is £20 a year. And a car is not a necessity. You can buy a lens this year and a car next year. 

You don't need a phone. BT full fibre 910 is under £100/year. You don't need to buy new clothes, mine have been fine for 20 years. 



scyrene said:


> Any £10k+ purchase is a big, rare thing for almost everyone, and when it is non-essential, as these lenses are for even the vast majority of photographers, making it sound casual and easy is ridiculous. Saving £100 a month (which is a lot on a modest income!) it would take over _eight years_ (although in any case I suspect more people buy them on credit and pay it back over several years, rather than saving up). Let's be realistic. (This is why the budget super telephoto lenses are so important - far far more people can justify a £1000 lens even with numerous compromises).



No one said it isn't a big purchase, I said I expect a photographer could buy one a year as I based that on the known incomes of photographers in my area. As for hobbyists, well that depends on your day job but I would still expect it to be possible to buy more than one if this was your passion in life. Frick my neighbours happily pay the equivalent in golf club memberships.

I don't know why we have changed from a specific set of photographers to all photographers. Why would a wedding and events photographer buy a 600mm f/4 and why would I buy a 85mm f/1.2? Why in a forum where people are happily buying £4000 R5's on release day that it is unexpected that photographers would buy more than one super tele lens? Having a 300 f/2.8, 180/200-400 f/4 and a 500 or 600mm has always seemed to be the norm for this set, I can see this on every YouTuber and other photographers I meet.

This is a incredibly daft discussion to be having. I can't imagine a photographer is slaving away for the absolute minimum wage yet is happily touting along two R5's, the trinity, and one or more fast prime.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 13, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree, a 15k per year budget for what many consider hobby is quite a lot.


You would end up with a lot in the bank. The 300mm f/2.8 + 200-400mm f/4.0 + 600mm f/4.0 would only take 2 years and after that you run out of things to buy.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Do people here not know that we can rent lenses?
> No one should buy any of these lenses unless they are going to use them often.



It is close to £400 and sometimes more to rent a 600mm f/4.0, if you need it more than a few occasions a year that money was just burned. It is more economical when you know that this one weekend in the year that you know you need a 600mm f/4.0 and that your regular lenses aren't going to cut it. But for a working pro, they are regularly using the lens/lenses for the assignment and maybe can't be on a waiting list, fork out that money, or they aren't permitted to take it abroad. I am sure there are many more reasons, but cost is the biggie for me. I will happily save and buy a big lens, but I wouldn't want to rent one multiple times. And some of the rental places want a deposit, so you have to have a credit card for the value of the lens and then have that card sitting minus the value of the lens until it passes inspection on return all the while you are treating this thing like it is a baby.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 14, 2021)

A 200-500 F/4 would immediately have my name on it. 
280-700 f/5.6 with a 1.4, and 400-1000 f/8 with a 2X. What's not to like.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> You would end up with a lot in the bank. The 300mm f/2.8 + 200-400mm f/4.0 + 600mm f/4.0 would only take 2 years and after that you run out of things to buy.


Sure, if big white lenses were all I needed to budget for. In fact I’d just buy them all the first year quite easily. 

My point is that the average non pro isn’t in a position to budget over 1k per month on photography. If they were there would be a far larger number of these lenses sold.
Does it happen? Absolutely. Is it normal? Not even close.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 14, 2021)

Jacksonhole Jeff said:


> 200-500 F4 would be nice for sure i'll buy one soon as they come out!!! But a 200-600 would even be better!!


Or 300-800 f5.6 like the big old Sigma! Maybe with new technology...it could be really nice!?

I also hope that the 200-500 gets the 1.4TC included! 
And please not the silver back like the two new white RFs...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> Or 300-800 f5.6 like the big old Sigma! Maybe with new technology...it could be really nice!?
> 
> I also hope that the 200-500 gets the 1.4TC included!
> And please not the silver back like the two new white RFs...



I think silver is here to stay, though hopefully they can make it more elegant in a new design. I think the built in 1.4x TC is great, but with the lens already getting to 500mm would be happy without the built in TC.


----------



## lnz (Apr 14, 2021)

Jacksonhole Jeff said:


> 200-500 F4 would be nice for sure i'll buy one soon as they come out!!! But a 200-600 would even be better!!


How about a 50-800 f1.2


----------



## lnz (Apr 14, 2021)

GMAX said:


> If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?


Price EF200-400 F4 is 11k, 400 F4 is 7k


----------



## reef58 (Apr 14, 2021)

Jacksonhole Jeff said:


> 200-500 F4 would be nice for sure i'll buy one soon as they come out!!! But a 200-600 would even be better!!


What if it is a 200-500 with a built in 1.4x?


----------



## dilbert (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.



EVERYONE has seen what kind of car £2000 buys you on Top Gear. It's not pretty. And who exactly is going to take the bus to a photoshoot with £25000 worth of camera gear in their back pack? Yeah...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

dilbert said:


> EVERYONE has seen what kind of car £2000 buys you on Top Gear. It's not pretty. And who exactly is going to take the bus to a photoshoot with £25000 worth of camera gear in their back pack? Yeah...



My car does car things and cost £2000. No one said you use it for photography and no one said you take the bus to the highlands. Runabout George gets me to the squirrel hide and back just fine, when I need a bigger car I rent one for the days I need it. Or I take the train or bus. However, the discussion was about affording things, and cars often come up with my co-workers. They don't get the need for £25,000 camera equipment, and I don't get the need for a £25,000 car when mine gets me to the same places, is only on 30,000 miles after 3 years, and has only needed a new calliper and brakes. And I did almost 20 years without a car due to epilepsy disallowing me. 

Why is it so impossible to believe that people can skip buying a car the year they need a big lens or cut some other expense. Clothes were mentioned too, you only need new clothes every 10-20 years. I am not saying this should be your yearly norm, I am saying a professional photographer should be able to afford more than one super-tele lens and originally I state'd one a year was reasonable (based on income levels in Scotland).


----------



## SteveC (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> My car does car things and cost £2000. No one said you use it for photography and no one said you take the bus to the highlands. Runabout George gets me to the squirrel hide and back just fine, when I need a bigger car I rent one for the days I need it. Or I take the train or bus. However, the discussion was about affording things, and cars often come up with my co-workers. They don't get the need for £25,000 camera equipment, and I don't get the need for a £25,000 car when mine gets me to the same places, is only on 30,000 miles after 3 years, and has only needed a new calliper and brakes. And I did almost 20 years without a car due to epilepsy disallowing me.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to believe that people can skip buying a car the year they need a big lens or cut some other expense. Clothes were mentioned too, you only need new clothes every 10-20 years. I am not saying this should be your yearly norm, I am saying a professional photographer should be able to afford more than one super-tele lens and originally I state'd one a year was reasonable (based on income levels in Scotland).



A LOT of people are into buying a new car every few years. A car payment is a part of their lives.

I'm not one of them. The only time I bought a new car, I kept it for over 25 years. It didn't owe me so much as a farthing when it finally blew a valve, that's for sure! (I'd buy another one if they still made them--and probably end up owning it until dead.)


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.
> 
> Normal wage here starts at £18,000 to £26,000 per year with £500/month to rent for a 2-3 bed house, £160 council tax, and £200 to food, with £120 covering 4 weekly bus passes. A photographers wage should be way higher than that I should hope. The normal monthly expense for a person is £1000/month assuming they are living alone in a 2 bed house.



Technically the math works if one exists to eat, sleep, and take pictures. I’ve got kids to feed, college, vacations we take the family on, a future to save for, health to maintain, etc...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Technically the math works if one exists to eat, sleep, and take pictures. I’ve got kids to feed, college, vacations we take the family on, a future to save for, health to maintain, etc...



College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.


I don’t believe those things are “free” for a lot of people. In fact they are not actually free for anyone. In one way or another people are paying for it...at least most are.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.


In Scotland they are free. College/university is not free in the rest of the UK, USA etc.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I don’t believe those things are “free” for a lot of people. In fact they are not actually free for anyone. In one way or another people are paying for it...at least most are.



If you pay £0 tax a year or £1m tax a year you get the same access to education and healthcare services so they are indeed free as in free beer. Certainly not a 'expense' you should be budgeting for when deciding how much money you are spending on business and/or hobbies. And again, the topic keeps devolving into all kinds daft scenarios to fight the case that photographers can buy these lenses... if pro's can't buy them, who can? How is a business surviving if it can't buy the tools?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

AlanF said:


> In Scotland they are free. College/university is not free in the rest of the UK, USA etc.



I think you get student loans in England that may or may not only come of your wages when you are earning enough. But that is besides the point. In a thread about super-tele lenses I said "One big white a year is affordable for most I would think" in reply to someone suggesting "You couldn't afford anything else either". That turned into all kinds of daft posts regarding people not being able to afford one, or having other expenses, or average photographers.... in a topic about lenses lenses an average photographer will likely never even consider, much the same way I don't look twice at a 50 f/1.2 for 85 f/1.2. 

I strongly believe that pro photographers and definitely hobbyists can afford these, in some cases need to afford these. Much the same that a garage has to invest tens or hundreds of thousands in equipment, or when I need to buy a 28 core CPU to do my work and 256 GB RAM, or when in 2010 when I was rocking a 2x6core CPU with 128 GB RAM.. most people don't need that, but it is a tool for my job and if a photographer needs a 300 f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4.0, and 600mm f/4.0 I am sure as bugger they'll have those tools to do their assignments.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> If you pay £0 tax a year or £1m tax a year you get the same access to education and healthcare services so they are indeed free as in free beer. Certainly not a 'expense' you should be budgeting for when deciding how much money you are spending on business and/or hobbies. And again, the topic keeps devolving into all kinds daft scenarios to fight the case that photographers can buy these lenses... if pro's can't buy them, who can? How is a business surviving if it can't buy the tools?


I’m sure a pro that works in the genre that needs these lenses finds a way to get them because they are a tool of the trade. I suspect there are a lot of pros that might like to have them, but don’t need them..and therefore can’t justify the cost.

Then the hobbyists are a completely different topic. 

I get your point, and the fact is that if I decide I want one bad enough I’ll by one. Although I’m fortunate enough to be able to it is still a large expense and not one I would make lightly. 
The fact of the matter is there are a huge number of people, probably pro and hobbyist alike that may really want one, or need one...but can’t afford one due to other factors in their circumstances. These lenses aren’t bought by the masses, and never have been. Why? They are very expensive.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I’m sure a pro that works in the genre that needs these lenses finds a way to get them because they are a tool of the trade. I suspect there are a lot of pros that might like to have them, but don’t need them..and therefore can’t justify the cost.
> 
> Then the hobbyists are a completely different topic.
> 
> ...



They are indeed very expensive, never suggested they where mast produced or bought up in their masses nor affordable to all. I said I expect most (which was implying target audience, in a thread about these, previous buyers looking to upgrade) would be able to afford them and likely need more than one. A RF 200-500 f/4.0 for me could be a only lens or paired up with a 300 or 400mm f/2.8. But as I have said a few times in this thread, I see owners of the 180-400 or 200-400 also having a 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0. 

Like you don't go into a pub and suggest everyone can afford a boat, but you may have that expectation talking to fishermen. In the photography club I visited everyone had a number of big lenses depending on subject, and it makes sense, if you buy a 600mm f/4.0 you are very limited in subjects.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> They are indeed very expensive, never suggested they where mast produced or bought up in their masses nor affordable to all. I said I expect most (which was implying target audience, in a thread about these, previous buyers looking to upgrade) would be able to afford them and likely need more than one. A RF 200-500 f/4.0 for me could be a only lens or paired up with a 300 or 400mm f/2.8. But as I have said a few times in this thread, I see owners of the 180-400 or 200-400 also having a 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0.
> 
> Like you don't go into a pub and suggest everyone can afford a boat, but you may have that expectation talking to fishermen. In the photography club I visited everyone had a number of big lenses depending on subject, and it makes sense, if you buy a 600mm f/4.0 you are very limited in subjects.


Fair enough, that clarifies your perspective. Thanks.


----------



## GMAX (Apr 16, 2021)

lnz said:


> Price EF200-400 F4 is 11k, 400 F4 is 7k


I'm not talking about EF-glass. With a surcharge the RF 200-500 (maybe without internal TC?) might cost 12-13k; RF 500 4.0 11.5k? This price gap wouldn't be so big...


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 16, 2021)

I


----------



## Fischer (Apr 16, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree, a 15k per year budget for what many consider hobby is quite a lot.


Yes, but its not anywhere near 15K - at all. Even going above 3K/year is _extremely _rare for a camera hobbyist.

Lenses have long shelf lives and good resale values that spread the costs a lot. A RF 85mm may cost you 2.700$. But that's only ~190$ per year if you have it for 10 years and sell it afterwards. Buying *every single RF lens available *(including the two new super zooms) would not even get you close to 4K/year - its actually only 300$ per month.

And that's not photography but lens collecting... 

(Bodies will of course add to the yearly cost. But unless your hobby is both lens collecting and camera body collecting it does not matter much.)


----------



## JohnC (Apr 16, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Yes, but its not anywhere near 15K - at all. Even going above 3K/year is _extremely _rare for a camera hobbyist.
> 
> Lenses have long shelf lives and good resale values that spread the costs a lot. A RF 85mm may cost you 2.700$. But that's only ~190$ per year if you have it for 10 years and sell it afterwards. Buying *every single RF lens available *(including the two new super zooms) would not even get you close to 4K/year - its actually only 300$ per month.
> 
> ...


oh I agree, but if you're buying a super telephoto L lens per year, you are north of 10k per year if you are buying new. I know over time it may not be that much but...

On the other hand, I seem to be able to spend quite a bit every year in some way. Maybe I'm trying to keep up with the wife's purse collection.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 16, 2021)

JohnC said:


> oh I agree, but if you're buying a super telephoto L lens per year, you are north of 10k per year if you are buying new. I know over time it may not be that much but...
> 
> On the other hand, I seem to be able to spend quite a bit every year in some way. Maybe I'm trying to keep up with the wife's purse collection.



You run out of super tele lenses to buy in 2 years... And even I canny get more than two past my husband before I would be asked why I don't get us a car with air-conditioning. I do sell off my older lenses to help fund, but not on this occasion. My old lenses where from 1988, and long overdue upgrade and I will buy one big lens a year and possibly a few smaller ones like a 100 macro. I don't need to make them as a business decision thankfully, if someone needed these for work I could only imagine they would take out a business loan and pay it over 5 years like a joiners does?


----------



## JohnC (Apr 16, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> You run out of super tele lenses to buy in 2 years... And even I canny get more than two past my husband before I would be asked why I don't get us a car with air-conditioning. I do sell off my older lenses to help fund, but not on this occasion. My old lenses where from 1988, and long overdue upgrade and I will buy one big lens a year and possibly a few smaller ones like a 100 macro. I don't need to make them as a business decision thankfully, if someone needed these for work I could only imagine they would take out a business loan and pay it over 5 years like a joiners does?


I understand! That's a big budget for two years though  It equals as much as some people's house payment/rent. 

I have sold some lenses in the past, but in retrospect I wish I had kept everything. You never really get the return on it, and for the most part that equipment could be used for up and coming budding photographers as a hand-me-down. In fact my 5D4 will be going on a shelf for the most part although I carry it currently as a back-up. I still use quite a few of my EF lenses so they are in circulation. From a lens standpoint there isn't too much out there that I want that I don't have.. a big white might be one we will see.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 16, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I understand! That's a big budget for two years though  It equals as much as some people's house payment/rent.


It is about twice what I pay on rent. But my rent when I was in London for a bit was about twice that. And that was just a one bedroom red brick house with a small garden and lower ceilings. But getting a proper house in London is all but impossible, they don't build with stone there.



JohnC said:


> I have sold some lenses in the past, but in retrospect I wish I had kept everything. You never really get the return on it, and for the most part that equipment could be used for up and coming budding photographers as a hand-me-down. In fact my 5D4 will be going on a shelf for the most part although I carry it currently as a back-up. I still use quite a few of my EF lenses so they are in circulation. From a lens standpoint there isn't too much out there that I want that I don't have.. a big white might be one we will see.


I got £1000 for my 300mm f/2.8 L USM from 1988 just last year. That is pretty good going in my book for such a old lens and while it could be hand me down, it think a lens like that isn't a hand me down. You are giving someone something that needs a lot of skill and an expensive tripod to use properly. But aye, a 5DIV is a great learning camera and I tend to give away my old cameras or keep some of the more special ones for the office as ornaments.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 16, 2021)

I think we are being a little silly here. The average wage in the USA in 2019 was $52,000, considering housing costs account for over one third that on average, add in taxes, food, utilities, travel, fuel, health care, clothing etc costs and anybody that thinks ‘keen photo enthusiasts’ can save enough for a big white a year is being disingenuous at best.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Apr 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> ... The average wage in the USA in 2019 was $52,000, ....


Given that, in most countries, there is a small number of people with very large incomes, the average overestimates the typical income. You should use the median income, instead.

I recently checked (on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' web site) the typical (don't remember if it was median or average) income of a professional photographer in the US. If memory serves, said person made $34k in 2018 and $36K in 2019. Unless they can deduct the big whites on their taxes, they can afford the big whites much less than the typical person can.

Finally, most professional photographers get most of their income from portraits. You don't need and don't want big whites (except, of course, 70-200) for portraits,


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2021)

That's why I used the median, the mean is over $90,000.

Any professional photographer should be able to deduct 100% of their business expenses from their taxes, that's not the point. If I was a bird photographer who bought a big white last year and deducted it and still made $34-36K that's one thing; if I was a photographer who made $36K in my wedding photography business and I wanted to buy a $10,000+ lens then I'm not going to eat.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That's why I used the median, the mean is over $90,000.
> 
> Any professional photographer should be able to deduct 100% of their business expenses from their taxes, that's not the point. If I was a bird photographer who bought a big white last year and deducted it and still made $34-36K that's one thing; if I was a photographer who made $36K in my wedding photography business and I wanted to buy a $10,000+ lens then I'm not going to eat.



Oh...well, most people equate the word "average" (which you used) with "mean" rather than median. Which is why you were misunderstood.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Oh...well, most people equate the word "average" (which you used) with "mean" rather than median. Which is why you were misunderstood.


I always thought average was a generalization of the more specific terms mean, median, and mode?

Indeed when talking about disposable income and photo enthusiasts I’d think some kind of interquartile range calculation would be the most sound. Given the the top end can buy anything without a thought and the bottom range can’t buy food or health insurance. I would think most of us are somewhere in that interquartile range.


I never understood it specifically equated to any one of them, indeed it is one of the reasons we ended up with the term “lies, damn lies, and statistics”.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 18, 2021)

Regardless of what statistical value used, 10-12k a year, for ANY year...is out of reach of the vast majority of individual people. The actual income may be there but there are many priorities well above photography that consume income for most.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Regardless of what statistical value used, 10-12k a year, for ANY year...is out of reach of the vast majority of individual people. The actual income may be there but there are many priorities well above photography that consume income for most.


Yes, that was the point i have been making!


----------



## Peter Bergh (Apr 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I always thought average was a generalization of the more specific terms mean, median, and mode?
> 
> ...


To a statistician, "average" means "mean". (At least, that is the way we used it when I taught mathematical statistics in the late 1960s.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> To a statistician, "average" means "mean". (At least, that is the way we used it when I taught mathematical statistics in the late 1960s.)







__





Average - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





“ In statistics, mean, median, and mode are all known as measures of central tendency, and in colloquial usage any of these might be called an average value.”

I’m sure you will understand I was not, to my knowledge, addressing a group of statisticians.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 18, 2021)

Big whites might be good investement ,this could be last generation never made. High megapixel fast fps cameras kill professional sport photographing fast.
R1 could be actually automated stadium camera with motored tripod head what sprays just everything happening with 20 unit spreaded around stadium.


----------



## Joules (Apr 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regardless of what Wikipedia thinks the colloquial term means, looking up average calculation gives a first page for ways and online calculators for the mean. And I would think even if there are people who associate average with anything other than the mean, they are in the minority. But it is good to know that there's ambiguity around the word average, so it should probably not be used at all when discussing numbers.

On a side node, why does the word 'mean' have so many meanings attached as well? To be mean, to mean something, the mean of something...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2021)

Joules said:


> Regardless of what Wikipedia thinks the colloquial term means, looking up average calculation gives a first page for ways and online calculators for the mean. And I would think even if there are people who associate average with anything other than the mean, they are in the minority. But it is good to know that there's ambiguity around the word average, so it should probably not be used at all when discussing numbers.
> 
> On a side node, why does the word 'mean' have so many meanings attached as well? To be mean, to mean something, the mean of something...


Regardless of what you think Merriam-Webster, the dictionary, defines the word as “a single value (such as mean, mode or median)......”


----------



## unfocused (Apr 18, 2021)

In a forum dominated by pedantic debates, this is one of the most pedanticy debates I've seen.


----------



## Joules (Apr 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Regardless of what you think Merriam-Webster, the dictionary, defines the word as “a single value (such as mean, mode or median)......”
> 
> 
> View attachment 197067


I'm simply a fan of clarity. I wasn't aware that average could be interpreted as anything other than the sum of values divided by the number of them. When it comes to definitions, mathematics beats natural languages by a long shot in terms of clarity and consistency. But for practical purposes of course Wikipedia or common dictionaries are the relevant sources of information. So it is easy to be misunderstood when using the term average with a specific mathematical meaning in mind, when everybody reading it can apparently just substitute their own meaning for the word.

There being any sort of ambiguity about the meaning of this word is enough reason for me to not use it. After all, if it is stated alongside a number, the calculation of that number should be clear. I'm glad you brought it up.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 18, 2021)

Fwiw I agree. Nothing I’ve ever seen calculation-wise has a different meaning for average. Open up a spreadsheet and use the average function...that’s the way it is calculated..sum of values divided by number of values.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2021)

You guys can pontificate and prevaricate as much as you like, you were all still incorrect. My use of the word ‘average’ was entirely consistent with its dictionary definition.

But even then, in this instance, the difference between what value you are using for average is not really that relevant, even though I was using the value I was told I should be using! The point was ‘average’ people don’t earn enough disposable income to afford one big white lens a year. None of you disagree with the comment you are just pissing against the wind at my correct use of the word average!

Go take some pictures.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 18, 2021)

GMAX said:


> I'm not talking about EF-glass. With a surcharge the RF 200-500 (maybe without internal TC?) might cost 12-13k; RF 500 4.0 11.5k? This price gap wouldn't be so big...


Assuming that you are quoting USD I really hope the new RF 500 mm f4 cost ~$10K, which is $1000 increase over the EF version. Time will tell....


----------



## Bdbtoys (Apr 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> In a forum dominated by pedantic debates, this is one of the most pedanticy debates I've seen.



I don't know about that, it's just an 'average' run of the mill debate here... (sorry, low hanging fruit here).


----------



## Joules (Apr 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You guys can pontificate and prevaricate as much as you like, you were all still incorrect. My use of the word ‘average’ was entirely consistent with its dictionary definition.
> 
> But even then, in this instance, the difference between what value you are using for average is not really that relevant, even though I was using the value I was told I should be using! The point was ‘average’ people don’t earn enough disposable income to afford one big white lens a year. None of you disagree with the comment you are just pissing against the wind at my correct use of the word average!
> 
> Go take some pictures.


Never meant to say you're wrong. It's just that you being right in referring to a median by the word average is surprising to me, and probably a lot of people overall. Statistics don't lie, but people lie with statistics, and all that. 

I'm all with you when it comes to how many big whites one typically buys in a year. Perhaps there's something wrong with the definition there as well, otherwise I don't see how that's even something to disagree with.

Anyway,I'll gladly adjust my average pissing direction elsewhere now, thanks.


----------



## lnz (Apr 19, 2021)

GMAX said:


> I'm not talking about EF-glass. With a surcharge the RF 200-500 (maybe without internal TC?) might cost 12-13k; RF 500 4.0 11.5k? This price gap wouldn't be so big...


EF 500 f4 cost 9k so RF 500 should cost the same. I believe the 200-500 F4 will be between 13-15k


----------



## ERHP (Apr 19, 2021)

Canon definitely made it hard for me to be excited about the 'new' 600. A 200-500 f/4 though, especially with Mr Flippy 1.4X, would definitely have my pre-order interest.


----------



## Bundu (Apr 20, 2021)

ERHP said:


> Canon definitely made it hard for me to be excited about the 'new' 600. A 200-500 f/4 though, especially with Mr Flippy 1.4X, would definitely have my pre-order interest.


I have a 600 and 400 both on R5 bodies. But it really is a pain to swap one lens quickly for the other in a vehicle as most of my photography is from a vehicle. (Most parks in Africa you are not allowed to walk around, and most of the time you do not want to, big 5 territory) A 200-500 f4 with 1.4 tc will be my dream lens, even if it is a bit heavy and bulky. I have a 100-500 for the handheld stuff.


----------



## subtraho (Apr 22, 2021)

Everyone seems fixated on the zoom (and for good reason, it sounds pretty sweet) but honestly as a bird photographer with back issues I'm more excited for that RF 400 f/4 DO. The current EF model is pretty lightweight, and if the RF maintains the weight and quality (plus takes a TC well) it seems like it could be decently-performing handholdable 560 f/5.6 or 800 f/8.


----------



## FrenchFry (May 16, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Hi, 

Do you have any sense of whether these two lenses (Canon RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM & Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM) would be in addition to or instead of the previously rumored Canon RF 500mm f/4 and Canon RF 300mm f/2.8 (maybe zoom)?

Any sense of the relative timing of these lenses' announcements and/or when they would be hitting the market?

What makes the 500mm lens "roadmap-worthy" as compared to the other three lenses, which are not in the roadmap?

Thanks!


----------



## Bundu (Jun 22, 2021)

With all the new RF lenses on the way soon I had to check in on this thread quickly. Still lusting after a 200-500 f4 with 1.4 tc. Hope we hear some more news on this in 2021. I have the 200-400 but is not really convinced that image quality is better than my 100-500. Autofocus is definately slower. The only thing going for it is it's low light capabilities.


----------

