# Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 6, 2020)

> Canon announced the development of the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM alongside the EOS R5, but now we have the full specifications for the new super-telephoto zoom.
> *Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM  Specifications:*
> 
> 20 elements in 14 groups
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 6, 2020)

If it has F5.6 at 400mm this lens will be a must buy.


----------



## gzroxas (Jul 6, 2020)

Still debating whether it’s better to go only to 200 but be at 2.8, or have this great, great zoom range
Very interesting lens I’d love to try on my R!


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

sounds very promissing. Let's see the IQ... 

Only slightly bigger than the EF 100-400L. (208 mm vs. 193 mm).
But lighter than that (1370g vs. 1.640g)


----------



## ildyria (Jul 6, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> If it has F5.6 at 400mm this lens will be a must buy.



If it is a affine progression, it should be:
100mm f/4
200mm f/4.8
300mm f/5,6
400mm f/6.3
500mm f/7.1


----------



## sobrien (Jul 6, 2020)

That is a significant weight saving over the EF 100-400 Mark ii. Did not expect that!

To not only maintain but slightly improve on maximum magnification is also really excellent.

I’m now assuming a relatively quick progression through the maximum aperture range - it will almost certainly be f/6.3 by at least 400mm - but honestly given the above I’m ok with that.

No fluorite element I see, but no less than six UD elements and one Super UD element might make up for that? Anyone more knowledgable about this please feel free to chime in.

It will be emotional, for sure, but I fear my 100-400 Mark ii’s days might be numbered.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> sounds very promissing. Let's see the IQ...
> 
> Only slightly bigger than the EF 100-400L. (208 mm vs. 193 mm).
> But lighter than that (1370g vs. 1.640g)



You're forgetting to account for the adapter, on an R series it will be shorter than the 100-400 + adapter.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You're forgetting to account for the adapter, on an R series it will be shorter than the 100-400 + adapter.


And I was about to type that in my first post, too. 
But I thought it was too obvious


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> And I was about to type that in my first post, too.
> But I thought it was too obvious



Well, the adapters start at 120 gram, so not only do adapters effect overall length, weight is also an issue.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

gzroxas said:


> Still debating whether it’s better to go only to 200 but be at 2.8, or have this great, great zoom range
> Very interesting lens I’d love to try on my R!


Yes! I'm also trying to make this choice. Unfortunately I think the likelihood that the 70-200mm won't take the extenders will probably make the decision for me. Very much looking forward to learning more during the announcement! The magnification on this lens is exciting! I hope the IQ lives up to expectations!


----------



## liv_img (Jul 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It's 100mm F4.5, NOT F4.


----------



## amorse (Jul 6, 2020)

I've been humming and hawing at the 100-400 for maybe a year now, but with this on the horizon I am really curious about how this will perform.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jul 6, 2020)

I have already sold my 100-400 II quite some time ago, this 100-500 I will buy it for sure


----------



## Maarten (Jul 6, 2020)

I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable 

btw what do you guys mean with the iq


----------



## CJudge (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Yes! I'm also trying to make this choice. Unfortunately I think the likelihood that the 70-200mm won't take the extenders will probably make the decision for me. Very much looking forward to learning more during the announcement! The magnification on this lens is exciting! I hope the IQ lives up to expectations!


I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You're forgetting to account for the adapter, on an R series it will be shorter than the 100-400 + adapter.


Also closer min focus distance.


----------



## bmfotonet (Jul 6, 2020)

I have the EF 100-400L II. If this new lens was a f/5.6 maximum I would consider it a huge upgrade over my current lens. As it stands it's gain 100mm on the long end but lose 2/3rds of a stop in the process. This translates to, almost but not quite, doubling the ISO to maintain the same shutter speed. It seems like more of a compromise than an upgrade to me. The one positive is they kept 77mm filter threads which is great for landscapes. I use GNDs for sunsets and Solid NDs for long exposures. Not having to rebuy my filters is a positive. Still, I am not sure if I want this or if my EF 100-400L II is good enough for me for a while.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Also closer min focus distance.



Since the 100-400mm is more like 200mm at MFD, I care more about the magnification factor than the distance  Which the RF improves upon a bit, 0.33x vs 0.31x.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

CJudge said:


> I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...


I think the only path forward is to buy both lenses... Long reach is just as important as low light and shallow DOF. Sigh.

Does this mean we will get a second RF 70-200mm F2.8 someday that takes TCs? Will the upcoming RF 70-200mm F4 take TCs? so many questions...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 6, 2020)

Looking good Canon.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Since the 100-400mm is more like 200mm at MFD, I care more about the magnification factor than the distance  Which the RF improves upon a bit, 0.33x vs 0.31x.


Agreed! the upgraded magnification factor is a nice surprise.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

Maarten said:


> I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable
> 
> btw what do you guys mean with the iq


While specs are a nice teaser, we're waiting to see what the IQ is out of this lens still, given that there are no sample images to pixel peep yet. If the image quality out of this L lens is as great as people have come to expect out of RF glass, people who would generally purchase this type of lens will generally be quite happy. 
For anyone who prefers to shoot with native RF lenses, this lens is probably the only long telephoto L lens available for the next year or two. This lens is thus _likely_ to be carefully scrutinized by wildlife shooters to see if its performance and IQ will match or exceed the far more numerous EF lenses that can be adapted. If it's good enough, and the autofocus and low light performance of the new bodies are also good enough, this lens could entice quite a few DSLR owners to at least partially migrate over to the R mirrorless system. 

But we won't know for sure until we get more info about the image quality of this lens!


----------



## MiJax (Jul 6, 2020)

Maybe someone can answer, why do manufacturers always choose to start with such slow apertures on the low end of these zooms? Is it purely a cost issue or is there inherent design issues with starting a 100-400 or 100-500 at 2.8?


----------



## bmfotonet (Jul 6, 2020)

MiJax said:


> Maybe someone can answer, why do manufacturers always choose to start with such slow apertures on the low end of these zooms? Is it purely a cost issue or is there inherent design issues with starting a 100-400 or 100-500 at 2.8?



Aperture is a ratio of how wide the pupil can open relative to the focal length. A longer lens needs a wider pupil to achieve the same f stop as a normal focal length lens. In practical terms, it's relatively easy to make a 50mm f/1.4 but it would be almost physically impossible to make a 500mm f/1.4 because the lens would have to be impossibly huge. Look at sizes for lenses like the 200-400mm L f/4 or any of the super teles. They are massive lenses because the aperture has to be massively wide at those focal lengths to achieve a fast aperture.


----------



## Fast351 (Jul 6, 2020)

bmfotonet said:


> Aperture is a ratio of how wide the pupil can open relative to the focal length. A longer lens needs a wider pupil to achieve the same f stop as a normal focal length lens. In practical terms, it's relatively easy to make a 50mm f/1.4 but it would be almost physically impossible to make a 500mm f/1.4 because the lens would have to be impossibly huge. Look at sizes for lenses like the 200-400mm L f/4 or any of the super teles. They are massive lenses because the aperture has to be massively wide at those focal lengths to achieve a fast aperture.



I think he meant why can a 100-500 not be 2.8 at 100 and 7.1 at 500. 

I'm curious about this as well...


----------



## bmfotonet (Jul 6, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> I think he meant why can a 100-500 not be 2.8 at 100 and 7.1 at 500.
> 
> I'm curious about this as well...


ah yes, I can now see that that was the point of his question. I don't know other than to theorize that there are some limitations in the optical formula that prevent it. f/2.8 at 100mm would make it a far more versatile lens for things like portraits.


----------



## CJudge (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I think the only path forward is to buy both lenses... Long reach is just as important as low light and shallow DOF. Sigh.



You should work for Canon


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

bmfotonet said:


> Aperture is a ratio of how wide the pupil can open relative to the focal length. A longer lens needs a wider pupil to achieve the same f stop as a normal focal length lens. In practical terms, it's relatively easy to make a 50mm f/1.4 but it would be almost physically impossible to make a 500mm f/1.4 because the lens would have to be impossibly huge. Look at sizes for lenses like the 200-400mm L f/4 or any of the super teles. They are massive lenses because the aperture has to be massively wide at those focal lengths to achieve a fast aperture.


Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8 - it's only $25,999 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 6, 2020)

I'll pass on this one and keep the Sigma 150-600 C. The more reach the better, and the 100mm on the short end are not needed.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jul 6, 2020)

MiJax said:


> Maybe someone can answer, why do manufacturers always choose to start with such slow apertures on the low end of these zooms? Is it purely a cost issue or is there inherent design issues with starting a 100-400 or 100-500 at 2.8?


D = Lens Diameter (in mm)
F = Focal length
N = F-Number (or perhaps T-number to be more precise)
And we have a formula relating them:
N = F/D
The smaller N requires larger D for a given F. 
There are weight and cost constraints with larger D.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8 - it's only $25,999 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html



And it's not even 35 pounds!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> And it's not even 35 pounds!


Next, someone will post that photo of the bodybuilder hand holding it!


----------



## brad-man (Jul 6, 2020)

Maarten said:


> I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable
> 
> btw what do you guys mean with the iq


This is so far the only lens that Canon has said was compatible with the converters.
iq = image quality

Edit: This lens + the 2 new collapsible primes are compatible with the converters.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 7, 2020)

CJudge said:


> I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...


No silly, you just buy both!!!!


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2020)

I don’t understand Canon and those new lenses....
Why they don’t give us the possibility to separate the focus distance more.... with a 3rd option for under 10/15m?!?! I don’t get it... it is a L lens nothing cheap ... this should have standard features like the Sigma 150-600 and Sony 200-600 has...
my hope was strong for a really nice Tele zoom for RF but this... isn’t what I expected! A cheap copy of an 100-400 for RF, nothing special. NOTHING to beat the current 150-600/200-600 or 200-500 lenses of the other players!!


----------



## SteveC (Jul 7, 2020)

bhf3737 said:


> D = Lens Diameter (in mm)
> F = Focal length
> N = F-Number (or perhaps T-number to be more precise)
> And we have a formula relating them:
> ...



You may have missed that he was asking about the short end.

If a lens is (for example) f/8 at 400 mm, that implies a 50mm entry pupil; 400/8 = 50.

So why is that lens not f/2 at 100 mm? 100/2 = 50.

One would think, at least at first, that the f number should be 4 times higher at the short end (for an actual 4 stops, not 2) for any lens with 4x zoom, yet it never is.


----------



## Rule556 (Jul 7, 2020)

bhf3737 said:


> There are weight and cost constraints with larger D.



That's true.


----------



## degos (Jul 7, 2020)

bhf3737 said:


> And we have a formula relating them:
> N = F/D



Which gives a theoretical f/1.4 at 100mm for this lens...

It's the same for 'constant aperture' zooms, they could in theory go far wider on the short end but get restricted to f/2.8


----------



## navastronia (Jul 7, 2020)

I might buy this, but I have to see reviews, first! It all depends on whether I can make it financially worthwhile for my business. For outdoor theatre, it could be a dream.


----------



## CvH (Jul 7, 2020)

Whowe said:


> No silly, you just buy both!!!!



I have both EF version but impractical to travel with both.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Price just was pushed out: £2,899

No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD

- A


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> I don’t understand Canon and those new lenses....
> Why they don’t give us the possibility to separate the focus distance more.... with a 3rd option for under 10/15m?!?! I don’t get it... it is a L lens nothing cheap ... this should have standard features like the Sigma 150-600 and Sony 200-600 has...
> my hope was strong for a really nice Tele zoom for RF but this... isn’t what I expected! A cheap copy of an 100-400 for RF, nothing special. NOTHING to beat the current 150-600/200-600 or 200-500 lenses of the other players!!


Now that the prices have been previewed, we know that this lens is not particularly cheap. It will be interesting to see if this lens offers something that the others don't, beyond size and weight. The IQ, bokeh, etc. might be special enough on this lens to warrant a purchase. We'll find out soon whether the lens earns its L badge and warrants its high price tag, or whether the lens isn't quite attractive enough to convince EF lens owners to upgrade.


----------



## Trout Bum (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Price just was pushed out: £2,899
> 
> No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD
> 
> - A



YIKES!


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 7, 2020)

In regards to the f number not scaling, I think the missing piece is what size objective lens it takes to make that size image circle work at that focal length. The front lens elements on these things are typically 70-80-90mm, but producing an image circle (pupil as some call it) that is 25mm (F/4) or so. The wider the aperture the larger the objective diameter, and the more correction necessary, more elements, etc. now make all those elements also perform at 500mm, and how big/heavy do they have to be? 

So I'd bet that the size of the front objective isn't right to correctly render an image at F2.8, at 100mm despite the pupil diameter it can make at F7.1 on 500mm. 

-Brian


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 8, 2020)

I noticed the weight of the RF 100-500 was listed as 1370g. But does anyone know if this includes the tripod collar and foot? I hope they mention this on Thursday, or else we get a slew of youtube reviews that do mention it.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 8, 2020)

Is it for certain that the 70-200 RF will not take the TC's. Very disappointing if this is the case.


----------



## Maarten (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> mean->think? I'm guessing you mostly use Afrikaans and that Afrikaans is like German "was meinst Du" sounds like "mean" not "think"



Afrikaans is Dutch and Afrikaans.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 8, 2020)

Chz said:


> I have both EF version but impractical to travel with both.


I know, I have both in EF also. Need 70-200 for the 2.8 for indoor sports, but already had the 100-400 for the longer reach for wildlife/ birds. I will definitely be adapting for a while. I don't use the 70-200 enough to justify that purchase anytime soon with high school sports. The 100-500 probably has my name on it, but I'm not in a rush, so I can wait a little while and catch it on a price drop of second hand if reviews are good (which I expect.)


----------



## Eclipsed (Jul 8, 2020)

1370g for the RF 100-500 weighs LESS than the RF28-70 f2.
It's a little more than half the weight of the EF 300mm F2.8 IS ii (I know very different, but a comparison for me)
It's 77% the weight of the EF100-400 on adapter.
It's only 14% heavier than the RF70-200 f2.8.

3 pounds of performance.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 9, 2020)

Really to expensive... 

But sweet weight! With those technologies they could build much more nice lenses!
lets hope for some nice new 2.8 & 4.0f lenses >300mm!! How about a lightweight 800 8.0 DO. Would be a winner^^. Or a small 200-400 4.0 with 1.4tc


----------



## CvH (Jul 9, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I know, I have both in EF also. Need 70-200 for the 2.8 for indoor sports, but already had the 100-400 for the longer reach for wildlife/ birds. I will definitely be adapting for a while. I don't use the 70-200 enough to justify that purchase anytime soon with high school sports. The 100-500 probably has my name on it, but I'm not in a rush, so I can wait a little while and catch it on a price drop of second hand if reviews are good (which I expect.)



I am in the same boat. I use the 70-200 F2.8 for portrait and like you, I don’t use it a lot.

I have the R and am planning to get the R5 if Canon fixes the EVF lag and blackout. 

I will also get the RF 2.0 extender if the image quality is good and compatible with the EF100-400. I will eventually replace it with the RF100-500 if the image quality is as good or better than the EF100-400, and the price has come down.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 9, 2020)

Chz said:


> I am in the same boat. I use the 70-200 F2.8 for portrait and like you, I don’t use it a lot.
> 
> I have the R and am planning to get the R5 if Canon fixes the EVF lag and blackout.
> 
> I will also get the RF 2.0 extender if the image quality is good and compatible with the EF100-400. I will eventually replace it with the RF100-500 if the image quality is as good or better than the EF100-400, and the price has come down.


I would not expect the RF 2.0 extender to work with any EF lenses. I believe it will only work with RF lenses, specifically the 100-500, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.


----------



## CvH (Jul 9, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I would not expect the RF 2.0 extender to work with any EF lenses. I believe it will only work with RF lenses, specifically the 100-500, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.



I know but I have the RF-EF adapter so I am hoping I can stack RF extender + RF-EF adapter + EF100+400 or EF70-200 when travelling.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jul 9, 2020)

I guess it's not an internal zoom like the Sony 200-600mm f5.6 - f6.3 ? A bit disappointing, surely they could have followed Sony ............


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 9, 2020)

f/5.6 @ 400 mm was just confirmed in the "REIMAGINE - A Canon Premiere".


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 9, 2020)

Hate to burst your bubble, but have a look at Gordon's preview:


----------



## Eclipsed (Jul 9, 2020)

Those bar charts presumably misrepresent the facts because the f number presumably don't jump at the transitions but is a continuous function. Perhaps the bars represent "at least" those stated numbers.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 9, 2020)

2nd Canon lens to have *dual nano USM* to drive the focusing group.

From TDP:
*Focusing*
Unless in manual focus mode, a lens's autofocus performance is an extremely important factor in realizing the image quality capability of a lens. To that point, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens, like the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens, gets an advanced, high-performing AF system driven by Dual Nano USM (Ultrasonic) focus motors.

While Canon has been designing Nano USM AF systems into the latest L-series RF lenses, this dual-motor design is being featured for only the second time in the RF 100-500. What Canon said about the RF 70-200 Dual Nano AF system again applies: "The lens also incorporates a floating focus control ... that drives the two lens groups individually while using the two aforementioned Nano USM motors. The floating focus lens element shortens focusing distance and helps reduce breathing, providing users with fast, consistent and reliable performance."

Nano USM acts like an ultra-fast version of STM AF, combining the benefits of a high-speed Ring USM actuator with an STM system stepping motor's quiet and smooth, direct, lead screw-type drive system. Like Ring USM driven AF systems, Nano USM focuses nearly instantly. Like STM AF systems, Nano USM focuses almost silently and very smoothly. Cameras featuring Dual Pixel CMOS AF and Movie Servo AF make video recording very easy, and Nano USM lenses are very well-suited for this task. The smooth focusing makes focus distance transitions easy on the viewer's eyes, and the sound of the lens focusing should not be picked up by the camera's mic.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 9, 2020)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> First Canon lens to have *dual nano USM* to drive the focusing group.



I think the 70-200 is also dual nano USM.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 9, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Those bar charts presumably misrepresent the facts because the f number presumably don't jump at the transitions but is a continuous function. Perhaps the bars represent "at least" those stated numbers.



I'm assuming they represent the number that shows up in the EVF, which tends to be in 1/3 stops.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think the 70-200 is also dual nano USM.


Thanks, just checked on TDP, it is the 2nd to use dual nano USM.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but have a look at Gordon's preview:
> View attachment 191207


I hope that Laing's sample was an early pre-production model that got adjusted in the release model. 

Regardless, f/6.3 at 400mm is no big deal. I'm more excited that f/6.3 is maintained very close to 500mm.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 9, 2020)

Price, weight/portability, image quality. Pick any 2. If you want the same apertures at the same FLs as on the 100-400, the lens would weigh & cost more.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 9, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Really to expensive...
> 
> But sweet weight! With those technologies they could build much more nice lenses!
> lets hope for some nice new 2.8 & 4.0f lenses >300mm!! How about a lightweight 800 8.0 DO. Would be a winner^^. Or a small 200-400 4.0 with 1.4tc


I'm actually excited about the 100-500. Yes, it is expensive, but there is a premium paid for compact size and the best, fastest AF available. 

I do agree with you that I'd like to see an affordable super telephoto that is a bit more serious than the new f/11 versions. An 800 8.0 would be nice, but I'd welcome an oddball 700 7.1 DO (or why not a 700 6.3 DO? I can carry a bit more weight around) that wasn't fixed aperture like the f/11 lenses.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jul 9, 2020)

I’d welcome some more light long primes with 95mm filter size. But down at 300-400.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm assuming they represent the number that shows up in the EVF, which tends to be in 1/3 stops.


The other supertelephoto zooms I use have discrete jumps of f-number rather than smooth changes. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm, it would show f/5.6 at 400mm. Not that it worries me much if it is f/6.3 at 400mm rather than f/5.6. (I was about to upload the same screenshot!) By the way, the weight of the lens with tripod ring attached is 1.525 kg, only only 130 g less than the 100-400mm II, not 200 g as he says in the review.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> f/5.6 @ 400 mm was just confirmed in the "REIMAGINE - A Canon Premiere".





koenkooi said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but have a look at Gordon's preview: ...


Okay?!  

Would be funny, if the ambassadors and tech people in the official (!) Canon "REIMAGINE" show don't tell the truth, but time will tell when other reviews come...
I am open to be convinced...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Okay?!
> 
> Would be funny, if the ambassadors and tech people in the official (!) Canon "REIMAGINE" show don't tell the truth, but time will tell when other reviews come...
> I am open to be convinced...


I'm convinced. Figures like the one shown by Cameralabs have been prepared by the Canon tech people. Where are the mtfs?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 9, 2020)

Per someone in a different thread, if the camera is set to half stop increments, instead of third stop increments, it does show f/5.6 @ 400.

Which tells me the number the camera shows is not "conservative" so "f/5.6" could mean anything better than f/6.0 for instance, rather than meaning "at least as good as f/5.6".


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2020)




----------



## usern4cr (Jul 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> View attachment 191257


This is probably the best I've seen for a lens to keep the wider aperture throughout it's range. Normally zoom lenses quickly stop down to the smallest aperture so fast that the wide aperture value hardly matters. But this really keeps a good wide aperture far into the telephoto range - much more than I'd ever expect.

I preordered the 100-500 before I saw this, so I'm *really* happy to see this chart! 

Well done, Canon!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 19, 2020)

One thing that was bugging me about the chart was it almost looked logarithmic at first... but then after dropping the values into excel I see where the issue was. The chart as posted appears to start at 100mm... but the values in that chart actually start at zero... so it makes the f4.5 range (and total mm) look much bigger than it is and skewing everything else. If I plug the values into a new chart, it looks more like what I would expect.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 19, 2020)

The more I think of it, the more I like this lens vs the DO's (if I had to choose between them).

This by itself gets you to 'close' to the 600mm DO at a much better fstop.
This with a 1.4 TC gets you past the 600mm DO and 'close' to the 800mm DO at a better fstop.
This with the 2.0 TC gets you past the 800mm at a slightly worse fstop but it would cover the range of the DO's (w/o TC of course) w/ less bag room.
This plus an R5 with just running in crop mode for 160-800 w/o the fstop penalty... but at a resolution just under the R (but over a R6).

I could see carrying the 100-500 for the versatility paired with a 2x TC for the optional 600-1000mm reach... and foregoing the DO's... and if running crop could get you up to 1600.

Guess it all depends on the TC IQ.


----------

