# Is an RF 100-500mm lens on the way? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2020)

> Earlier today I mentioned a possible second lens being announced for the RF mount alongside the new kit lens, the RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, but that I wasn’t quite sure what it was.
> I have been told that an RF 100-500mm lens is coming, unfortunately, I have not been given the aperture range of the lens, nor if it will be an L lens.
> We have also received some hints that RF teleconverters are on the way as well.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 29, 2020)

A question to the experts - how good an IQ can we expect from such a 5x zoom, or the 5.7x zoom the 70-400mm will be?


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2020)

It's needs a nickname like the 'Bigma', but not that of course....The Cannon?


----------



## fox40phil (Jan 29, 2020)

4.0f to (or complete) 5.6f come on Canon <3!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2020)

Now this is getting interesting!

Jack


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 29, 2020)

I would sure like some 1st party teleconverters for the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 before some crazy supertele zooms start rolling out. Especially if they can be stacked more than they are today, like 2*2.0x to get to 800mm f/11.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I would sure like some 1st party teleconverters for the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 before some crazy supertele zooms start rolling out. Especially if they can be stacked more than they are today, like 2*2.0x to get to 800mm f/11.



I have been given hints that RF extenders are coming. I'm going to update the post.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's needs a nickname like the 'Bigma', but not that of course....The Cannon?





If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a *very* small and affordable supertele.

I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.

- A


----------



## sulla (Jan 29, 2020)

Sign my name on that one. This lens and the RF 50 1.2 would be enough to get me into R territory.
I always thought the 100-400 was a bit short, expecially in comparison to the sigma/tamron/nikon at-least-500 zooms.


----------



## neurorx (Jan 29, 2020)

Wish this was a 200-600 f4-5.6L... that would be amazing.....


----------



## Tom W (Jan 29, 2020)

Canon really WANTS me to buy stuff! 

This with an R5 would put me solidly into the mirrorless world. Seriously, I'd be working to move some of my EF collection out, pending the IQ and price.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 29, 2020)

sulla said:


> ...
> I always thought the 100-400 was a bit short, expecially in comparison to the sigma/tamron/nikon at-least-500 zooms.



I was just talking about that exact thing on another forum. The 100-400 IS II is an exceptionally good zoom, but it's only 400. You can get good 560 with a 1.4X, but then it's an F/8, which starts presenting a challenge in low-light situations when you need shutter speed. Like birding in the thick forest.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

neurorx said:


> Wish this was a 200-600 f4-5.6L... that would be amazing.....




It's all about 600mm + f/6.3 to me. It's the difference between this lens being somewhere in the same time zone as the Nikon 200-500 5.6's price or being front-elemented out of that price entirely.

Also, how does DPAF impact the rules of teleconverter-ability? How do EF extenders work on adapted EOS Rs (or in LiveView on SLRs for that matter)? If f/5.6 still an absolute must-have to allow an 1.4x to focus?

- A


----------



## SkySpades (Jan 29, 2020)

neurorx said:


> Wish this was a 200-600 f4-5.6L... that would be amazing.....



Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

SkySpades said:


> Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.




^^^ This.

- A


----------



## dwarven (Jan 29, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's needs a nickname like the 'Bigma', but not that of course....The Cannon?



The White Whale? Thar she be!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

dwarven said:


> The White Whale? Thar she be!




_No one said it would be white._ 

f/6.3 and a cost target under $2k might not see it be an L lens at all. Imagine this, but bigger: 









It could happen.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

neurorx said:


> Wish this was a 200-600 f4-5.6L... that would be amazing.....


And too heavy for the mass market.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2020)

FFS Canon! I seriously need to win some money this year...


----------



## motofotog (Jan 29, 2020)

I hope they bring Both 600 f6.3 and 200-600f 5.6L. Too much asking?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

motofotog said:


> I hope they bring Both 600 f6.3 and 200-600f 5.6L. Too much asking?


Yes.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

motofotog said:


> I hope they bring Both 600 f6.3 and 200-600f 5.6L. Too much asking?




Yes. But I love the thought of a 'modestly' priced 600 prime a la the old EF 400mm f/5.6L. But it's a half stop away from a $10k+ lens, soooo no. Not happening.

But maybe a lovely 77mm front filtered non-L 600mm f/8 STM for a reasonable price?

- A


----------



## frozengogo (Jan 29, 2020)

Hmm, should I continue to help pay for my kids college or start replacing my lens collection.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 29, 2020)

Wow first the R5 specs take me by surprise and finally meet a D850 Z7 style of camera and now they ifnally are working for a 500mm 5.6 at least I expect lens. Id totally buy a 100-500 5.6, 6.3 is just too slow and 600 would be too heavy.

This is shaping up to be awesome!


----------



## sid.safari (Jan 29, 2020)

A RF 100-500 f/4? 

No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2020)

Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.


I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.


----------



## sid.safari (Jan 29, 2020)

slclick said:


> Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.
> 
> 
> I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.



Good combo. I've had mine for 5 years and they are battle tested. 

Wouldn't have bought them in 2020 though. Hope you got a good deal!


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Good combo. I've had mine for 5 years and they are battle tested.
> 
> Wouldn't have bought them in 2020 though. Hope you got a good deal!


I did and the age of fine glass does not matter to me, hell I'd buy a 135L today if I didn't have one already. Plus, there is nothing out there in it's class as of yet. Good of time as any.


----------



## magarity (Jan 29, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A question to the experts - how good an IQ can we expect from such a 5x zoom, or the 5.7x zoom the 70-400mm will be?


No one can answer this question without knowing the price of the thing.


----------



## MadScotsman (Jan 29, 2020)

frozengogo said:


> Hmm, should I continue to help pay for my kids college or start replacing my lens collection.


 
College is over-rated. Trades are where it's at. Haven't you been listening to Mike Rowe?


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 29, 2020)

SkySpades said:


> Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.


With wildlife photography, I want all the light I can get on the center. Signed me up for the 20600 F5.6.


SkySpades said:


> Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.



For wildlife, I want all the light I can get on the sensor. I will be happy to carry an extra lb and pay $2-$3k for a better quality lens. I think a 200-500 would be at f5.6, but the 600 wold most likely be a f6.3 to keep size/wieght down. I would aloe be very satisfied if the lens was 200-500 F5.6 instead of the 100-500 mentioned in the rumor above. My RF setup would be RF 24-70, RF 70-200, RF 200-500. You could also use a 1.4x on the 70-200 & [email protected]


----------



## Dragon (Jan 29, 2020)

100-500 is just enough extra reach over the EF 100-400 to get folks to want to move to RF. If it is still f/5.6 at the long end, then the objective will still fit in 95mm without going to f/6.3 like 150-600 Sigma and Tamron. Since DPAF works well up to f/11, that makes the lens useful with up to a 2x TC. It should sell very well if it is priced decently and light enough to hand hold without chronic arm failure. I love my 800L, but portable it isn't.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 29, 2020)

neurorx said:


> Wish this was a 200-600 f4-5.6L... that would be amazing.....



Hope you have more than 10k to spend on it. What you want is almost available today. 200-400 f/4L with built-in 1.4x.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2020)

Thinking 100-500 vs. 200-500, I guess the question is, when you're out and about with 500 how often are you so lucky as to be wishing to drop back to 100. I know it happens but I'd think 200-500 would still address 95% of my cases.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thinking 100-500 vs. 200-500, I guess the question is, when you're out and about with 500 how often are you so lucky as to be wishing to drop back to 100. I know it happens but I'd think 200-500 would still address 95% of my cases.
> 
> Jack


As long as they optimised the IQ for 500mm and sacrficed some IQ at 100mm, then I'd go for the 100-500mm. Sigma has made a pretty decent 60-600mm.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 29, 2020)

I would rather a 200-500 f/4.0 or f/5.6. But I'll settle with a 200-400 f/4.0 if my dream never comes true.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 29, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I would rather a 200-500 f/4.0 or f/5.6. But I'll settle with a 200-400 f/4.0 if my dream never comes true.



That lens exists today minus 100mm in length @ $11k retail (I paid $7,500 Canon refurb), weights 8lb and is large. They should be able to get a 200-500 f5.6 if you look at the Nikon offering, but f4 hits issues of physics.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> That lens exists today minus 100mm in length @ $11k retail (I paid $7,500 Canon refurb), weights 8lb and is large. They should be able to get a 200-500 f5.6 if you look at the Nikon offering, but f4 hits issues of physics.


f4 hits the issue of the physics of what I can carry and shoot hand held. I wonder how many of the 200-400mm f/4+1.4xTCs Canon has sold?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 29, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> That lens exists today minus 100mm in length @ $11k retail (I paid $7,500 Canon refurb), weights 8lb and is large. They should be able to get a 200-500 f5.6 if you look at the Nikon offering, but f4 hits issues of physics.



I will be buying the 200-400 on the 13th November 2021. Unless something hits 500 on the long end. The weight and size aren't a issue, if I don't get it it'll be for a 200-500 or a 600mm. I am accustomed to using my monopod and tripod for my 300 f/2.8 as it is has no IS. I also tried the 500 f/4.5 for a while and it was a good size.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jan 29, 2020)

slclick said:


> Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.
> 
> 
> I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.



I am so scared of buying new gear for this reason


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I will be buying the 200-400 on the 13th November 2021. Unless something hits 500 on the long end. The weight and size aren't a issue, if I don't get it it'll be for a 200-500 or a 600mm. I am accustomed to using my monopod and tripod for my 300 f/2.8 as it is has no IS. I also tried the 500 f/4.5 for a while and it was a good size.


Why wait when you can buy now a Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 + matched 2xTC as weight and size aren't a issue?


----------



## MadScotsman (Jan 29, 2020)

I can't find it anymore, but I have a clear memory of a rumored RF Teleconverter that was switchable between 1.4x and 2x.

Any word on whatever became of that rumor?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Why wait when you can buy now a Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 + matched 2xTC as weight and size aren't a issue?



As I am sure you were able to infer, the weight and size of the 200-400 and 600 are not a issue. As tempting as that Sigma is.


----------



## flip314 (Jan 29, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> View attachment 188402



That lens hood is a $45 piece of plastic that doesn't even come with the $500 lens (street price, $550 retail). I know the hoods are always a ripoff, but come on!

I got a $13 third party hood because I couldn't bring myself to get ripped off that badly.

I do love the lens though...


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> f4 hits the issue of the physics of what I can carry and shoot hand held. I wonder how many of the 200-400mm f/4+1.4xTCs Canon has sold?



It was never intended as a high volume lens, but I run across a lot of them in the field.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 29, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I will be buying the 200-400 on the 13th November 2021. Unless something hits 500 on the long end. The weight and size aren't a issue, if I don't get it it'll be for a 200-500 or a 600mm. I am accustomed to using my monopod and tripod for my 300 f/2.8 as it is has no IS. I also tried the 500 f/4.5 for a while and it was a good size.



With the exception of weight, I love my 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x TC. This is one of the most versatile lenses on the planet with incredible IQ that rivals the big white primes 200-400 and is d???? good even with the 1.4x TC engaged. You can also use it with a 2x extender (internal disengaged) for a high quality 400-800mm @ f8. I love the fact I can have a very high quality zoom range from 200mm - 560mm with the flip of a switch. As long as you are in a vehicle where you can use a support or bean bag, this is the perfect African Safari lens for versatility and IQ. I am a beefy guy and can handled the lens for a few shots, but not recommended. I suggest that you check out refurbs on the Canon site if you get serious about buying, I saved around $3k. A local lab inspected the lens and said everything was perfect. No AFMA required on my 1dx II. I would show it under the bus for a 4 - 5lb, 200-500 f5.6 L IS if it had great IQ because of weight and bulk. I am getting older and trying to shed some gear weight. I went from the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II to the 70-200 f4 L IS II to shed a little and looking at other options.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 29, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> With the exception of weight, I love my 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x TC. This is one of the most versatile lenses on the planet with incredible IQ that rivals the big white primes 200-400 and is d???? good even with the 1.4x TC engaged. You can also use it with a 2x extender (internal disengaged) for a high quality 400-800mm @ f8. I love the fact I can have a very high quality zoom range from 200mm - 560mm with the flip of a switch. As long as you are in a vehicle where you can use a support or bean bag, this is the perfect African Safari lens for versatility and IQ. I am a beefy guy and can handled the lens for a few shots, but not recommended. I suggest that you check out refurbs on the Canon site if you get serious about buying, I saved around $3k. A local lab inspected the lens and said everything was perfect. No AFMA required on my 1dx II. I would show it under the bus for a 4 - 5lb, 200-500 f5.6 L IS if it had great IQ because of weight and bulk. I am getting older and trying to shed some gear weight. I went from the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II to the 70-200 f4 L IS II to shed a little and looking at other options.



Daft as it sounds and for pure indulgence, I will be buying mine new. It has been in my crosshairs for such a long time that I want to open the box. Sense might take over and let me save a few thousand in the process, but it is something of a experience I only intend to do once. The only other lenses that have appealed to me have been the 600 f/4 and 400 f/2.8. And the 400 only because it seemed like a natural upgrade to my 300 f/2.8. I have in preparation lost a good 4 stone so far and put on some muscle, which also serves to handle my ever growing python. As with my 300, this thing is going to live on a monopod or tripod when it is in use. And I am delighted to know it takes the teleconverters so well. 

A 200-500 f/5.6 would indeed be something special, perhaps as a walk in the woods type lens where you want to have a good bit of reach but don't want to carry about all the supporting gear of a big white.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2020)

It's worth looking at what Sony has done in producing a $2000 lens that rivals the marvellous Canon 200-400mm. Go through the comparisons on TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I am hoping Canon can make rivals to that and the Nikon lightweight telephotos.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 29, 2020)

Would that be RF to EF tele/adaptors or just RF tele’s? I use my 600 with teles and extension rings sometimes to reduce minimum focus and have had issues with the electrical contacts. Prefer to just have one additional set of electrical connections if possible.


----------



## amorse (Jan 29, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> It's all about 600mm + f/6.3 to me. It's the difference between this lens being somewhere in the same time zone as the Nikon 200-500 5.6's price or being front-elemented out of that price entirely.
> 
> Also, how does DPAF impact the rules of teleconverter-ability? How do EF extenders work on adapted EOS Rs (or in LiveView on SLRs for that matter)? If f/5.6 still an absolute must-have to allow an 1.4x to focus?
> 
> - A


I believe the R can autofocus at f/11, so even the EF100-400 can operate AF with a 2X tele right now... That was one of the really attractive things to me!


----------



## amorse (Jan 30, 2020)

My wallet can't handle all these rumours today. What are kidneys going for these days?


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 30, 2020)

What is going on?!

Its been less like canonrumors this week and more like canonfantasies....is this really happening?


----------



## dwarven (Jan 30, 2020)

frozengogo said:


> Hmm, should I continue to help pay for my kids college or start replacing my lens collection.



I'd go with lens collection.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 30, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Would that be RF to EF tele/adaptors or just RF tele’s? I use my 600 with teles and extension rings sometimes to reduce minimum focus and have had issues with the electrical contacts. Prefer to just have one additional set of electrical connections if possible.


I would love an RF to EF tele/adaptor (and buy a 1.4 immediately), and if their strategy is not to produce RF Big Whites for an extended period of time, then Canon should have no problem providing them - ie they are expecting people to adapt their EF long lenses to the RF mount, and they know that people use extensions. It makes perfect sense - but whether it happens is another question.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 30, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Would that be RF to EF tele/adaptors or just RF tele’s? I use my 600 with teles and extension rings sometimes to reduce minimum focus and have had issues with the electrical contacts. Prefer to just have one additional set of electrical connections if possible.



It’s a no brainer to offer new Teleconverter optics in different packages. Most important is EF to RF for all the big white lenses to be used by RF shooters. Essentially a free adaptor with every TC. 

Not sure if an RF to RF TC affords optical opportunities than EF limitations.


----------



## IsaacImage (Jan 30, 2020)

Fukc - give me 35 RF L F1.2
and I'll leave you alone for a few years 
and then I'll ask for 105 F1.2


----------



## SteveC (Jan 30, 2020)

slclick said:


> Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.
> 
> 
> I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.




I did the same thing--except no extender.

So that makes it almost doubly certain.


----------



## drama (Jan 30, 2020)

Same old Canon rumors. A good looking lens appears, and the first comments are "why isn't it longer / bigger / cheaper / faster"


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 30, 2020)

drama said:


> Same old Canon rumors. A good looking lens appears, and the first comments are "why isn't it longer / bigger / cheaper / faster"


Longer, bigger, faster, and more expensive please


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Longer, bigger, faster, and more expensive please


I suspect longer, lighter and cheaper will be more popular.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 30, 2020)

Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jan 30, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.



why? rf 24-240 and almost all the M zooms? aperture is not limited by AF anymore

i love these lens rumors threads, especially for long lenses
rumor: x to y lens coming
post1: make it z to w or it's dead
post2: make it n to m or it's dead


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a *very* small and affordable supertele.
> 
> I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.
> 
> - A


If up to 500 it should be 5.6 just like Nikon and if up to 600 6.3 to keep a reasonable size and cost.

However, to be very useful it has to be an L. With top quality fully open at max focal length (most important in my opinion) and weather resistant just like the current lenses.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 30, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> why? rf 24-240 and almost all the M zooms? aperture is not limited by AF anymore
> 
> i love these lens rumors threads, especially for long lenses
> rumor: x to y lens coming
> ...



Just can’t see an f6.3 500mm lens coming from Canon with the bodies they’ll be releasing this year. This could be the replacement for the 100-400.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 30, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just can’t see an f6.3 500mm lens coming from Canon with the bodies they’ll be releasing this year. This could be the replacement for the 100-400.


The 100-400 II is too new to need a _replacement_. Besides, making it -500/5.6 would affect handholdability.

I would expect something more consumer-oriented.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 30, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The 100-400 II is too new to need a _replacement_. Besides, making it -500/5.6 would affect handholdability.
> 
> I would expect something more consumer-oriented.



I think we might be getting a 70-400 L and a 100-500 non L. Rather than the 100-500 being the 100-400 replacement.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think we might be getting a 70-400 L and a 100-500 non L. Rather than the 100-500 being the 100-400 replacement.


Yes 70-400 has been mentioned already. But a 100-500 non L wouldn't be that good unless it has top iq. And if it has top iq it will be an L! But, Canon back in 1988 had made 2 flavors of 100-300 f/5.6 A non-L and a L version. So there is this option too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 30, 2020)

tron said:


> Yes 70-400 has been mentioned already. But a 100-500 non L wouldn't be that good unless it has top iq. And if it has top iq it will be an L! But, Canon back in 1988 had made 2 flavors of 100-300 f/5.6 A non-L and a L version. So there is this option too.



A non-L can drop its IQ, focus speed/sound(STM), build quality compared to a L, or a mix of the three. It could still have good IQ but at the cost of not standing up to well to the elements like one expects of a L lens. That would get the cost and weight down and competitive. And if I am reading Nikon's versioning right, the 500 f/5.6 is their L equivalent but the 200-500 f/5.6 is non L build and priced accordingly.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Seriously doubt Canon would put out an f6.3 max aperture lens. It’ll be f4-f5.6 most likely, and probably an L series.




Since Canon pitched the mirror, we have all the following lenses with f/6.3 on the long end:

EF-M: 15-45, 55-200, 18-150
RF: 24-240

f/5.6 as a mandate goes away with EF-M and RF. For this 100-500, which will never go on an EF body, it's just a question of optimizing price / weight / ability to still use a TC.

Something - 600 f/6.3 could still work. Doubt that would be an L, sure, but it would be one way to keep up with the Jones Nikons in offering a first party superzoom for an affordable price.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> A non-L can drop its IQ, focus speed/sound(STM), build quality compared to a L, or a mix of the three. It could still have good IQ but at the cost of not standing up to well to the elements like one expects of a L lens. That would get the cost and weight down and competitive. And if I am reading Nikon's versioning right, the 500 f/5.6 is their L equivalent but the 200-500 f/5.6 is non L build and priced accordingly.


It's AF, AF, and then AF for birds in flight etc. After that, add the other factors, including light weight for swinging the lens around. My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C has outstanding IQ at 600mm, as good in the centre as my 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC and better than my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. It's great for perched birds, ok for slow moving large birds but low keepers for difficult stuff. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400mms have worse AF and IS (the several I have tried). In the Nikon range, the 500mm f/5.6 has blistering fast and accurate AF as well as sharpness as good as the DO II. The 200-500mm has slow AF and IQ drops from 300mm onwards, and is on the heavier side. But, lots of happy users. The 100-400mm II has very fast and accurate AF. A new 100-500mm has to equal that AF on an RF body or I will be disappointed.


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 30, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> It's all about 600mm + f/6.3 to me. It's the difference between this lens being somewhere in the same time zone as the Nikon 200-500 5.6's price or being front-elemented out of that price entirely.
> 
> Also, how does DPAF impact the rules of teleconverter-ability? How do EF extenders work on adapted EOS Rs (or in LiveView on SLRs for that matter)? If f/5.6 still an absolute must-have to allow an 1.4x to focus?
> 
> - A



DPAF is rated to focus to f11. Anyone can try this out in video since what you record at is your set aperture while in stills it is wide open. So focusing up to f11 shouldn't be an issue at all. I think I even shot video at f16 and was able to touch focus without issue, but I may be wrong (relying on memory here, and it was more than a year ago).


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It's AF, AF, and then AF for birds in flight etc. After that, add the other factors, including light weight for swinging the lens around. My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C has outstanding IQ at 600mm, as good in the centre as my 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC and better than my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. It's great for perched birds, ok for slow moving large birds but low keepers for difficult stuff. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400mms have worse AF and IS (the several I have tried). In the Nikon range, the 500mm f/5.6 has blistering fast and accurate AF as well as sharpness as good as the DO II. The 200-500mm has slow AF and IQ drops from 300mm onwards, and is on the heavier side. But, lots of happy users. The 100-400mm II has very fast and accurate AF. A new 100-500mm has to equal that AF on an RF body or I will be disappointed.


Alan hello. Interesting and useful info as always! One question: Did you use only D500 with 500PF or have you also tried the D850? I am asking because I assume that finding the target both stationary and in BIF has to be more difficult with D500 (just like having a 500mm with 7D2) rather than D850.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2020)

tron said:


> Alan hello. Interesting and useful info as always! One question: Did you use only D500 with 500PF or have you also tried the D850? I am asking because I assume that finding the target both stationary and in BIF has to be more difficult with D500 (just like having a 500mm with 7D2) rather than D850.


Used only the D500. I can manage easily 500mm and with more difficulty 700mm on APS-C for perched birds but for BIF 500mm is my limit unless they are far away and sufficiently slow. As you might recall, 400mm on a 5D series is my favourite for BIF because of the ease in finding and retaining focus on target. I bought into the D500 as there were plenty of used ones on sale at WEX and I could get a low shot one at half new price (they have now none on sale) to go along with a mistakenly low-priced 500/5.6 PF. I am not considering a D850 as they are expensive new and used and I have my Canons for FF.
It's a difficult time for buying as there are so many uncertainties where things are going and what lenses and bodies are coming on line.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Used only the D500. I can manage easily 500mm and with more difficulty 700mm on APS-C for perched birds but for BIF 500mm is my limit unless they are far away and sufficiently slow. As you might recall, 400mm on a 5D series is my favourite for BIF because of the ease in finding and retaining focus on target. I bought into the D500 as there were plenty of used ones on sale at WEX and I could get a low shot one at half new price (they have now none on sale) to go along with a mistakenly low-priced 500/5.6 PF. I am not considering a D850 as they are expensive new and used and I have my Canons for FF.
> It's a difficult time for buying as there are so many uncertainties where things are going and what lenses and bodies are coming on line.


Thanks! It's the size and weight of the 500mm which I find so tempting!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 30, 2020)

SkySpades said:


> Not for the wallet or the back. A 107mm front element is significantly heavier and more expensive to produce than a 95mm element. I imagine a 200-600 f/5.6 would be at least $2k-$3k more expensive than a 200-600 f/6.3.



Heavier than a 300 f/2.8 even if entirely plastic, like like 2.6kg+. Look at Nikon’s 120-300 f/2.8, 3.2kg, even if plastic would probably still be 3kg. That’s probably closer to the mark for weight unless it’s a budget build and optically only ok., which would be doubtful for an RF lens.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 30, 2020)

motofotog said:


> I hope they bring Both 600 f6.3 and 200-600f 5.6L. Too much asking?



No give us a 600 f/5.6 DO, Nikon 500 PF is a fantastic lens and ridiculously small for a 500mm and I’m hoping they release 600 f/5.6 PF. There are rumors of 800 PF too but I doubt that at least for a very long time.


----------



## Pape (Jan 31, 2020)

Even RF 100-500 f11 for 500Euro is possible if they developed focus system even better what R got. Who knows maybe quad dpaf f16 focus on R6 and R5?
Maybe thats why they dropped 7d . It just getting obsolete.


----------



## CDR (Jan 31, 2020)

Interestingly I have recently found myself using my 300 2.8 and the EOS R's 1.6 crop a lot (effective 480) and getting very nice wildlife images (yes limited to 11Mp files to work on) but have been able to use wide open (at 2.8) with much better AF accuracy / AF speed than adding a 2X converter (although less obvious AF advantage over the 1.4X but that is F4 wide open). 

Why do I mention this here? Well for me if the new R5 is real (crop around 17Mp) and this lens is a very good IQ F5.6 at 500 this may be all I need for wildlife other than for very low light shooting - no extenders needed at all! 

Here's hoping ;-)


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2020)

CDR said:


> Interestingly I have recently found myself using my 300 2.8 and the EOS R's 1.6 crop a lot (effective 480) and getting very nice wildlife images (yes limited to 11Mp files to work on) but have been able to use wide open (at 2.8) with much better AF accuracy / AF speed than adding a 2X converter (although less obvious AF advantage over the 1.4X but that is F4 wide open).
> 
> Why do I mention this here? Well for me if the new R5 is real (crop around 17Mp) and this lens is a very good IQ F5.6 at 500 this may be all I need for wildlife other than for very low light shooting - no extenders needed at all!
> 
> Here's hoping ;-)


Your use of 1.6x crop is not extending your reach, which depends on the number of pixels on target, but just lowering the field of view 1.6x. It doesn't have the effective focal length of 480mm, apart from cropping in camera. If you want to extend the reach to an effective 480mm and use mirrorless, put the lens on the M6 II.


----------



## Joules (Jan 31, 2020)

In practical terms, a 600mm 6.3 and a 500mm 5.6 will resolve about the same detail based on their physical aperture. I'd rather have a 500mm 5.6 than another 600mm 6.3 if I'd also get the rumored ~80 MP body or an APS-C variant like the 90D that are getting to the point where they can take advantage of higher f-numbers.


----------



## CDR (Jan 31, 2020)

LOL I may not be technically correct, but my point is not really as regards reach, but rather flexibility and weight - after all I already use a 7D11 as my second camera body which is effectively a 1.6X cropped sensor with a lot more pixels, but on the same lens also provides a smaller field of view than using it on a full frame body! 

The issue is more that as I am getting on in the years I would ideally like to have just one lightweight body that gives me the coverage I need to cover both photography and video whilst carrying as little variation of lenses /extenders as possible - maybe not be that far away this year!


----------



## tron (Jan 31, 2020)

slclick said:


> Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.
> 
> 
> I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.


I bought the EOS R 24-105 kit the end of November (Black Friday offer) to contribute to the announcement of EOS R5


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 31, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> No give us a 600 f/5.6 DO, Nikon 500 PF is a fantastic lens and ridiculously small for a 500mm and I’m hoping they release 600 f/5.6 PF. There are rumors of 800 PF too but I doubt that at least for a very long time.


They already make a 560 f/5.6 DO....it is called a 400 f/4 DO with a 1.4TC. Why waste effort on another lens that would just duplicate that option and decrease versatility? The front element of a 600/5.6 would be larger than the 400DO and the lens would be longer than the 400/1.4TC. I guess maybe the bare 600/5.6 could have better IQ than the 400/1.4TC but I don't see it being that big of a difference to matter. 400DOII even with 2xTC is super sharp and contrasty especially on a consistently focusing MILC be it A9 or EOS R camera.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 31, 2020)

tron said:


> I bought the EOS R 24-105 kit the end of November (Black Friday offer) to contribute to the announcement of EOS R5




I just realized I proved the M5 II will never come out.

I finally gave up and bought the M6 II...and that was a couple of months ago. Surely the M5 II would have been announced sometime between then and now.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2020)

There has been a lot of discussion of 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6. I have spent some considerable time in a geeky analysis of their relative merits which I hope may be of use to some as it also discusses some general points about cropping, use of TCs etc (I haven't been giving tutorials this term so sorry!).





Iso, noise, extenders, cropping, and 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 zooms


Another one of my geek notes that may be of some practical use. This has been stimulated by discussion in the threads about 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lenses. It is usually thought that the larger f-number of the longer lens means either a slower shutter speed or introducing more...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2020)

CDR said:


> LOL I may not be technically correct, but my point is not really as regards reach, but rather flexibility and weight - after all I already use a 7D11 as my second camera body which is effectively a 1.6X cropped sensor with a lot more pixels, but on the same lens also provides a smaller field of view than using it on a full frame body!
> 
> The issue is more that as I am getting on in the years I would ideally like to have just one lightweight body that gives me the coverage I need to cover both photography and video whilst carrying as little variation of lenses /extenders as possible - maybe not be that far away this year!


If you are getting on in years and worried about weight, the 300mm f/2.8 is not the ideal choice to go on your R. I have the same problem of ageing and have got into lighter systems. I sold my 300/2.8 and bought the 100-400mm II when it came out - one of my best decisions ever. My current go-to gear for a casual days birding is the 90D + 100-400mm II. Unfortunately, Canon hasn't been helping us oldie nature photographers much and we have to go to other systems for light weight. If you want ultralight, a Nikon 7500 + 300mm f/4E PF will give unbeatable performance at that level. When I want to travel really light, I take the Sony RX10IV, which is the best all in one on the planet, with a little bit of help from the light. No single maker sells for me the right overall combination of lenses and bodies.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 1, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> If it's not L and f/5.6 is no longer an EF mandatory max aperture... this could be a *very* small and affordable supertele.
> 
> I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't go to 600, though. That's kind of the killer app here.
> 
> - A


That depends on IQ. If it is very sharp at 500, it will kill the 150-600s because none of them give you any more detail at 600 than they do at 500 and frankly, they don't support more than about 20MP at any part of the long end.


----------



## Joules (Feb 1, 2020)

Dragon said:


> That depends on IQ. If it is very sharp at 500, it will kill the 150-600s because none of them give you any more detail at 600 than they do at 500 and frankly, they don't support more than about 20MP at any part of the long end.


Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.


I went back and forth for a LONG time over a >400 solution. It really is the magical focal length when it comes to price vs value. Other factors are carry weight, stability issues and purchases, i.e. additional gear like plates, feet, gimbals, tripod upgrades and also, camera bags.
What it came down to me was the old adage of 'Buy once cry once'. The 100-400 + 1.4 tc was the best option for me, price, weight, image quality, AF points and speed. I may not get to the magical minimum of 600mm like so many wildlife shooters profess to need but I'll get a far better minimal crop than going with a 3rd party lens which is much heavier, lesser IQ, somewhat slower and offers less AF targets at the widest aperture available.

If Canon puts out a zoom which goes to 500, it will be a success, whether it's with a larger general population or just a niche group of shooters, it will still be a top value lens. How many Canon FF lenses can you think of in the past 15 years which have been less than very good?


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 1, 2020)

Hard times ahead for me ($$$) if this zoom is:
- as good as the 100-400  (no doubt about this, it will !)
- as lightweight as the 100-400 (some doubts...)
- as compact as the 100-400 (some doubts too)


----------



## Dragon (Feb 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> Unless close-ish in price to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 mm offerings, a Canon version won't kill anything. These options are not nearly as bad as you make them sound and there is a large amount of people who do telephoto casually enough to not be able to justify spending above 1k.


I didn't say they were bad, just that they area what they are. I have the Tamron 150-600 and the EF-100-400L II. So long as the body will support f/8 AF, the 100-400 is sharper across the frame at 560 with the 1.4 TC and it is also sharper in the center at 400 (but not that much). The point I was making is that you don't buy much between 400 and 600 with any of the 150-600 lenses, so if Canon makes a very sharp 100-500, it will be quite popular, particularly if it is priced similarly to the EF 100-400L II. The low end 150-600s have no weather sealing, so in a bit different market. The Sigma 150-600 sports underperforms the 100-400 L II at the short end and offers very similar performance at the long end (with a 2/3 stop advantage), but it weighs almost twice as much. The Sigma 60-600 is in some ways the most interesting, but it still underperforms the 100-400 all the way from 100-800 and while priced similarly, it still weighs almost twice as much. And that discussion is only about sharpness. When it comes to AF, the 100-400 wins pretty much hands down, even at 560mm (with an f/8 body) and most folks looking for this kind of reach are also looking for fast, accurate AF.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 1, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Hard times ahead for me ($$$) if this zoom is:
> - as good as the 100-400  (no doubt about this, it will !)
> - as lightweight as the 100-400 (some doubts...)
> - as compact as the 100-400 (some doubts too)


It will likely have a larger objective lens (and filter), but depending on the design, it might not be any longer when closed (it will be longer at 500).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2020)

Copied this from another thread. I am not advocating this lens but just pointing out that Sony has rewritten the book for IQ quality of 600mm zooms. There is much compelling evidence from reliable posters on sites that the lens doesn't lose sharpness from 400mm to 600mm. A couple of reliable review sites that make MTF measurements show that 600mm keeps up the IQ
https://www.pcmag.com/review/368812/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss
https://uk.pcmag.com/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-63-g-oss/123501/sony-fe-200-600mm-f56-63-g-oss
And TDP has tested it.








Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




It's actually cheaper than their 100-400mm. So, why am I not rushing to buy it? First, I don't like Sony bodies; secondly, it's too heavy and too long. But, it does show that sharp 600mm zooms are possible and Canon should make one.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Copied this from another thread. I am not advocating this lens but just pointing out that Sony has rewritten the book for IQ quality of 600mm zooms. There is much compelling evidence from reliable posters on sites that the lens doesn't lose sharpness from 400mm to 600mm. A couple of reliable review sites that make MTF measurements show that 600mm keeps up the IQ
> https://www.pcmag.com/review/368812/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss
> https://uk.pcmag.com/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-63-g-oss/123501/sony-fe-200-600mm-f56-63-g-oss
> And TDP has tested it.
> ...


Yes, that is a nice lens and a couple of pounds lighter than the Sigma Sports 150-600. No doubt whatever Canon does will be aimed at this lens. The question of 500 or 600 will be mostly one of aperture. 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 translates to a 95mm filter either way and unlikely that they will go bigger than that. Given the push for small in mirrorless, they might go for 500 at 5/6.3 and squeeze it into an 86mm front element. Also would expect to see an extending design much like the EF 100-400 to keep the transport size down, but time will tell. Whatever FL choice they make, the lens will be designed to support high res bodies.


----------



## tron (Feb 2, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> They already make a 560 f/5.6 DO....it is called a 400 f/4 DO with a 1.4TC. Why waste effort on another lens that would just duplicate that option and decrease versatility? The front element of a 600/5.6 would be larger than the 400DO and the lens would be longer than the 400/1.4TC. I guess maybe the bare 600/5.6 could have better IQ than the 400/1.4TC but I don't see it being that big of a difference to matter. 400DOII even with 2xTC is super sharp and contrasty especially on a consistently focusing MILC be it A9 or EOS R camera.


400DOII + 1.4XIII weighs about 2.5 Kg vs the 1.6Kg of Nikon's 500PF.
IQ is great but AF isn't perfect with teleconverters.
EOS R may focus correctly but it is not suitable for bird photography.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 2, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> A RF 100-500 f/4?
> 
> No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!



Have you priced an EF 200-400mm f/4?


----------



## mpmark (Feb 2, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> A RF 100-500 f/4?
> 
> No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!



Thats a disaster of formula for people who want it to stay hand holdable and a walk around lens. I wouldn't even want that, let alone the sticker price.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Thats a disaster of formula for people who want it to stay hand holdable and a walk around lens. I wouldn't even want that, let alone the sticker price.



Why? How heavy would it be?


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you priced an EF 200-400mm f/4?



I've used it several times in the field. Excellent glass. Best super telephoto Canon has made imho.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Why? How heavy would it be?


Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.



The new 600mm f/4 III is exceptionally light for what it is.

I know it would be a heavy lens, and it would cost north of $13000. And it's likely never going to be built that fast. I expect it to be a 100-500 variable f/3.5 - 5.6. Hopefully L quality but i wouldn't be suprised if it was a sub $2000 lens. ($1799 if i were to guess).

But just imagine a 100-500mm f/4 with TC. It would be every wildlife photographers dream lens. As exciting as the Canon 200-400 f/4 was when it first came out -- only this would be for their shiny new RF system. But yeah...very little chance of it happening.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> A RF 100-500 f/4?
> 
> No...no, they wouldn't do it. That would be too crazy!




I think it was implied that Canon was aiming future supertele zoom at the various sub-$2K superteles out there.

Also, if you are prepared to drop north of $10k (which is what a 100-500 f/4 would cost), you wouldn't do it for a 5x zoom multiple design. It simply wouldn't be as sharp as it could be.

Something relatively inexpensive (still talking $1500-2500 here) that natively gets RF users to 500 or 600 seems far more needed and likely to occur to me.

- A


----------



## Dragon (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> The new 600mm f/4 III is exceptionally light for what it is.
> 
> I know it would be a heavy lens, and it would cost north of $13000. And it's likely never going to be built that fast. I expect it to be a 100-500 variable f/3.5 - 5.6. Hopefully L quality but i wouldn't be suprised if it was a sub $2000 lens. ($1799 if i were to guess).
> 
> But just imagine a 100-500mm f/4 with TC. It would be a wildlife photographers dream lens. As exciting as the Canon 200-400 f/4 was when it first came out this would just as big for the RF system. But yeah...very little chance of it happening.


Frankly, with the increased AF performance, improved high ISO performance, and increased resolution coming down the road I would rather have the smaller lens if it is nice and sharp. All too often, f/4 does not offer enough DOF to get an adequate portion of an animal in focus so the faster lens will be stopped down a lot of the time anyway. Long, sharp, and sensibly portable is the hallmark of the 100-400 and is also the key to a large market with this one.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I think it was implied that Canon was aiming future supertele zoom at the various sub-$2K superteles out there.
> 
> Also, if you are prepared to drop north of $10k (which is what a 100-500 f/4 would cost), you wouldn't do it for a 5x zoom multiple design. It simply wouldn't be as sharp as it could be.
> 
> ...



Perhaps. But there are zooms...and there are ZOOMS.

I know it's not apples to apples, but the 200-400 f/4 is not your average zoom. And lets not forget someone once made a 200-500 f/2.8. Yes, it's crazy and weighs as much as a panzer tank. But they made it....So, it can be done. Should it be done? Well, as a wildlife photographer I say it should. Let the market decide.

Hell, I know a few people who have the 200-400 TC and they claim IQ is better than the primes and it's significantly more versatile in the field.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Frankly, with the increased AF performance, improved high ISO performance, and increased resolution coming down the road I would rather have the smaller lens if it is nice and sharp. All too often, f/4 does not offer enough DOF to get an adequate portion of an animal in focus so the faster lens will be stopped down a lot of the time anyway. Long, sharp, and sensibly portable is the hallmark of the 100-400 and is also the key to a large market with this one.



I think you'll get what you want...Canon knows the numbers. The 100-400 II outsold the 200-400 f/4 TC by a factor of 100 or more. 

I was just hoping for a halo product. Something to blow everyone out the water. I knew at the time of writing it that it wasn't a realistic thing. Perhaps just aspirational.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> I think you'll get what you want...Canon knows the numbers. The 100-400 II outsold the 200-400 f/4 TC by a factor of 100 or more.
> 
> I was just hoping for a halo product. Something to blow everyone out the water. I knew at the time of writing it that it wasn't a realistic thing. Perhaps just aspirational.


At some point, you may get your halo product, but I doubt it will be the first long zoom for the R. I am thinking that kind of thing will come along with an R1 with a big and strong enough body to swing that kind of glass around. In the meantime, the EF big whites will work just fine. As I have said before, I love my 800L, but portable it is not.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> At some point, you may get your halo product, but I doubt it will be the first long zoom for the R. I am thinking that kind of thing will come along with an R1 with a big and strong enough body to swing that kind of glass around. In the meantime, the EF big whites will work just fine. As I have said before, I love my 800L, but portable it is not.



I take your point and agree completely -- everything I have said hinges on a future R1 exceeding all expectations and taking the crown from the 1dx III. 

But hey...if the R5 comes in as rumored...*fingers crossed*...I can't see how the R1 won't be even better!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Perhaps. But there are zooms...and there are ZOOMS.
> 
> I know it's not apples to apples, but the 200-400 f/4 is not your average zoom. And lets not forget someone once made a 200-500 f/2.8. Yes, it's crazy and weighs as much as a panzer tank. But they made it....So, it can be done. Should it be done? Well, as a wildlife photographer I say it should. Let the market decide.
> 
> Hell, I know a few people who have the 200-400 TC and they claim IQ is better than the primes and it's significantly more versatile in the field.




But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.

What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.

They need a modest 200-500 5.6 or 200-600 f/6.3 to fill a missing piece in their lineup.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2020)

Local hearsay but it's relevant. Yesterday, I mixed with plenty of birding photographers. It was mainly Canon 100-400mms and Tamrons and Sigmas. Two guys next to me in a hide had 500mm f/4 Nikons and Canons, and were moaning about the weight. One was thinking of going over to Olympus. They then got excited at seeing the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. Pros will continue to use the big f/2.8s and f/4s but the much larger amateur audience have flocked and will continue to flock over to the lighter cheaper lenses. Tamron and Sigma set the revolution going with their cheap and good 150-600mms. Canon responded with the much delayed 100-400mm II. Nikon has lightweight primes and Sony its revolutionary 200-600mm. The lady next to me in a hide this morning waited 8 months to get her 500/5.6 PF delivered this week. When I started with long telephotos 8 years ago, there were very few suitable lenses with IS outside of the big whites. The genie is out of the bottle, and I have no doubt Canon will rise to the challenge.


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Given the zoom, probably at least as heavy as a 600 f/4. The newest, lightest one of those is just under 7 lb. The 200-400 is 8 lb.


Even more! The 200-400 was heavier than the 500!


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 3, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Local hearsay but it's relevant. Yesterday, I mixed with plenty of birding photographers. It was mainly Canon 100-400mms and Tamrons and Sigmas. Two guys next to me in a hide had 500mm f/4 Nikons and Canons, and were moaning about the weight. One was thinking of going over to Olympus. They then got excited at seeing the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. Pros will continue to use the big f/2.8s and f/4s but the much larger amateur audience have flocked and will continue to flock over to the lighter cheaper lenses. Tamron and Sigma set the revolution going with their cheap and good 150-600mms. Canon responded with the much delayed 100-400mm II. Nikon has lightweight primes and Sony its revolutionary 200-600mm. The lady next to me in a hide this morning waited 8 months to get her 500/5.6 PF delivered this week. When I started with long telephotos 8 years ago, there were very few suitable lenses with IS outside of the big whites. The genie is out of the bottle, and I have no doubt Canon will rise to the challenge.



You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!

Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 3, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.
> 
> What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.
> 
> They need a modest 200-500 5.6 or 200-600 f/6.3 to fill a missing piece in their lineup.



I'd say after 6 weeks of testing a 400mm f2.8 IS III that the adapter to body connection was a little wobbly. Not enough to harm images, but enough to give a feeling that a true RF build would be worth the wait.

No quarrel with your point, and as I've posted elsewhere, an RF version of the 400 IS III is nothing more than an summer engineering intern modifying the rear housing and using flex circuits an inch longer.


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But Canon has those solutions today -- expensive superwhite of all shapes and sizes -- and they function perfectly on RF via adaptor use.
> 
> What Canon doesn't have (a long inexpensive zoom) is a threat to their day to day business. The 401mm barrier exists, 3rd parties and now Nikon have called their BS on it and there are multiple -500, -600 options out there for less money than Canon charges for their 100-400L II.
> 
> ...


Canon will always be more expensive than 3rd party lenses. Al they have to do is to make the above mentioned lens with very high IQ and as light as possible. YMMV,


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!
> 
> Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.


I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Why? How heavy would it be?



have you not seen the 200-400 F/4? this would be 100-500 F/4, even bigger! the 200-400 is 13k


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> You had Birders in a hide, complaining about a 500mm f/4's weight? Implying they were hand holding ... in a hide??!
> 
> Who does that? I mean...with so many tripods and gimbal heads. Sheesh.


They have to carry the gear around with them to get to the hide and it's a pain using it outside with tripods and gimbals.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2020)

tron said:


> I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.


Sorry, I missed this before I replied - I too could not believe he had missed the obvious.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

tron said:


> I think it must be obvious that people complaining in the place they met doesn't mean that they used their lenses only there. Just saying.



I guess anything is possible. Can't say i've encountered such people before...but I guess there always someone out there complaining their big, fast glass is just too big and too fast!


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> They have to carry the gear around with them to get to the hide and it's a pain using it outside with tripods and gimbals.



Hmm...Ok.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> have you not seen the 200-400 F/4? this would be 100-500 F/4, even bigger! the 200-400 is 13k



I've seen it. Used it. Recommend it! 

Yes it will be expensive, and heavy and ridiculously cool. 

So far, I don't see a problem.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> I've seen it. Used it. Recommend it!
> 
> Yes it will be expensive, and heavy and ridiculously cool.
> 
> So far, I don't see a problem.


You do not see it is the issue.
sigma 200-500/2.8 lens is a monster at around 18kg body mass. A 100-500/4.0 FF lens would be a pushing it at around 8kg -ish Still handholdable for you? Now imaging zooming while handholding at the same time. Not a practical lens.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You do not see it is the issue.
> sigma 200-500/2.8 lens is a monster at around 18kg body mass. A 100-500/4.0 FF lens would be a pushing it at around 8kg -ish Still handholdable for you? Now imaging zooming while handholding at the same time. Not a practical lens.



Ok, lets unpack because you've assumed a lot.

First off, the BIGMA 200-500 was a f/2.8. That's why it was so heavy. A similar f/4 would be significantly lighter. The BIGMA was also made in 2008 (probably designed 5 years before that). So we're talking 15 years or more. Many improvements have been made in material science, lens design and manufacturing to reduce the weight should it come out today.

Finally, I'm not saying it will be practical or handholdable. Or even that it will ever come out.

I'm saying it would be cool if it did.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Ok, lets unpack because you've assumed a lot.
> 
> First off, the BIGMA 200-500 was a f/2.8. That's why it was so heavy. A similar f/4 would be significantly lighter. The BIGMA was also made in 2008 (probably designed 5 years before that). So we're talking 15 years or more. Many improvements have been made in material science, lens design and manufacturing to reduce the weight should it come out today.
> 
> ...


The “bigma” was the Sigma 50-500mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_50-500mm_f/4-6.3_DG_lens now overtaken by the 60-600mm.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The “bigma” was the Sigma 50-500mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_50-500mm_f/4-6.3_DG_lens now overtaken by the 60-600mm.



Seems you are right. Having never owned or used any of sigma lens I figured BIGMA would be reserved for the actually Big...Sigma. The 200-500 f/2.8 and the 300-800 f/5.6. Those are truly BIGMA's (Big M'fing Sigmas)...but I guess a cheap 50-500mm can be big for some people too.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Seems you are right. Having never owned or used any of sigma lens I figured BIGMA would be reserved for the actually Big...Sigma. The 200-500 f/2.8 and the 300-800 f/5.6. Those are truly BIGMA's (Big M'fing Sigmas)...but I guess a cheap 50-500mm can be big for some people too.


The 300-800mm is nicknamed the “Sigmonster”. I saw someone struggling with one once. The bigma weighs only 1.84 kg, and is light by modern standards. In its time, 500mm was a long focal length for a hand-held lens to put it in perspective.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2020)

Go big or go home....


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The 300-800mm is nicknamed the “Sigmonster”. I saw someone struggling with one once. The bigma weighs only 1.84 kg, and is light by modern standards. In its time, 500mm was a long focal length for a hand-held lens to put it in perspective.


Sigmonster! I love it!


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Go big or go home....
> 
> View attachment 188539



Now come on...How is that, not the BIGMA!

That's not a lens...it's a plasma canon!


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Ok, lets unpack because you've assumed a lot.
> 
> First off, the BIGMA 200-500 was a f/2.8. That's why it was so heavy. A similar f/4 would be significantly lighter. The BIGMA was also made in 2008 (probably designed 5 years before that). So we're talking 15 years or more. Many improvements have been made in material science, lens design and manufacturing to reduce the weight should it come out today.
> 
> ...


massive, unwieldy lenses are cool. gotcha.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> massive, unwieldy lenses are cool. gotcha.


unwieldy...only for the puny.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Perhaps. But there are zooms...and there are ZOOMS.
> 
> I know it's not apples to apples, but the 200-400 f/4 is not your average zoom. And lets not forget someone once made a 200-500 f/2.8. Yes, it's crazy and weighs as much as a panzer tank. But they made it....So, it can be done. Should it be done? Well, as a wildlife photographer I say it should. Let the market decide.
> 
> Hell, I know a few people who have the 200-400 TC and they claim IQ is better than the primes and it's significantly more versatile in the field.


This is not meant to be a snarky comment but just to show what is happening in the world of Big White prices (the 200-400mm is a fabulous lens). The price of a new EF 200-400mm lens in the UK from WEX is £10,089. They have a lightly used grade 9 one on sale for £5445.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> This is not meant to be a snarky comment but just to show what is happening in the world of Big White prices (the 200-400mm is a fabulous lens). The price of a new EF 200-400mm lens in the UK from WEX is £10,089. They have a lightly used grade 9 one on sale for £5445.



Sounds like someone is going to be real happy when they pick up a 10k glass for an almost 50% discount!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Sounds like someone is going to be real happy when they pick up a 10k glass for an almost 50% discount!


Yes. I wrote somewhere else that it's a good time to pick up such lenses and a bad time to sell them. But, maybe it will get even better to buy and worse to sell in the future. Who knows, I wish I knew.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Yes. I wrote somewhere else that it's a good time to pick up such lenses and a bad time to sell them. But, maybe it will get even better to buy and worse to sell in the future. Who knows, I wish I knew.



What would you say is a prime example of a sweet-spot model that is a great buy used considering performance and comparable new pricing? 300 f2.8 IS I for $1500-2000 seems like a good example.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> I've seen it. Used it. Recommend it!
> 
> Yes it will be expensive, and heavy and ridiculously cool.
> 
> So far, I don't see a problem.



I do because now youve taken the rumored 100-500 which is most likely a answer to Nikons 200-500 5.6, Sigma's 150-600 6.3 and Tamron's 150-600 6.3 and Sony's 200-600 6.3 and youve just removed it and put that lens into a completely other catagory that is thousands of times more expensive and for a much smaller crowd. Yeah there is your problem.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 4, 2020)

The problem is many of us old timers have scrimped all our life and can just manage to afford a big white but now we can't handle the weight!  

Come on Canon, lets have a miracle lens just for us. Oh, and the camera too!

Jack


----------



## Pape (Feb 4, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> The problem is many of us old timers have scrimped all our life and can just manage to afford a big white but now we can't handle the weight!
> 
> Come on Canon, lets have a miracle lens just for us. Oh, and the camera too!
> 
> Jack


100-500 f4 miracle weight 1,5kg and miracle price 15k


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 4, 2020)

Oh, and I forgot, it needs to be so good that no other lens ever exceeds it so we don't have to worry about resale/new purchases!!

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> What would you say is a prime example of a sweet-spot model that is a great buy used considering performance and comparable new pricing? 300 f2.8 IS I for $1500-2000 seems like a good example.


Nice lens, 400g heavier than the II and not as good with the 2xTC. I'd personally go with the II if your budget is not tight.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I do because now youve taken the rumored 100-500 which is most likely a answer to Nikons 200-500 5.6, Sigma's 150-600 6.3 and Tamron's 150-600 6.3 and Sony's 200-600 6.3 and youve just removed it and put that lens into a completely other catagory that is thousands of times more expensive and for a much smaller crowd. Yeah there is your problem.



I have no idea what you're on about man. But by all means, keep going.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I'd say after 6 weeks of testing a 400mm f2.8 IS III that the adapter to body connection was a little wobbly. Not enough to harm images, but enough to give a feeling that a true RF build would be worth the wait.
> 
> No quarrel with your point, and as I've posted elsewhere, an RF version of the 400 IS III is nothing more than an summer engineering intern modifying the rear housing and using flex circuits an inch longer.


Yes and no. That would be a way to make an RF compatible lens, but a true RF lens would take advantage of the high bandwidth RF connectivity and at a minimum would have a lot of new electronics and probably a different IS motor as well. The RF system was designed to be fully compatible with EF lenses, native RF lenses have more features (some of which we haven't even experienced yet with current bodies).


----------



## mpmark (Feb 4, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> I have no idea what you're on about man. But by all means, keep going.



keep going? what part of 10-15K lenses vs 1-3k lenses are you having an issue coping with?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Yes and no. That would be a way to make an RF compatible lens, but a true RF lens would take advantage of the high bandwidth RF connectivity and at a minimum would have a lot of new electronics and probably a different IS motor as well. The RF system was designed to be fully compatible with EF lenses, native RF lenses have more features (some of which we haven't even experienced yet with current bodies).



You may well be right, although I have heard that the greater advantages of the large throat diameter of the RF accrue at shorter focal lengths.

It's fair to say that the current big whites perform as well on RF as on EF, and I have a hard time imagining performance improvements (but might hope for some size or weight improvement opportunities). I'd certainly be happy with stretching that one rear housing element even if the optical performance of the 400 IS III remained the same. Find a way to work more miracles and I'm even happier (like comparing the spirit of the RF 70-200 to its EF alternatives).

I'm not an optical designer, but maybe there's a way to have a slide-in TC not requiring an intervening tube with mounts at both ends?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> You may well be right, although I have heard that the greater advantages of the large throat diameter of the RF accrue at shorter focal lengths.
> 
> It's fair to say that the current big whites perform as well on RF as on EF, and I have a hard time imagining performance improvements (but might hope for some size or weight improvement opportunities). I'd certainly be happy with stretching that one rear housing element even if the optical performance of the 400 IS III remained the same. Find a way to work more miracles and I'm even happier (like comparing the spirit of the RF 70-200 to its EF alternatives).
> 
> I'm not an optical designer, but maybe there's a way to have a slide-in TC not requiring an intervening tube with mounts at both ends?


The improvement will be in IS because with the high BW interconnect (and probably a different IS control circuit in the lens) the lens IS can work with IBIS to improve stabilization, hence the IS improvement numbers quoted in the rumored spec for the R5. Canon has suggested in the past that this kind of thing will be available only on RF lenses and not on EF lenses, but maybe only a matter of degree of improvement.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> The improvement will be in IS because with the high BW interconnect (and probably a different IS control circuit in the lens) the lens IS can work with IBIS to improve stabilization, hence the IS improvement numbers quoted in the rumored spec for the R5. Canon has suggested in the past that this kind of thing will be available only on RF lenses and not on EF lenses, but maybe only a matter of degree of improvement.



Good point. Lens IS and IBIS that worked in concert (instead of fighting each other if not coordinated) might be a great idea. But for long lenses, my understanding is that lens IS is much more important and IBIS is inherently challenged to accommodate large image shifts from small angle shifts.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> You may well be right, although I have heard that the greater advantages of the large throat diameter of the RF accrue at shorter focal lengths.


The EF and RF have identical throat diameters of 54mm.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Good point. Lens IS and IBIS that worked in concert (instead of fighting each other if not coordinated) might be a great idea. But for long lenses, my understanding is that lens IS is much more important and IBIS is inherently challenged to accommodate large image shifts from small angle shifts.


No argument about the advantage of lens IS for large movement with a long lens, but I suspect IBIS may be able to help with refinement, and also may be in a better position to help with shutter shock given its proximity to the shutter. It sounds like we will soon get at least a good idea of what is to come and my bet is that availability will be sooner than July.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

mpmark said:


> keep going? what part of 10-15K lenses vs 1-3k lenses are you having an issue coping with?



I want the lens in the 10-15k range. I already said it. Can you cope with that?


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I do because now youve taken the rumored 100-500 which is most likely a answer to Nikons 200-500 5.6, Sigma's 150-600 6.3 and Tamron's 150-600 6.3 and Sony's 200-600 6.3 and youve just removed it and put that lens into a completely other catagory that is thousands of times more expensive and for a much smaller crowd. *Yeah there is your problem.*



No...it's actually still *your *problem.

I reject your premise that the 100-500 is a response to a bunch of shitty, super telephotos designed 5 years ago (except for the Sony 200-600).

Because here's the thing. I want Canon to create lens which sets the market. And you want them to make lens that follow the market.

and that...there is your problem.


----------



## Pape (Feb 5, 2020)

I was walking bit and got too much fresh air to my brains 
Figured what this new lense is.
Its 1:2 focus breath free macro lense .
Designed to cooperate with 30-100fps crop burst .
With 8 stop stabilation and super fast stack burst you can easily focustack handhold with high resolution RS
Thats why m6ii got crop burst and RP got stack ,they testing if those systems works before real launch.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> The problem is many of us old timers have scrimped all our life and can just manage to afford a big white but now we can't handle the weight!
> 
> Come on Canon, lets have a miracle lens just for us. Oh, and the camera too!
> 
> Jack



Rest assured, Canon will in all likelihood give you a RF 100-500 f/4.5 - 5.6. It will weigh 2kg so your old timey frame can carry it.  It'll cost $2000 so you won't have to dip deep into your saving.  IQ will be slightly better then the 100-400 II and people who spend way too much time on forums like this will still find a way to bitch and moan about it not being a big enough evolution.  



Pape said:


> 100-500 f4 miracle weight 1,5kg and miracle price 15k



If you build it, they will come.


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

Pape said:


> I was walking bit and got too much fresh air to my brains
> Figured what this new lense is.
> Its 1:2 focus breath free macro lense .
> Designed to cooperate with 30-100fps crop burst .
> ...



not exciting enough. Lets just rehash the 100-400 II and give it an extra 100mm on the long end. That'll get the lemmings blood pumping and the cash registers ringing!


----------



## Pape (Feb 5, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> not exciting enough. Lets just rehash the 100-400 II and give it an extra 100mm on the long end. That'll get the lemmings blood pumping and the cash registers ringing!


Well they promised new kind of macro lense soon ,and no leaks from that yet.


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

Yes why not? Even better why not a 8-1000mm f/2.8L IS that will be light and cheap?  

Canon should make that or they are ******* 

Seriously, if they make an EF 100-500 f/5.6L IS they will get my money! The lighter the better


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

tron said:


> Yes why not? Even better why not a 8-1000mm f/2.8L IS that will be light and cheap?



Geometry and physics is what I've been told.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 5, 2020)

Pape said:


> Well they promised new kind of macro lense soon ,and no leaks from that yet.



I'm starting to suspect the "unheard of!!!!" part of that macro lens is that it won't do macro


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> Geometry and physics is what I've been told.


Exactly that's why I should have included macro and T/S capabilities! What was I thinking??  

P.S AF T/S of course!


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

tron said:


> Exactly that's why I should have included macro and T/S capabilities! What was I thinking??
> 
> P.S AF T/S of course!



were you...thinking? Or are you...high?


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> were you...thinking? Or are you...high?


 CR guy beat me to it! See his new thread mentioning 10-1000 f/1.0L with embedded 1.4X/2X converter:
How have I missed them! 








Introducing The [CR0], our first branded clothing product


I've always wanted to do some kind of swag over the years, but I never actually put it in motion. For 2020, I have decided that I will be releasing new clothin



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## mpmark (Feb 5, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> I want the lens in the 10-15k range. I already said it. Can you cope with that?



you already have a 200-400 available for you with a 1.4x, a 500/4 and 600/4 if your money is burning a whole in your pocket, go buy that.

Canon has NOTHING in the 500mm 5.6 or 6.3 range in either EF or RF, where the competition has plenty to offer. Many are waiting for that lens. More so than you. You cope wit that.


----------



## Pape (Feb 5, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm starting to suspect the "unheard of!!!!" part of that macro lens is that it won't do macro


Thats why they release RF converters too 
It may be imposible make 100-400mm 1:2 without focus breathing so they made 100-500mm . Without 1:2 even canon cant name it macro.
100-500mm 1:2 macro is just on verge what can be done with new 2 focus motor tech !


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

mpmark said:


> you already have a 200-400 available for you with a 1.4x, a 500/4 and 600/4 if your money is burning a whole in your pocket, go buy that.
> 
> Canon has NOTHING in the 500mm 5.6 or 6.3 range in either EF or RF, where the competition has plenty to offer. Many are waiting for that lens. More so than you. You cope wit that.



 ...Mark -- buddy...take a few deep breathes and try to calm down. You seem upset, and it's brought the inner child out of you.
You do know Canon product strategy isn't determined by what a single user types on a rumor forum don't you?
I mean, you do know nothing I or you say is going to bring you the lens you want don't you?
Anyway, listen I hope you get your 100-500 f/5.6 or 6.3 or whatever else your little heart desires. You deserve it big buy!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 5, 2020)

Oh, you must be wrong! They listened to me and brought out the 400 DO II. I forgot to ask for it to zoom too, unfortunately.

Jack


----------



## sid.safari (Feb 5, 2020)

So you're on the 100-500 f/4 bus as well? 

Better start working out old timer!


----------



## Pape (Feb 5, 2020)

You mean F3,5 . Canon never made macro what is slower than that.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 5, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Oh, you must be wrong! They listened to me and brought out the 400 DO II. I forgot to ask for it to zoom too, unfortunately.
> 
> Jack


It will be interesting to see if Canon uses DO more extensively for long RF lenses to keep the size and weight down. The 400 DO II has very good IQ even with a TC.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 5, 2020)

Dragon said:


> It will be interesting to see if Canon uses DO more extensively for long RF lenses to keep the size and weight down. The 400 DO II has very good IQ even with a TC.


Lots are waiting on more DO's. I've enjoyed it but wish it had closer focus for bugs and some blind situations. Of course I have extension tubes but ... 

Jack


----------



## mpmark (Feb 5, 2020)

sid.safari said:


> ...Mark -- buddy...take a few deep breathes and try to calm down. You seem upset, and it's brought the inner child out of you.
> You do know Canon product strategy isn't determined by what a single user types on a rumor forum don't you?
> I mean, you do know nothing I or you say is going to bring you the lens you want don't you?
> Anyway, listen I hope you get your 100-500 f/5.6 or 6.3 or whatever else your little heart desires. You deserve it big buy!



I'm fine, I dont need your help, youre the one replying to all users on here with sarcastic remarks so I suggest you take a few deep breaths and show some respect.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 7, 2020)

This caustic stuff is not enjoyable; time to un-watch.

Jack


----------



## neonlight (Mar 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> Once again, this rumor must be true and I can prove it with a highly regarded scientific method.
> 
> 
> I just purchased the 100-400 Mk ii + 1.4 extender.


Yes, that method works for me too. Just got the 100-400 MkI when the II appeared. Just got the EF-S10-22 when the 10-18 appeared (but I think the 10-22 is good). But I'd say the 100-400 II is my best lens currently, had it a while now. Good results with the 1.4X but little use for BIF and shadowed areas as AF too slow, so don't often use it.


----------

