# Two new RF L mount lenses rumored for 2021 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 16, 2020)

> Canon Watch has added two new lenses to the RF mount roadmap for 2021, claiming some one of a kind telephoto and super-telephoto lenses are coming for the RF Mount.
> First up, an *RF 250mm f/2L IS USM*. This sounds good on paper, but I don’t think 250mm is a focal length consumers would understand, especially those that are currently using the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM, which is my favorite Canon lens by the way.
> Second up, an *RF 500mm f/2.8L IS USM*. I’m no engineer, but this would be a massive lens. We have not yet seen an optical formula patent for this yet.
> The third is the long-rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L USM. I have been writing about this lens for a while now and it continues to get mentions.
> Take this info for what it’s worth, but I guess anything is possible.



Continue reading...


----------



## docsmith (Sep 16, 2020)

Just applying the focal length/aperture, the 500 f/2.8 would have a front element diameter of 178 mm, the 600 f/4 = 150 mm, and the 500 f/4 = 125 mm. I would expect this to be expensive, but 28 mm is 1.1 inches, so the diameter would be 1.1 inches greater than the current 600 f/4.

But, what a statement lens. Love all three of these rumored lenses.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 16, 2020)

I really hope the lens is a 500 mm f4. I would buy it on the release date. A 500 mm f2.8 would be huge and too big.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 16, 2020)

*...RF 500mm f/2.8L IS USM*

I tremble just imaging what it would cost.

I heard it comes with a gym membership to help those who might not be able to shoot it handheld.


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

I will be very happy with these lenses because as I will not be interested I will not be tempted  
Thank you Canon!


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 16, 2020)

If they can figure out how to optimize that 500mm f2.8 size and weight, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would be the ultimate bid in flight/wildlife lens. It would take extenders and be a 700 mm f4 or a 1000 mm f5.6! What a beast! The ultimate shoulder hour, forest, rainy day wildlife lens! 

Just need to keep working out to carry this lens and gotta keep working another two years to afford it! 

Bob


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

A 500mm 5.6 DO , a 600 4 or 5.6 DO and a 800 or 1000mm 8 DO would make much more sense. Thankfully for my wallet I will not be tempted


----------



## ildyria (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm not convinced by the 250mm f/2.
For the 500mm f/2.8 there is already such monster by Sigma. This should give an idea of the size of such monster:


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 16, 2020)

@Canon Rumors Guy What makes the 200 F2 L your favorite? I was thinking of something like this for astrophotography, but that's not as common a use. What do you mainly use it for?


----------



## amorse (Sep 16, 2020)

Well, yes it's likely to be big and heavy, but let's see what this thing looks like in production. Canon has been pretty innovate with lens designs to overcome these sort of challenges, like how they were able to minimize the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 with a collapsible design. Who knows, maybe the 500 f/2.8 will come with its own landing gear to roll it around or some sort of harness to anchor it to your hips .

But seriously, I'm all for weird designs.


----------



## amorse (Sep 16, 2020)

ildyria said:


> I'm not convinced by the 250mm f/2.
> For the 500mm f/2.8 there is already such monster by Sigma. This should give an idea of the size of such monster:


Ah yes - the rocket launcher!


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 16, 2020)

ildyria said:


> I'm not convinced by the 250mm f/2.
> For the 500mm f/2.8 there is already such monster by Sigma. This should give an idea of the size of such monster:


These lenses are specifically designed to convert FroKnowsPhoto to a canon user. He can be working on his biceps while he's shooting. 

-Brian


----------



## richperson (Sep 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Canon Rumors Guy What makes the 200 F2 L your favorite? I was thinking of something like this for astrophotography, but that's not as common a use. What do you mainly use it for?



Not addressed to me, but I own it. Fantastic for most sports in less than ideal light, and also very nice for portraits.

And yes, I want all three of those lenses. But, probably would focus on the 70-135mm f/2.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm pretty sure there's no reason there can't be a 250mm F/2, and I'd definitely be more interested in that lens than a 200 F/2. I use a 24-70 and 70-200 for night time breaking news, and the 300mm f/2.8 isn't enough extra reach to make me wish I had it, but adding a stop of light and some extra reach would make a great case for keeping a supertelephoto on me for night work. Canon also has been focusing on making *all* of the RF lenses have something special that puts them over the top of EF lenses, so I'm confident this lens would make sense.

A really, really great night sports/news combination would be RF 28-70 F/2, RF 70-135 F/2, and RF 250 F/2. 

As for the 500mm f/2.8, now that's fascinating. If Canon can apply the same design principles of the EF 400mm F/2.8L IS III and the new 600mm, this might not be all that heavy of a lens. Maybe with the new lens designs they could pull off a 500mm f/2.8L IS that's only as heavy as the old 600mm F/4L IS? Add in DO or other designs and maybe it could be very manageable. This would be a dream lens for football, I know a lot of photogs who shoot with the 500 F/4 or 600 F/4 and sacrifice aperture for reach.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 16, 2020)

I hope this rumor dont imply that the 24 or a 35 f1.4 or f1.2 L lenses aren’t coming in 2021 (or earlier).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 16, 2020)

Ah instead of a smaller and lighter RF 500mm f/5.6 we will get a blackhole


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Sep 16, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I hope this rumor dont imply that the 24 or a 35 f1.4 or f1.2 L lenses aren’t coming in 2021 (or earlier).


I hope the same.. really hanging out for a 35mm f1.2


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2020)

There is no reason Canon can’t make both a 500 f2.8 and a 250 f2, they are similar statement lenses to the early EF lenses like the 200 f1.8 and the 50 f1.0 and the 1,200mm f5.6 and would make a lot of sense if launched with a 1 series R body.

But the prices are going to be eye watering and they are going to have to use DO elements to keep the size and weight down to manageable levels. I used to shoot tennis and it wasn’t unusual to see ten Canon 200f1.8 and f2’s in the photo pit, but I’d think 250mm might be a bit too long for them. Wide field Astro was another big market for the various super fast 200’s, indeed the very rare reverse engineered FDn 200 f1.8 version collect huge money because they don’t need power for the focus by wire af motor, though many of them have issues with cloudy elements due to age nowadays.

Of course this brings us neatly to the legendary and very rarely seen Canon 300mm f1.8. https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/
Scale that lens up 10-15% and you’d have your 500mm f2.8 DO.




PE 300mm f1.8. EF mount and AF.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I hope this rumor dont imply that the 24 or a 35 f1.4 or f1.2 L lenses aren’t coming in 2021 (or earlier).


I think it most likely they would accompany a 1 series R release, very low volume but high profile statement lenses.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> Ah yes - the rocket launcher!
> View attachment 192857


That's why it is called the SigZooka


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Sep 16, 2020)

woah....... 500mm f/ 2.8.....


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 16, 2020)

Where are the 1x Macros at around 100mm and 180/200mm focal lengths?


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 16, 2020)

Part of the reason I bought an RP was the hope that Canon or a third party would be releasing some smaller lenses. Looks like I'm going to have a long wait, Canon seems to be focusing on big "statement" lenses and nothing yet from Sigma, Tamron, etc.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 16, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Part of the reason I bought an RP was the hope that Canon or a third party would be releasing some smaller lenses. Looks like I'm going to have a long wait, Canon seems to be focusing on big "statement" lenses and nothing yet from Sigma, Tamron, etc.



The 24-105 STM, 35 STM and 85 STM are what I consider "smaller", which lenses and sizes are you looking for?


----------



## nchoh (Sep 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> These lenses are specifically designed to convert FroKnowsPhoto to a canon user. He can be working on his biceps while he's shooting.
> 
> -Brian



That, or Canon needs to figure out how to infuse musk oil into it's lenses.


----------



## noncho (Sep 16, 2020)

180/2 or 250 2.8 if we want to have smaller RF lenses.


----------



## derpderp (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm just waiting for the 24mm F1.2L. That will round out my collection of RF lenses just nicely.

(oh and the 14-28 F2 of course.)


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> Well, yes it's likely to be big and heavy, but let's see what this thing looks like in production. Canon has been pretty innovate with lens designs to overcome these sort of challenges, like how they were able to minimize the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 with a collapsible design. Who knows, maybe the 500 f/2.8 will come with its own landing gear to roll it around or some sort of harness to anchor it to your hips .
> 
> But seriously, I'm all for weird designs.


Pancake version.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2020)

Very tasty Canon please do the exotics over to RF and for me being Nikon user force Nikon to pull their socks up get more Z's out and do the same.

Canon really has stepped up to the plate recently - well done.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 16, 2020)

> Second up, an *RF 500mm f/2.8L IS USM*.



I think I got a hernia just reading that.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 16, 2020)

tron said:


> A 500mm f.5 DO , a 600 4 or 5.6 DO and a 800 or 1000mm 8 DO would make much more sense. Thankfully for my wallet I will not be tempted



Agreed! I've been waiting for the 600mm f/4 DO ever since Canon posted the mock-up of it a few years ago.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> Ah yes - the rocket launcher!
> View attachment 192857


Even more hilarious are the reviews of this lens on Amazon. They'd make you cry laughing.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 16, 2020)




----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Ah instead of a smaller and lighter RF 500mm f/5.6 we will get a blackhole


Such lenses could not be carried by you on the boat you had mentioned before not only for the fear of dropping them to the sea but for the fear of ... sinking the boat


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Part of the reason I bought an RP was the hope that Canon or a third party would be releasing some smaller lenses. Looks like I'm going to have a long wait, Canon seems to be focusing on big "statement" lenses and nothing yet from Sigma, Tamron, etc.


Sure but that way you have a nice back cap for all big RF lenses


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

DJL329 said:


> Agreed! I've been waiting for the 600mm f/4 DO ever since Canon posted the mock-up of it a few years ago.


They made 600mm 4 L IS III which weighs as their DO lens was intended to. But the length is an issue too. A DO version of this lens would be nice.


----------



## Ditboy (Sep 16, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I'm pretty sure there's no reason there can't be a 250mm F/2, and I'd definitely be more interested in that lens than a 200 F/2. I use a 24-70 and 70-200 for night time breaking news, and the 300mm f/2.8 isn't enough extra reach to make me wish I had it, but adding a stop of light and some extra reach would make a great case for keeping a supertelephoto on me for night work. Canon also has been focusing on making *all* of the RF lenses have something special that puts them over the top of EF lenses, so I'm confident this lens would make sense.
> 
> A really, really great night sports/news combination would be RF 28-70 F/2, RF 70-135 F/2, and RF 250 F/2.
> 
> As for the 500mm f/2.8, now that's fascinating. If Canon can apply the same design principles of the EF 400mm F/2.8L IS III and the new 600mm, this might not be all that heavy of a lens. Maybe with the new lens designs they could pull off a 500mm f/2.8L IS that's only as heavy as the old 600mm F/4L IS? Add in DO or other designs and maybe it could be very manageable. This would be a dream lens for football, I know a lot of photogs who shoot with the 500 F/4 or 600 F/4 and sacrifice aperture for reach.


250/2 would be the perfect match for the 28-70/ and the 70-135/2


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 16, 2020)

Ditboy said:


> 250/2 would be the perfect match for the 28-70/ and the 70-135/2



Agreed. I like that combination more as well because you both gain reach *and* gain a whole stop of light over the 24-70/70-200 combo. I don't think there's as compelling of an argument for using a 28-70 F/2, 70-135 f/2, and 200 f/2 combo, because you're gaining a whole lot of weight just to end up back at 200mm.


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2020)

These lenses show that Canon does not intend to antagonize their own EF big white teles so there must be hope for EF series too. At least I hope so!


----------



## dwarven (Sep 16, 2020)

The 70-135 would probably be an auto-buy for me.


----------



## juststeve (Sep 16, 2020)

A 500/3.5 might be practical. Its diameter would be the same as a 400/2.8. If DO-ed, perhaps it could be a bit shorter and lighter than the current EF 400/2.8 iii. That might be quite attractive in a world of 600/4s.


----------



## lexptr (Sep 16, 2020)

Too much statements, while lots of normal lenses are totally missing. Statements are good, but no need too much of them.


----------



## Chig (Sep 16, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I really hope the lens is a 500 mm f4. I would buy it on the release date. A 500 mm f2.8 would be huge and too big.


Yep 2.8 is unnecessary especially with mirrorless, f/4 makes more sense or even f/ 5.6


----------



## Chig (Sep 16, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> If they can figure out how to optimize that 500mm f2.8 size and weight, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would be the ultimate bid in flight/wildlife lens. It would take extenders and be a 700 mm f4 or a 1000 mm f5.6! What a beast! The ultimate shoulder hour, forest, rainy day wildlife lens!
> 
> Just need to keep working out to carry this lens and gotta keep working another two years to afford it!
> 
> Bob


And then you’d stop it down to f/8 so could get things in focus ‘cause the DOF would be paper thin LOL


----------



## gcrimmins (Sep 16, 2020)

Back in the days of manual focus lenses, Olympus made a 250mm f/2, and Nikon made a 300mm f/2. So even though Canon has not made either one, it's not like it's never been done before.


----------



## sanj (Sep 16, 2020)

Love the idea of BOTH these lenses. WOW.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 16, 2020)

I wonder if the two lens would be a 250 mm f2 and and 500 f4? The front element would be essentially the same size in both and that would save on manufacturing cost.


----------



## sanj (Sep 16, 2020)

Chig said:


> And then you’d stop it down to f/8 so could get things in focus ‘cause the DOF would be paper thin LOL


No. DOF is generally not a concern for me as the subject distance would be far enough. Wildlife.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 16, 2020)

I initially thought that they'd have to use DO to get the size & weight of the 2 long teles to reasonable levels. But they are making both as L lenses, so maybe they're going to make them all out of glass - really big, heavy & expensive - what Captain Ahab calls *"The Great White RRRRRs!"  *

Or maybe they're L lenses built with DO main element lens. This would be smaller, lighter, cheaper but also be softer in contrast and possibly resolution.

And I can't wait to see the 70-135 f2 ! I'll look forward to holding it, as I'd love to have it if it's not too outrageously big & heavy.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 16, 2020)

As one who almost bit on the 400 2.8 iii when joining Canon for RF, but recoiled at the adapter, and one who might be tempted by the "just right" fast pro lens:

250 f2 is *not *a "statement lens", it's a just right meat-and-potatoes everyday pro lens compromise between the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 (and 200 f2), with a lot more versatility.

f2 feels very different from the classic 300 and 400 2.8 so adds diversity - but see below that it is a good substitute. Also prevents direct price comparisons with standard 300 and 400 from other sources.
For me, it might answer the question of what RF lens I'd jump at to go beyond the RF100-500. A big gain in aperture might appeal more than a small gain, but far more utility than picking a 300 or 400 f2.8.
The 250 f2 with a 1.4x at 350 f2.8 effectively splits the difference between a 300 ($6000 before update) and 400 ($12k after update) . Could be a very sweet spot. *Priced at $10k*. I assume a modernized 300 f2.8 iii will be $8k (offered with a de-mountable RF mount revealing an EF mount - or maybe two versions - or maybe EF is done when the R1 is released). This commands a premium halfway to the 400.
500 f4 with a 2x TC is a sweet spot, too. With the RF100-500 putting that number in our minds, offering a fast 500 (and super fast below) is compelling.
This could be the justification for a 3x TC (750 f6). Collect 'em all!
Suggestion (prediction) for one promo after production is caught up will be to bundle a "free" TC or two. Even if not, this will be heavily promoted in the TC context as a 250/350/500 lens (f2/2.8/4). Those are easy numbers to market.
250 f2 is a fair alternative to the 200 f2 for indoor sports and such.
Without DO but with modern light weight techniques, should come in at about the 300 2.8 ii (2.4kg) and below the lightened 400 2.8 iii (2.8kg).
With these notes, I just sold one of these to myself - I'll be first on the list.
500 f2.8 is the true statement lens, and experts can advise where it's a better sideline lens than a 400.

500 f2.8 is 1.95 the volume and mass of the 400 f2.8 if simply scaled up (mounts don't scale). Price can do the same, but this should intro at $17,995 (50% more than 400), maybe a couple thousand more. Lightening lessons demonstrated on the 400 iii are critical for this.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 16, 2020)

Chig said:


> Yep 2.8 is unnecessary especially with mirrorless, f/4 makes more sense or even f/ 5.6


The 250 f2 _is _the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.


----------



## richperson (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> As one who almost bit on the 400 2.8 iii when joining Canon for RF, but recoiled at the adapter, and one who might be tempted by the "just right" fast pro lens:
> 
> 250 f2 is *not *a "statement lens", it's a just right meat-and-potatoes everyday pro lens compromise between the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 (and 200 f2), with a lot more versatility.
> 
> ...



They need a true sports R now, but I agree with the above. The 500 f/2.8 could be a lens that would draw some pros given nobody else makes it. I'm also guessing it won't be a much, if any, larger than the EF 400mm f/2.8 iii. The RF lenses produced to this point have generally been smaller or the same as their EF counterparts. I can't see that changing despite what some here think.


----------



## dwarven (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> The 250 f2 _is _the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.



And it's an 800mm f/4 mounted on a future R7 crop body with the 2x. Sounds pretty dang sweet to me.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> The 250 f2 with a 1.4x at 350 f2.8 effectively splits the difference between a 300 ($6000 before update) and 400 ($12k after update) . Could be a very sweet spot. *Priced at $10k*. I assume a modernized 300 f2.8 iii will be $8k (offered with a de-mountable RF mount revealing an EF mount - or maybe two versions - or maybe EF is done when the R1 is released). This commands a premium halfway to the 400.
> 500 f4 with a 2x TC is a sweet spot, too. With the RF100-500 putting that number in our minds, offering a fast 500 (and super fast below) is compelling.



All great points here, but this just really sold me on this lens. It really is a goldilocks lens--I find myself as someone who could use a 250 F/2 for indoor sports, a 350 f/2.8 for night field sports, and a 500 f/4 for daytime field sports or birding... This lens would really cover all of the bases I need for my different segments of work, while definitely being much smaller than buying a dedicated 400mm f/2.8.



dwarven said:


> And it's an 800mm f/4 mounted on a future R7 crop body with the 2x. Sounds pretty dang sweet to me.



Plus a 800mm f/4 on the 17mp 1.6x crop mode of the R5, which has been an absolute pleasure to use.


----------



## Joules (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> The 250 f2 _is _the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.


With the upcoming high-res R, you might not even need the TC. 90+ MP is some serious reach, and I could totally see Canon introducing lenses in the near future that will still perform well below the diffraction limit once they creep up their MP numbers above 100.

For those that are not interested, the EF variant of the more traditional focal length and aperture combinations do still exists. And some have also gotten a refresh fairly recently. Eventually RF will cover all it has to, but for the time being it makes total sense to push the technology further and offer the market something new that is different from what the countless EF users already have sitting on their shelves, ready to be simply adapted.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 16, 2020)

richperson said:


> They need a true sports R now, but I agree with the above. The 500 f/2.8 could be a lens that would draw some pros given nobody else makes it. I'm also guessing it won't be a much, if any, larger than the EF 400mm f/2.8 iii. The RF lenses produced to this point have generally been smaller or the same as their EF counterparts. I can't see that changing despite what some here think.


There are no free lunches. Mirrorless allows smaller size on the wide end, but not so much on the long end. In order to keep the 100-500L roughly the same size as the 100-400L, Canon went with a smaller max aperture at the long end. Here, the proposed new lens has the same aperture as the 400 but goes out to 500mm. Unless Canon employs DO or other exotic new technology, the lens will necessarily be (much) larger and (much) heavier. An earlier poster predicted 1.95x the weight. I think that Canon can cut that to 1.5x the weight, which still leaves us with a 9-10lb lens. 

As much as I'd love to have an f/2.8 lens that goes out to 500, 7lbs is about the max that I'm willing to consider. But like everyone else, I'm hoping that Canon can pull a rabbit out of its hat and shock the world.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Ah instead of a smaller and lighter RF 500mm f/5.6 we will get a blackhole



Consider the 250 f/2 with a 2x converter which would get you a 500 f/4 - maybe that's the play on this lens for those who've been on the fence for getting a big white. It'll be expensive enough to entice those holding out, but hopefully the combo will be less expensive than the 500 f/2.8.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 16, 2020)

Billybob said:


> There are no free lunches. Mirrorless allows smaller size on the wide end, but not so much on the long end. In order to keep the 100-500L roughly the same size as the 100-400L, Canon went with a smaller max aperture at the long end. Here, the proposed new lens has the same aperture as the 400 but goes out to 500mm. Unless Canon employs DO or other exotic new technology, the lens will necessarily be (much) larger and (much) heavier. An earlier poster predicted 1.95x the weight. I think that Canon can cut that to 1.5x the weight, which still leaves us with a 9-10lb lens.
> 
> As much as I'd love to have an f/2.8 lens that goes out to 500, 7lbs is about the max that I'm willing to consider. But like everyone else, I'm hoping that Canon can pull a rabbit out of its hat and shock the world.



I predict the 250 f2 will be 5.3 pounds (2.4kg - same as current 300 f2.8 that has not had the lightening treatment).


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 16, 2020)

wsmith96 said:


> Consider the 250 f/2 with a 2x converter which would get you a 500 f/4 - maybe that's the play on this lens for those who've been on the fence for getting a big white. It'll be expensive enough to entice those holding out, but hopefully the combo will be less expensive than the 500 f/2.8.


And compared to a big 250-500 zoom (think 200-400 f2.8) it can be significantly lighter as a "set" of prime lens(es).


----------



## zim (Sep 16, 2020)

500 f/2.8 comes with a free R5.... Well that's one way to get an R5

Weight? No problem that's what my man servant is for


----------



## AEWest (Sep 16, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I'm pretty sure there's no reason there can't be a 250mm F/2, and I'd definitely be more interested in that lens than a 200 F/2. I use a 24-70 and 70-200 for night time breaking news, and the 300mm f/2.8 isn't enough extra reach to make me wish I had it, but adding a stop of light and some extra reach would make a great case for keeping a supertelephoto on me for night work. Canon also has been focusing on making *all* of the RF lenses have something special that puts them over the top of EF lenses, so I'm confident this lens would make sense.
> 
> A really, really great night sports/news combination would be RF 28-70 F/2, RF 70-135 F/2, and RF 250 F/2.
> 
> As for the 500mm f/2.8, now that's fascinating. If Canon can apply the same design principles of the EF 400mm F/2.8L IS III and the new 600mm, this might not be all that heavy of a lens. Maybe with the new lens designs they could pull off a 500mm f/2.8L IS that's only as heavy as the old 600mm F/4L IS? Add in DO or other designs and maybe it could be very manageable. This would be a dream lens for football, I know a lot of photogs who shoot with the 500 F/4 or 600 F/4 and sacrifice aperture for reach.


I wonder if the 250 F/2 would come witha built in 1.4 tc?


----------



## peters (Sep 16, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There is no reason Canon can’t make both a 500 f2.8 and a 250 f2, they are similar statement lenses to the early EF lenses like the 200 f1.8 and the 50 f1.0 and the 1,200mm f5.6 and would make a lot of sense if launched with a 1 series R body.
> 
> But the prices are going to be eye watering and they are going to have to use DO elements to keep the size and weight down to manageable levels. I used to shoot tennis and it wasn’t unusual to see ten Canon 200f1.8 and f2’s in the photo pit, but I’d think 250mm might be a bit too long for them. Wide field Astro was another big market for the various super fast 200’s, indeed the very rare reverse engineered FDn 200 f1.8 version collect huge money because they don’t need power for the focus by wire af motor, though many of them have issues with cloudy elements due to age nowadays.
> 
> ...


Its funny to see that this lense got a lot of rather big scratches. Like its a cheap kit lense your throw around in your bag  And not a super rare super expensive and specialized piece of equipment :-D


----------



## richperson (Sep 16, 2020)

I still wish Canon would come out with a 120-300 f/2.8, or something like that. Hard to swallow that Nikon has such a useful lens and Canon doesn't.


----------



## Skux (Sep 16, 2020)

This is what we get for complaining about f/11 lol


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 16, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> PE 300mm f1.8. EF mount and AF.



Thanks for sharing that. I did not know there was a 300mm f/1.8 until I saw this


----------



## lexptr (Sep 16, 2020)

The IQ of 250 f2 should be outstanding, to make it a good combo with TC x2. Judging by TDP's IQ comparison tool, looks like the amazing 300 f2.8 lens performs more like a much cheaper zoom lens, when coupled with TC x2. It is still very good, but not as good as you'd expect from such a top-tier glass. No magic here. The impact should be considered. Possible TC x3, discussed earlier here, would be too much for any lens, I think. Probably that is the reason they don't make such TC.


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 16, 2020)

All 3 are fantastic lenses. I guess Canon will release the RF 70-135mm f/2 at some point. The RF 250mm f/2 will become 500mm f/4 with the 2x adapter. I am not saying Canon will make this lens but just in case they made it. Canon may make limited quantities of the RF 500mm f/2.8 like they did with the EF 1200mm f/5.6. I am thinking Canon will come up with the RF 500mm f/4 and RF 600mm f/4 before they release (if ever) the RF 500mm f/2.8. I would be personally interested in a RF 135mm f/2 or f/1.8 and a RF 200mm f/2


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 16, 2020)

I do own a EF 200mm f/1.8. I got fantastic portraits with 5D4 and this lens combo. The only gripe I have with the EF 200mm f/1.8 is the min focus distance which is 18 feet. Even though I sold all Canon bodies and some of the lenses, I am still holding on to the the EF 200mm f/1.8 and EF 600mm f/4 (Ver 1) with the hope to get a R5 or R5s someday


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Sep 16, 2020)

They seem hyper-focused on long lenses, but it seems like there's nothing wide even on the road-map.

I also want my 1:1 macro lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I do own a EF 200mm f/1.8. I got fantastic portraits with 5D4 and this lens combo. The only gripe I have with the EF 200mm f/1.8 is the min focus distance which is 18 feet. Even though I sold all Canon bodies and some of the lenses, I am still holding on to the the EF 200mm f/1.8 and EF 600mm f/4 (Ver 1) with the hope to get a R5 or R5s someday


The 1.8's have an unusual glass element in them and many have deteriorated badly over time. They have a cloudy/milkiness and the lens element is not available anymore. The f2 doesn't suffer the same fate.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> The 250 f2 _is _the 500 f4 you hoped for (with a 2x TC). That's why this lens makes more sense the more I think about it. It's also (almost) the 300 and 400 f2.8 you need. It's the Goldilocks lens.



Just make the 2x a built-in flip TC and you can stack a 1.4x or 2x behind it.

250 f/2
+ Internal flip TC to 500 f/4
Add External 1.4x to 700 f/5.6
or add External 2x to 1000 f/8


----------



## john1970 (Sep 17, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Just make the 2x a built-in flip TC and you can stack a 1.4x or 2x behind it.
> 
> 250 f/2
> + Internal flip TC to 500 f/4
> ...



That would be genius in my opinion if Canon produces such a lens. A 250 mm f2 lens with a built in 2x teleconverter that can be used with 1.4x and 2x external teleconverters. If they ever made such a lens I would buy that instead of a 500 mm f4.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> They seem hyper-focused on long lenses, but it seems like there's nothing wide even on the road-map.
> 
> I also want my 1:1 macro lenses.


RF 15-35mm f/2.8 (released)
RF 24-70mm f/2.8 (released)
RF 35mm f/1.8 (Released)
RF 35mm f/1.2 (Rumored)
RF 14-21mm f/1.4 (Rumoured)
RF 10-24mm f/4 (Rumored)
RF 28-70mm f/2 (Released)

Just a month or two ago people were complaining there were no long lenses.

***Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS Macro 1:1 (rumoured)***


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The 1.8's have an unusual glass element in them and many have deteriorated badly over time. They have a cloudy/milkiness and the lens element is not available anymore. The f2 doesn't suffer the same fate.


Seems the same case as with EF28-70 2.8L ?


----------



## chrisgibbs (Sep 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Canon Rumors Guy What makes the 200 F2 L your favorite? I was thinking of something like this for astrophotography, but that's not as common a use. What do you mainly use it for?



Much used lens by location portrait photographers for one.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 17, 2020)

More ridiculous lenses for RF if true. Stop dicking around and just release a 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 DO


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2020)

I rented the 600 f4 III from Roger a week before the COVID shutdown. Anything that Canon does that might put more of these beauties on the used market is fine with me.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 17, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> More ridiculous lenses for RF if true. Stop dicking around and just release a 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 DO


Read carefully. They just did hint at most of those plus a stunning $20k statement lens.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 17, 2020)

Have none of you guys held a 400 2.8 IS III? 
It's extremely light. 
Of course the 500 2.8 would be huge but I don't believe Canon would even be considering this lens if they couldn't keep the weight down to a manageable level.


----------



## gfuresz (Sep 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> @Canon Rumors Guy What makes the 200 F2 L your favorite? I was thinking of something like this for astrophotography, but that's not as common a use. What do you mainly use it for?



I am a professional astronomer who designs and builds lens systems for living and also a hobby astronomer who used to grind & polish telescope mirrors as a teenager. And of course I enjoy playing photography as a hobby. Canon prime telephoto lenses, speaking from many different layers of experience, are great and the 200mm f/2 is something we used in demanding scientific applications as we could have not designed and built a custom lens for the price. I have tested these lenses on stars, using interferometers in a so-called ‘full double pass’ setup and based on that result ended up building the 200mm into a spectrograph. In such application the light first travels from the focal plane of the lens through the front, gets collimated, then reflected back from a grating and then focused back again the focal plane - meaning any aberrations the lens have build up on top of each other in this double pass so become increasingly more apparent. The 200 f/2 worked just fine that way as well, and more than that. 
Colleagues use the older f/1.8 version and the new f/2 ones in wide field sky surveys (along with the 85mm). So the 200mm is just awesome, for that f-ratio it’s a marvelous design. The somewhat overlooked 400mm f/4 DO mark ii is also just a great lens, from an optical design and user-friendly perspective. I hope Canon brings DO to more of its telephoto lenses in the new RF series, and a 600or 500mm f4 DO would be awesome. Maybe with a built in 1.4 extender...
Although the RF lens mount helps in the design and performance of wide angle lenses a lot more than it does for telephoto lenses. But that’s a longer optical discussion for another time.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 17, 2020)

ildyria said:


> I'm not convinced by the 250mm f/2.
> For the 500mm f/2.8 there is already such monster by Sigma. This should give an idea of the size of such monster:



that's a rocket launcher.. quit trying to trick us.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 17, 2020)

There is always a bigger one. 
Zeiss APO-Sonnar 4/1700 T*


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 17, 2020)

70 - 135 f2.0 , with 8 stop ibis enabler ( like 28 - 70 f2.0) and no focus breathing ( like rf 70 - 200 is 2.8 ) would be dream lens.


----------



## Alam (Sep 17, 2020)

Berowne said:


> There is always a bigger one.
> Zeiss APO-Sonnar 4/1700 T*



Man, sigma's is a bazooka
that thing is a nuclear warhead


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 17, 2020)

God damn, I need to win the lottery...


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 17, 2020)

richperson said:


> I still wish Canon would come out with a 120-300 f/2.8, or something like that. Hard to swallow that Nikon has such a useful lens and Canon doesn't.


I had the Sigma 120-300 for quite a long time, it was a bit too heavy and slightly slower focusing than the new canon 100-400 but it was amazingly sharp. If canon put out one I would think it would be considerably lighter and have native autofocus and stability so would pretty much be amazing. Was my go to lens for owls at dusk and was still excellent with the canon 2x teleconverter.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 17, 2020)

A 500 f/2.8 DO would seem to be nearly a perfect lens. Long, bright and possibly still hand holdable. If it took me 10 years to save up for the 500 f/4 I think this would only be viable with a lottery win....fun to dream


----------



## canonnews (Sep 17, 2020)

stochasticmotions said:


> A 500 f/2.8 DO would seem to be nearly a perfect lens. Long, bright and possibly still hand holdable. If it took me 10 years to save up for the 500 f/4 I think this would only be viable with a lottery win....fun to dream


DO doesn't do much for the weight especially of the glass and the glass optics would be still freaking huge.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 17, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> More ridiculous lenses for RF if true. Stop dicking around and just release a 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 DO



Why is that so crucial for you, when the EF versions are fine for now? They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 24 - 105, etc.). I am happily using my adapted EF glass alongside my RF lenses, it's not a problem in any way.


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2020)

600 f/5.6 DO I understand*! (And I would be tempted). All the rest are a waste of resources. They can't be better than their excellent EF counterparts (and they cannot be mounted on cameras like 1DxIII and 5DsR   )

* Provided that they will make an EF version too!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 17, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> And compared to a big 250-500 zoom (think 200-400 f2.8) it can be significantly lighter as a "set" of prime lens(es).



Especially if they include a switchable teleconverter.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 17, 2020)

We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Sep 17, 2020)

I'm still dreaming of a 50 -200ish zoom..


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 17, 2020)

I now see that this essentially _*is*_ a 500 f4. But "chopped to provide the wide view, with the magnification available with a TC. Current 500 f4 is $9k. No reason for this to be more except unless improved like the 400 f2.8 iii was for lightening. $10k with both TCs would be nice.

I'd avoid an internal TC as adding needless weight and length to carry around all the time.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 17, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
> Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.



Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 17, 2020)

[email protected] canon rumors said:


> I'm still dreaming of a 50 -200ish zoom..



Try the handy RF 70-200 2.8. Take a step back for groups of people.


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.


Except the 500-600 range is not needless at all...


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The 24-105 STM, 35 STM and 85 STM are what I consider "smaller", which lenses and sizes are you looking for?


Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.


----------



## Dantana (Sep 17, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.


Interesting. I hadn't heard that. Most of the reviews I have read have been pretty positive. Good to know. The only thing holding me back on the 35 or 85 is that I already have those lenses covered in EF. I'm hoping that we see a smallish 50 soon, but it at least now feels like they are trying to hit the standard, pro, and ridiculous lenses.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 17, 2020)

The EF 400mm f/2.8 IS 1 has nearly the double weight of the much newer 400mm IS III - so why not? (5370g vs 2840g)
A 500 f/2.8 with the current technics should be lighter than the IS 1... and this was a top lens once....


----------



## Dragon (Sep 17, 2020)

Let's see, "a new kind of super telephoto". Maybe a 500 f/2.8 DO with a carbon fiber housing and an acrylic front element coming in at around 5 lbs. That would be a first, but would require a flat glass protective plate to keep the acrylic element from getting scratched (although plastic lens eyeglasses with hard coatings are remarkably tough). The RF 100-500 is 15% lighter than the EF 100-400 L II, so light weight seems to be in at Canon for everything but penis envy wide aperture primes.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 17, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.



Not the same at all. That "little" price difference is $1000 compared to Sony's excellent 200-600. And the extra 100mm is very useful for wildlife photography where you are almost always limited by focal length anyway, especially on full frame.


----------



## lexptr (Sep 17, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> ... They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF ....


Good point! And that what I would like to see from them. E.g. 200-600 f4.5-6.3, 300 f4 DO, 500 f5.6 DO, 600 f5.6 DO, 100 f2.8 (or f2) macro, 150 f2.8 macro, 180 f3.5 (or f2.8) macro. Just bring it to life and take my money! Imo it will sell much better than all those super-species with five-figure price tags.


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Let's see, "a new kind of super telephoto". Maybe a 500 f/2.8 DO with a carbon fiber housing and an acrylic front element coming in at around 5 lbs. That would be a first, but would require a flat glass protective plate to keep the acrylic element from getting scratched (although plastic lens eyeglasses with hard coatings are remarkably tough). The RF 100-500 is 15% lighter than the EF 100-400 L II, so light weight seems to be in at Canon for everything but penis envy wide aperture primes.


Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 17, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Why is that so crucial for you, when the EF versions are fine for now? They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 24 - 105, etc.). I am happily using my adapted EF glass alongside my RF lenses, it's not a problem in any way.


Adapted ef in my experience works better on the mirrorless than it does the ef mount. I love my mirror boxes and won’t be switching for a long time as I still can’t get myself to get rid of my 1d’s and I just got a 1dxmkiii but if Canon has done one thing right it is their adapters they are flawless and for people who want all this new boring clinical RF glass you just have to be patient or you can except that the EF glass is still incredible and use it till it dies


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 17, 2020)

600 2.8 & R7. I would use my house down-payment savings to get that combo.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 18, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Good point! And that what I would like to see from them. E.g. 200-600 f4.5-6.3, 300 f4 DO, 500 f5.6 DO, 600 f5.6 DO, 100 f2.8 (or f2) macro, 150 f2.8 macro, 180 f3.5 (or f2.8) macro. Just bring it to life and take my money! Imo it will sell much better than all those super-species with fife-figure price tags.



Well, that's your opinion, clearly not theirs, and they have the market research data, you don't.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 18, 2020)

tron said:


> Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...


True, but the 100-500 is 100mm longer and at 400 f/6.3, it has almost identical vignetting to the 100-400 at 400 and f/6.3. The 100-400 at 400 and f/5.6 is pretty dark in the corners (-1.5 stops). Both have 77mm filters and are the same overall diameter (within ,2mm) and the 100-500 is 15mm longer. No miracles, but it is still lighter and longer, so the trend is in the lighter direction. As to the 500 5/2.8, I was just throwing out some thoughts re the "a new kind of super telephoto" quote. Time will tell, but some weight reduction in big whites would be welcome. I have an 800mm f/5.6 L and it is a beast to carry around, much less to shoot hand held. My R5 is in shipping prep now, and the 800 f/11 looks interesting. I have several 500mm mirror lenses (Canon, Tamron, and Nikon) and a Nikon 1000mm mirror. I am curious to see if the R5 IBIS will make any of those lenses more suitable for hand holding. The Tamron is actually pretty sharp and it focuses close in. All are very small and light for their focal length.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 18, 2020)

tron said:


> Except 100-500 is f/7.1 at 500mm and f/6.3mm at 400mm so nice but no exactly miracles here...



100-500 will read f/5.6 @ 400mm if you change the aperture increments to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3 stops, but the aperture is wide open regardless. I tested it at both f/5.6 using the 1/2 stops setting versus f/6.3 using 1/3 stop setting by looking into the lens and pushing the DOF preview button – same opening size for both. But you do get a brighter exposure using 1/2 stops increments and f/5.6 versus 1/3 and 6.3 – I tested that in full manual. It's possible the physical aperture size is right between the two at f/5.95 – or it's also possible Canon is faking the 5.6 brightness in order to honor the 1/2 stop setting.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> [..] 100-500 is 15mm longer. No miracles, but it is still lighter and longer, so the trend is in the lighter direction. [..]


You're forgetting the 24mm needed for the EF-RF adapter, so it's actually 9mm shorter when used on a camera.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> 100-500 will read f/5.6 @ 400mm if you change the aperture increments to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3 stops, but the aperture is wide open regardless. I tested it at both f/5.6 using the 1/2 stops setting versus f/6.3 using 1/3 stop setting by looking into the lens and pushing the DOF preview button – same opening size for both. But you do get a brighter exposure using 1/2 stops increments and f/5.6 versus 1/3 and 6.3 – I tested that in full manual. It's possible the physical aperture size is right between the two at f/5.95 – or it's also possible Canon is faking the 5.6 brightness in order to honor the 1/2 stop setting.


1/3 increments are more precise. Even if you read f/5.6 the ISO needed for the same exposure as with 100-400 will be a little higher or the image will be slightly underexposed.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 18, 2020)

tron said:


> 1/3 increments are more precise. Even if you read f/5.6 the ISO needed for the same exposure as with 100-400 will be a little higher or the image will be slightly underexposed.



I tested it in full manual. SS/A/ISO all set to a fixed value and changing from 1/3 and f/6.3 to 1/2 and f/5.6 gives a brighter exposure. Canon might be jacking with the sensor gain without recording it of course.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I tested it in full manual. SS/A/ISO all set to a fixed value and changing from 1/3 and f/6.3 to 1/2 and f/5.6 gives a brighter exposure. Canon might be jacking with the sensor gain without recording it of course.


----------



## LocationImaging (Sep 18, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Just applying the focal length/aperture, the 500 f/2.8 would have a front element diameter of 178 mm, the 600 f/4 = 150 mm, and the 500 f/4 = 125 mm. I would expect this to be expensive, but 28 mm is 1.1 inches, so the diameter would be 1.1 inches greater than the current 600 f/4.
> 
> But, what a statement lens. Love all three of these rumored lenses.


Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!

Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.

We will see...

John Moore
Location Imaging


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 18, 2020)

tron said:


> View attachment 192887



This chart is for the default 1/3 aperture increments setting. When set to 1/2 increments, it does f/5.6 at 400. But I'm saying with either setting the lens aperture is wide open, so Canon must be applying gain to the exposure to brighten f/5.6.


----------



## LocationImaging (Sep 18, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Have none of you guys held a 400 2.8 IS III?
> It's extremely light.
> Of course the 500 2.8 would be huge but I don't believe Canon would even be considering this lens if they couldn't keep the weight down to a manageable level.


I held one for 5 1/2 hours last night on top of a monopod! No problem!

JFM


----------



## docsmith (Sep 18, 2020)

LocationImaging said:


> Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!
> 
> Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.
> 
> ...




The 400 f/2.8 would be 143 mm. 

Actual max diameters are be bit more as there is housing. TDP is a good resource, here is comparing the max diameter of the recent 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Really, pretty consistent, the basic formula for the front element give 143 mm and 150 mm for the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, respectively. Then, the max diameter listed on TDP is 169 and 176 mm. The exact same 7 mm difference. If we can assume the housing is that same 26 mm, then the 500 f/2.8 would be 201 mm diameter.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 18, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You're forgetting the 24mm needed for the EF-RF adapter, so it's actually 9mm shorter when used on a camera.


No argument, but I was referring actual length affecting weight. If you throw in the adapter, the 100-400 is even heavier.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2020)

docsmith said:


> The 400 f/2.8 would be 143 mm.
> 
> Actual max diameters are be bit more as there is housing. TDP is a good resource, here is comparing the max diameter of the recent 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Really, pretty consistent, the basic formula for the front element give 143 mm and 150 mm for the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, respectively. Then, the max diameter listed on TDP is 169 and 176 mm. The exact same 7 mm difference. If we can assume the housing is that same 26 mm, then the 500 f/2.8 would be 201 mm diameter.


ha ha that's an 8inch big telescope!  (although this has 200mm real glass diameter and its materials increase this) but still 20cm (OK 22cm) is almost the length of the 400mm DO II lens!!!!!


----------



## john1970 (Sep 18, 2020)

LocationImaging said:


> Was hoping someone would do the math. Thanks a bunch!
> 
> Just interested, how does the 400 f/2.8 stand against these diameters? I'm sitting here next to one but I'm too lazy to measure! When I travel with my 400 vs my 600, the 400 feels like a larger diameter lens vs the 600 being longer. When I fly, the diameter makes it difficult to transport the lens on the airplane as a carry-on.
> 
> ...



John,

You make a good point. I also find that the diameter of the 400 mm f2.8 is about the maximum size that I can comfortably take onto a plane. Even if they can reduced the weight of a 500 mm f2.8 to be manageable, the large diameter size would make it difficult to take on trips. For that reason, I personally would prefer a 500 f4, but we shall see what Canon releases in super telephotos over the next few years.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 18, 2020)

tron said:


> ha ha that's an 8inch big telescope!  (although this has 200mm real glass diameter and its materials increase this) but still 20cm (OK 22cm) is almost the length of the 400mm DO II lens!!!!!


Ha....ok, that got me wondering, which lens length would be closest to 201 mm.....I did not have to look far, the 70-200 f/2.8 III is 199 mm. 

But, that seemed off to me as I own the 500 f/4 II, so I just started playing with it and the dimensions I am quoting from TDP seem to correspond more to the lens hood than the actual front element. I measured my front element to be ~5.8" or 148 mm. TDP lists it at 170 mm or 6.7". That is about what I get for the lens hood to the actual knob on the hood or from the barrel to the bottom of the foot.

But, yeah, this is a big lens. But, honestly, what will keep me from buying one will be the price point.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2020)

I do have that lens but I am using it from the inside of my car or on a tripod most of the time. I rarely handheld it when I had to and got some nice pictures but it's heavy. When handholding I prefer to use my 400DO II or lately Nikon's 500mmPF 5.6


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Sep 18, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Try the handy RF 70-200 2.8. Take a step back for groups of people.


Not in my dream


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 19, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I really hope the lens is a 500 mm f4. I would buy it on the release date. A 500 mm f2.8 would be huge and too big.


I really hope this lens is 400mm F2.2 instead.  Would have a similarly sized front element at around 178mm. But... that’s 2/3 of a stop faster than F2.8. Probably would be weighting similar to the 400/2.8 IS II L. I would be seriously tempted...


----------



## Lance vdv (Sep 19, 2020)

Swap that 2.8 for a 5.6 and ill order it NOW!

Had so many issues travelling for work this year weight wise. My two dream lenses for RF this year would be 500mm f/5.6 and 300mm f/4. Both TINY and light......GO CANON GO


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2020)

They can make a 500mm 2.8 and be the best or they can make a 500 5.6 DO and be richer! My humble opinion. Of course they know better.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 19, 2020)

tron said:


> They can make a 500mm 2.8 and be the best or they can make a 500 5.6 DO and be richer! My humble opinion. Of course they know better.


Maybe they'll make both


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There is no reason Canon can’t make both a 500 f2.8 and a 250 f2, they are similar statement lenses to the early EF lenses like the 200 f1.8 and the 50 f1.0 and the 1,200mm f5.6 and would make a lot of sense if launched with a 1 series R body.
> 
> But the prices are going to be eye watering and they are going to have to use DO elements to keep the size and weight down to manageable levels. I used to shoot tennis and it wasn’t unusual to see ten Canon 200f1.8 and f2’s in the photo pit, but I’d think 250mm might be a bit too long for them. Wide field Astro was another big market for the various super fast 200’s, indeed the very rare reverse engineered FDn 200 f1.8 version collect huge money because they don’t need power for the focus by wire af motor, though many of them have issues with cloudy elements due to age nowadays.
> 
> ...




Possibilities for what, exactly, "PE" stands for:

PE = Physically Enormous
PE = Prohibitively Expensive
PE = The class required as a prerequisite to be able to handle this one
PE = Prototype EOS


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Where are the 1x Macros at around 100mm and 180/200mm focal lengths?



In the EF mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if the two lens would be a 250 mm f2 and and 500 f4? The front element would be essentially the same size in both and that would save on manufacturing cost.



The diameter might be the same, but the shapes would need to be entirely different if the material used for both had the same index of refraction.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

richperson said:


> I still wish Canon would come out with a 120-300 f/2.8, or something like that. Hard to swallow that Nikon has such a useful lens and Canon doesn't.



Sigma makes a pretty good 120-300/2.8 Sports in EF mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

tron said:


> View attachment 192887




Where does one place the line between f/4.5 and f/5 on such graphs? At the point where the ratio is first measurably narrower than f/4.5 (f/4.5001)? At the aperture halfway between f/4.5 and f/5 (f/4.7568)? Or just past the last aperture measurably wider than f/5 (f/4.9999)?

Where would the lines be on a graph that shows it in half stops?


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> In the EF mount.


EF 180 is just too slow for AF compared to Sigma 180mm OS(now discontinued) also lacks weather sealing, stabilisation and build is quite mediocre at best. As for 100mm L it sure can do with an RF update with new added features- higher max mag ratio.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Possibilities for what, exactly, "PE" stands for:
> 
> PE = Physically Enormous
> PE = Prohibitively Expensive
> ...



I had a video card that used a PE suffix for 'Platinum Edition'. It was a limited run, short supply, high demand item that most couldn't find it anywhere... it ended up being widely dubbed as the "Phantom Edition".


----------



## richperson (Sep 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Sigma makes a pretty good 120-300/2.8 Sports in EF mount.



Many seem to complain about the AF speed (slow) and sharpness (or lack thereof). And Canon should be able to optimize one for the RF mount, which should perform better and maybe be significantly lighter.


----------



## Skux (Sep 30, 2020)

Sorry wrong thread


----------



## geo07 (Oct 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


A 250 mm is a good idea : different from the 70-200 and not so big as 300mm. I am very intrested but the price should be very high, too high!! its sure i would prefer a 2.8/250 !! but canon want build and sell very high end lenses. I dont know if its not a mystake because no many people can buy lenses at 5000 euors or more....


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> EF 180 is just too slow for AF compared to Sigma 180mm OS(now discontinued) also lacks weather sealing, stabilisation and build is quite mediocre at best. As for 100mm L it sure can do with an RF update with new added features- higher max mag ratio.



Who uses AF when doing macro work? Set the lens at MFD and then move the camera on the focus rail until the subject is in focus.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 19, 2020)

richperson said:


> Many seem to complain about the AF speed (slow) and sharpness (or lack thereof). And Canon should be able to optimize one for the RF mount, which should perform better and maybe be significantly lighter.



I've seen excellent work done with it. Those who complain about softness on the long end need to either learn how to do AFMA (a necessary evil with longer focal lengths when using a DSLR) or improve their camera stabilization technique up to the level needed to shoot more demanding longer focal lengths.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Who uses AF when doing macro work? Set the lens at MFD and then move the camera on the focus rail until the subject is in focus.


Many people use AF for macro, it's very useful for butterflies, lizards, amphibians and snakes. For dead subjects (or even flowers in field) on table using MF with focus rails for stacking is appropriate but using rails and tripod in field in harsh conditions is slow and a sure shot method to miss the moment. For both these photos I relied on AF of 100mm L and both were shot during Monsoons in western ghats in forest filled with fog(technically they were clouds that bring monsoon rains with 100% humidity). 


Nyctibatrachus petraeus (3) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


IMG_9039 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Many people use AF for macro, it's very useful for butterflies, lizards, amphibians and snakes. For dead subjects (or even flowers in field) on table using MF with focus rails for stacking is appropriate but using rails and tripod in field in harsh conditions is slow and a sure shot method to miss the moment. For both these photos I relied on AF of 100mm L and both were shot during Monsoons in western ghats in forest filled with fog(technically they were clouds that bring monsoon rains with 100% humidity).
> 
> 
> Nyctibatrachus petraeus (3) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
> ...



And the first one shows a fair amount of camera movement.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> And the first one shows a fair amount of camera movement.


There is quite a bit of flowing water over the Wrinkled/night frog which might be reason for loss of sharpness, males of these frogs do prefer to live on edges of streams. Also they are active at night and they are very sensitive to light which makes capturing males calling very difficult. Couple more frogs shot with macro lenses and with AF.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Who uses AF when doing macro work?


I use it. Example?






Eos R 1/1600 @ f/8
Sigma 105 with extension tube, uncropped horizontally.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 20, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> I use it. Example?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also use AF when taking macro or 1:2 magnification photos. In fact, I love the freedom of handheld shots without a flash, and using AF with dual IS is what I rely on for a sharp photo with smooth blurred backgrounds.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 20, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I also use AF when taking macro or 1:2 magnification photos. In fact, I love the freedom of handheld shots without a flash, and using AF with dual IS is what I rely on for a sharp photo with smooth blurred backgrounds.


Getting the head/eyes in focus is usually critical on insect macro shots. In the past I’ve always had to use MF to achieve this, but does the new eye AF work with bugs? Haven’t tried it yet.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 10, 2021)

It is silence on those lens. May be in 2022+ ?


----------

