# Canon officially announces the development of the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, 1.4x and 2.0x extenders



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2020)

> The Company will Also Develop Seven RF Lenses and Two RF Lens Extenders in 2020
> MELVILLE, NY, February 12, 2020 – Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced that its parent company, Canon Inc., is developing the highly anticipated Canon EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera. The camera will feature a newly designed CMOS sensor and new image processor, along with new state-of-the-art optical technologies the company has been able to cultivate through its long history of groundbreaking camera and digital imaging solutions development. In addition, Canon plans to release seven RF lenses and two RF lens extenders that are currently in development. These new photography tools will help to continue to strengthen the EOS R system and cement the RF mount as an industry leader.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


*******. I tell ya!!


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 13, 2020)

Hoping for a 1:1 macro lens soon.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2020)

marathonman said:


> *******. I tell ya!!



Yep, it's over!


----------



## marathonman (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yep, it's over!


Even Samsung has 8k. In a telephone. With a direct print button. For less than the cost of 1 of the memory cards the R5 uses.
Dooooooooomed.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 13, 2020)

I see the lens, and it reminds me of the EF 100-400 II. Similar size, probably similar sharpness. 

same diameter. 400 at f/5.6 requires a 71 mm entrance pupil. And, 500 at f/7.1 also requires about a 71 mm entrance pupil.
should fit nicely in the bag.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..

Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.



f/holy hell it better be sunny out!


----------



## Pape (Feb 13, 2020)

Maybe all new lenses canon launches now are all macro lenses too


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 13, 2020)

Glad I waited, I was going to get the 70-200, but in truth the 100-500 (completely different lens, no argument there) is a better fit to travel alongside the 24-105L. Hoping for a 10-24L in the near future


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.



If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Glad I waited, I was going to get the 70-200, but in truth the 100-500 (completely different lens, no argument there) is a better fit to travel alongside the 24-105L. Hoping for a 10-24L in the near future



I’d agree for a typical 70-200 but the 6” RF70-200 is so handy as a near normal lens that the 100-500 won’t provide. 

“Both”


----------



## brad-man (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.


I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.


I know all of that. I was hoping for an improvement over the 100-400 II. Thus my statement that I was 'hoping for more..' At least my 100-400 II can do dual duty between the EOS-R and my 5D4. I was hoping for something really different.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm



I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> f/holy hell it better be sunny out!


Not a problem on Deccan plateau even during monsoons... in Western ghats even in summers forget about it.

On serious note, I am curious about close focusing capabilities of this lens and how it compares to EF 100-400mm II lens.


----------



## Pape (Feb 13, 2020)

Adding even one 1cm more canon optical quality front lense diameter would increased weigth and price lot . 70mm front lense is perfect for hobbyists


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’d agree for a typical 70-200 but the 6” RF70-200 is so handy as a near normal lens that the 100-500 won’t provide.
> 
> “Both”


And the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter gives you a nice 140-400mm/5.6... except it looks like the TCs won't fit! Have to buy both anyway dammit!


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> And the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter gives you a nice 140-400mm/5.6... except it looks like the TCs won't fit! Have to buy both anyway dammit!



Why do you say they won’t fit?


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Why do you say they won’t fit?


They protrude into the lens and IIRC the RF 70-200mm/2.8 has elements at the very back.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 13, 2020)

This is damned good news


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> They protrude into the lens and IIRC the RF 70-200mm/2.8 has elements at the very back.


I see you are correct. Darn, I’ll just have to buy the 100-500!


----------



## Pape (Feb 13, 2020)

Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 13, 2020)

Any idea if this is an extending barrel?


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 13, 2020)

Interesting to see that there are still 5 (five) lines free in the lens roadmap for 2020 
Let's see if they'll be filled up and with what of the rumored stuff...


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Disappointingly the TCs lack the matte metal Finish at their rear that matches the R mount. The lenses and control ring EF adapter all have this. 

What lenses will the TCs serve? Could there be a RF300 f 2.8 on the way?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 13, 2020)

Pape said:


> Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?



It could be a lock ring like the 100-400 LII has.


----------



## Stuart (Feb 13, 2020)

http://image.canon/  - coming in April 2020


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 13, 2020)

Pape said:


> Does this lense got two control ring or what is that between rubber rings?


It’s a zoom lock, like the 100-400 has.


----------



## 6degrees (Feb 13, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Glad I waited, I was going to get the 70-200, but in truth the 100-500 (completely different lens, no argument there) is a better fit to travel alongside the 24-105L. Hoping for a 10-24L in the near future




Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L


----------



## Daner (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> f/holy hell it better be sunny out!



That combination works well enough even when it is moony out!


----------



## Daner (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Disappointingly the TCs lack the matte metal Finish at their rear that matches the R mount. The lenses and control ring EF adapter all have this.
> 
> What lenses will the TCs serve? Could there be a RF300 f 2.8 on the way?



My question exactly. It seems odd to announce them at this point when they don't seem to be compatible with any currently available lenses. It will be interesting to see how well they work with the RF 100-500, and if they can be stacked.


----------



## Daner (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.



I have used that exact combo for a while with my EOS R. 100-400 with the EF-RF adapter, or 140-560 with the 1.4 TC and the EF-RF adapter. We don't have specifications yet, but I am pretty sure that the RF 100-500 will be smaller and lighter than the 100-400 plus the adapter, while offering comparable light-gathering ability between 100 and 400, with additional reach. My primary question is whether it will retain the close-focus ability of the 100-400.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 13, 2020)

Daner said:


> My primary question is whether it will retain the close-focus ability of the 100-400.


The focus limiter suggests an MFD of 3.0 m, so apparently not. However the 100-400 has massive focus breathing, so if they've managed to improve on that it might not be quite as bad as the MFD implies.


----------



## ozturert (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.


Your combo gives you 560mm f8, this lens will give you 500mm f7.1, without teleconverter. Not a huge difference, I'd say but you won't need teleconverter.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 13, 2020)

We're developing 7 lenses for release in 2020............ Yahoo!! 

But they are all a secret and we're only telling you what one of them is.......... What??


----------



## BurningPlatform (Feb 13, 2020)

Daner said:


> That combination works well enough even when it is moony out!
> View attachment 188653


It is always sunny on the moon, though, apart from the lunar eclipse.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 13, 2020)

Okay, I get that f7.1 isn’t a big deal for a mirrorless full frame camera, but for an “L” lens?

Doesn’t say “L” to me.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 13, 2020)

BurningPlatform said:


> It is always sunny on the moon, though.


----------



## gzroxas (Feb 13, 2020)

Has anyone noticed that it seems like there are 4 rings? (Zoom, Focus, Control Ring and...?)


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 13, 2020)

gzroxas said:


> Has anyone noticed that it seems like there are 4 rings? (Zoom, Focus, Control Ring and...?)


Tension


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I see you are correct. Darn, I’ll just have to buy the 100-500!



Or buy the R5 - with 45MP, you won't need a teleconvertor.
From my experience with the 5Ds - cropping gives a better quality output than using a teleconvertor anyway.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Okay, I get that f7.1 isn’t a big deal for a mirrorless full frame camera, but for an “L” lens?
> 
> Doesn’t say “L” to me.



Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 *but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off* is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…

The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.


----------



## Memdroid (Feb 13, 2020)

I hope the upcoming 2020 RF lenses include the 24mm and 35mm L primes!


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8



I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass


----------



## HaroldC3 (Feb 13, 2020)

The truth will be in the sales as to whether or not f7.1 was a poor decision.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.


Ah, if only life was that simple. Most lenses do not behave in a linear fashion, though we won't know until it's released...


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 13, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass



A 100–500mm f/5.6 would be much larger and more expensive than the current EF 100–400mm, with a 90mm front element required. I guess f/6.3 could've been doable.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 13, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> I dont use extenders so seeing a f7.1 is disappointing as some of what I do is in poorish light - the focal lengths would have been VERY useful. Hvae to agree with the comment this seems like an odd f value for L-Glass


Not at all. This lens is in the same size and approximate weight class as the 70-200/2.8L and the 100-400L. They all have the same aperture size and all take 77 mm filters; 25% longer (than 400) roughly corresponds to 2/3 stop. Or 2/3 of a 1.4x TC, if you like.



brad-man said:


> Ah, if only life was that simple.


Actually it is, in this case.

FWIW this is *exactly* what I wanted to see - slightly longer than the 100-400 but no (or very little) bigger.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 13, 2020)

Are we going to see a flurry of cheaper compact lenses now to pad the system out?

I'd sure like to see some fast primes (24, 35, 135) and and another f2 zoom first.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 13, 2020)

To all those complaining about a slow L zoom, just pick any 2 of these 3: size, price, optical quality.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 13, 2020)

On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm. Not sure if this is good marketing for Canon.
I know that its just a bonus to have an extra 100mm of the weight and price is about the same as the EF 100-400.
But if Canon released a bit smaller 100-400 with 5.6 at long end, everyone would be happy.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 13, 2020)

Of course the biggie here, what are those extenders going to go on. Surely something brighter than the 100-500mm. As fun as a 1000mm f14 sounds.

Still hoping for a 200-500 f/5.6 for those that don't use the 100-200mm mark. But this 100-500 is something I can shove in my backpack with a gripped R5 and bring out everywhere. Bit slow for 'sunny' Scotland, but not even f/2.8 has saved me during much of the year. And we have something like 8 stops of IS, it won't freeze action, but should work fine on less timid animals.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 *but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off* is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…
> 
> The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.


I agree completely, plus you still have access to 100mm instead of 140mm. That matters to me as I need the reach for the racing event on the water and then try to capture the smiles as they paddle back into the dock.

However, they announced a 2x alongside this 100-500 as well, which puts it beyond f/11, what new tricks for focus limits might the new R5 have up it's sleeve?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm. Not sure if this is good marketing for Canon.
> I know that its just a bonus to have an extra 100mm of the weight and price is about the same as the EF 100-400.
> But if Canon released a bit smaller 100-400 with 5.6 at long end, everyone would be happy.



Let’s list all the consumer oriented technology companies that follow the forums and give the customers what they say they think they want...


----------



## snoke (Feb 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> On every forum almost every comment is about the 7.1 aperture at 500mm.



Write comment on forum easy. Anyone do it.

Buy lens and take photo? Photographer do that, not write comment on forum.


----------



## riker (Feb 13, 2020)

When we have 100-400 which can do 5.6 at 400mm, I don't see why 500mm with 7.1 makes any sense. Unless the 100-500 can also do 5.6 at 400mm (I doubt it) and is still not a gram heavier or bigger than the 100-400 and or optically better (doubt it again, 100-400 is excellent).


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Let’s list all the consumer oriented technology companies that follow the forums and give the customers what they say they think they want...



It's like the quote people attribute to Henry Ford, "People would've said they wanted 'faster horses', not cars".


----------



## riker (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 *but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off* is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…
> 
> The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.



Arguing about all this is kind of senseless until we see the aperture transition through the zoom range and the weight and size of the lens.
We have no idea if it can do 400/5.6 but I fear it can not. In case it can and just jumps to 7.1 above 400mm and they even managed to have it the same weight as the 100-400, I say it's good.
But if not, then I would be happier with just an RF version of the 100-400 which is an excellent lens, and who knows, maybe the RF version could even be lighter which would be MUCH appreciated.
And no, I do not use a 1.4X with my 100-400. Shooting at max f/8 which is actually at least f/11 if you also want it to be sharp is usually not something you want.
I disagree with your idea of having a builtin extender which you don't have to toggle on and off - *it's an extender which you can't take off to get a faster lens or better IQ. *Well, the whole concept of talking about a builtin extender is false I think. The only construct that can be referred to as a builtin extender is what we see on the 200-400. Otherwise we could talk about all the longer lenses as being the shorter ones with builtin extender. Silly. Just forget it.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Feb 13, 2020)

epsiloneri said:


>


I fixed the post.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 *but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off* is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…
> 
> The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.


Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.

Given the focal length I would have though f6.3 to be honest.


Codebunny said:


> Of course the biggie here, what are those extenders going to go on. Surely something brighter than the 100-500mm. As fun as a 1000mm f14 sounds.
> 
> Still hoping for a 200-500 f/5.6 for those that don't use the 100-200mm mark. But this 100-500 is something I can shove in my backpack with a gripped R5 and bring out everywhere. Bit slow for 'sunny' Scotland, but not even f/2.8 has saved me during much of the year. And we have something like 8 stops of IS, it won't freeze action, but should work fine on less timid animals.


thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture.



Regarding f/7.1 we don't know when it changes. If it is f/5.6 at 400mm(which I strongly believe), then the 500mm mode is just gravy. I would have liked a 200-500 f/5.6 L more, but I'll take this and see which focal lengths I use most before choosing which big L I get; 200-400mm f/4 is still my dream, but if all my picks on this at 400-500 when I know to get a 400 or 500 prime.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.



My point was that this one works _as if it had a 1.25x one_ _built in_, compared to the EF 100–400. A max aperture of f/7.1 is exactly what you get when you extrapolate from 400mm/5.6 to 500mm. Except you don't have to toggle it on and off. Of course we don't yet know what the aperture will be at 400mm, so there's that.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.



As I said on the thread about the other x-f/7.1 zoom, I've shot tonnes of bird photos at f/10 (admittedly 1000mm), and rarely are we blessed with perfect light in the UK. So I just can't agree with people saying it's too dark. Incidentally, ISO 3200 is absolutely not the upper limit on current Canon sensors - or even a generation or two ago (I'm still using the 5D3 most of the time and would push to 12800 in extremis, ETTR). But in any case, f/7.1 is just 2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6, and only 1/3 of a stop slower than f/6.3, which a lot of budget-conscious birders seem to do fine with.

Who knows what other telephoto lenses they'll bring out for RF mount, but there's no such thing as a free lunch - you want long *and* wide, you'll have to pay more (and it'll be much bigger and heavier).


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 13, 2020)

Looks like 7.1 is going to be a common value in new RF lenses going forward. That's the second lens with that value at the long range in two days.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.



What? ISO 3200 is _nothing, _even on a crop body. Unless you meant ISO 32000 which is still perfectly usable in many cases on modern FF bodies.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Only this hasn’t got a teleconverter on, has it? It’s natively 7.1. Sure, its nice to have the option to slap a TC on an f5.6 lens but when you don’t need it you can take it off. For most subjects and situations f7.1 will be absolutely fine, but there’s a large number of birders, myself included, that really struggle with a max aperture of f5.6.
> 
> Given the focal length I would have though f6.3 to be honest.
> 
> thats exactly my point regarding the f7.1 max aperture. Even though the high iso IQ of these new cameras is going to be good, freezing action of small animals, usually in forests or in poor light, with my f5.6 lens can require an iso of up to 3200! F7.1 would be asking too much in my opinion.



If this is the same size of the existing EF 100-400L II, then what do you expect? If it is f/5.6 at 400mm, then you could use it just like the 100-400L II with an extra 100mm with 2/3 stop of light loss. That is your choice, but at least the new design gives you that choice. The taking on/off TC solution is worse. Because when it's on, it reduces the f-stop for the entire zoom range.

So far, the RF telezooms are coming with something extra. The RF 70-200's "extra" is its smaller size and lower weight, and it looks like the RF 100-400's "extra" is an additional 100mm for the same size and smaller max aperture at the long end. If it retains f/5.6 at 400mm, then it's going to be a win for Canon. A smaller, lighter telezoom solution that is targeted against the 150/200-500s while still covering the 100-400 space. The x-600mm zooms are in a different class of lenses and are much larger/heavier than the 100-400.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> What? ISO 3200 is _nothing, _even on a crop body. Unless you meant ISO 32000 which is still perfectly usable in many cases on modern FF bodies.


Iso 3200 on a crop body can be okay provided you don’t have to do much post processing. I’ve rarely gotten nice results from an image shot at that iso level before. 2000 seems to be my limit.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 13, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> If this is the same size of the existing EF 100-400L II, then what do you expect? If it is f/5.6 at 400mm, then you could use it just like the 100-400L II with an extra 100mm with 2/3 stop of light loss. That is your choice, but at least the new design gives you that choice. The taking on/off TC solution is worse. Because when it's on, it reduces the f-stop for the entire zoom range.
> 
> So far, the RF telezooms are coming with something extra. The RF 70-200's "extra" is its smaller size and lower weight, and it looks like the RF 100-400's "extra" is an additional 100mm for the same size and smaller max aperture at the long end. If it retains f/5.6 at 400mm, then it's going to be a win for Canon. A smaller, lighter telezoom solution that is targeted against the 150/200-500s while still covering the 100-400 space. The x-600mm zooms are in a different class of lenses and are much larger/heavier than the 100-400.


I agree if it’s f5.6 at 400mm the it’ll be spot on. Gotta move through f6.3 yet though.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’d agree for a typical 70-200 but the 6” RF70-200 is so handy as a near normal lens that the 100-500 won’t provide.
> 
> “Both”


I agree, they are not the same lens category, and I am likewise attracted to the compact form factor of the 70-200. Ideally I would like to have both. But, and I am probably not the only one in this position, with new RF lenses costing more than $2,000 each (hoping for rebates from Canon, otherwise it is more than $2,500), and no second-hand market for the coming 1-2 years, one has to make choices. I have budget this year for one L zoom, and maybe one non-L prime (35mm?), so my preference would be to replace my EF 100-400 Mk1, and wait to see what comes in the form of more affordable and compact and maybe IS mid telephoto primes before deciding on the 70-200 next year.


----------



## tron (Feb 13, 2020)

scyrene said:


> As I said on the thread about the other x-f/7.1 zoom, I've shot tonnes of bird photos at f/10 (admittedly 1000mm), and rarely are we blessed with perfect light in the UK. So I just can't agree with people saying it's too dark. Incidentally, ISO 3200 is absolutely not the upper limit on current Canon sensors - or even a generation or two ago (I'm still using the 5D3 most of the time and would push to 12800 in extremis, ETTR). But in any case, f/7.1 is just 2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6, and only 1/3 of a stop slower than f/6.3, which a lot of budget-conscious birders seem to do fine with.
> 
> Who knows what other telephoto lenses they'll bring out for RF mount, but there's no such thing as a free lunch - you want long *and* wide, you'll have to pay more (and it'll be much bigger and heavier).


Although a Canon user and fan I have to say that these f/6.3 3rd party lens users enjoy 600mm instead of 500mm and this is a significant difference.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Iso 3200 on a crop body can be okay provided you don’t have to do much post processing. I’ve rarely gotten nice results from an image shot at that iso level before. 2000 seems to be my limit.



Fair enough, but this lens is for full frame...


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2020)

Looking forward to Roger's take and Bryans comparison with the 100-400 ii. This won't be for me as my 100-400 is very new but I'm hoping it will make a lot of shooters happy.


----------



## Manszter (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.


Before you take the bet I think it's worth pointing out that the max aperture calculated between 100mm and 500mm won't be linear in the way you suggest. Otherwise by this logic you could calculate 7.1*100/500 to get a 100mm max aperture of F1.42, which clearly won't be the case. Assuming it is linear between the two points (100mm F4.5 and 500mm F7.1) -- which probably isn't the case -- then at 400mm it would be F6.45. So, I wouldn't take the bet.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

ozturert said:


> Your combo gives you 560mm f8, this lens will give you 500mm f7.1, without teleconverter. Not a huge difference, I'd say but you won't need teleconverter.




Yes I will. Trust me on that one.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> A 100–500mm f/5.6 would be much larger and more expensive than the current EF 100–400mm, with a 90mm front element required. I guess f/6.3 could've been doable.



This is what I was hoping for so 700mm would come at F8 like 560 does now. That would be doable.


----------



## mccasi (Feb 13, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The focus limiter suggests an MFD of 3.0 m, so apparently not. However the 100-400 has massive focus breathing, so if they've managed to improve on that it might not be quite as bad as the MFD implies.



just have to correct this, the lens says: full or 3m-infinity. so we have no clue yet what the mfd is, but we know its significantly below 3m.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 13, 2020)

mccasi said:


> just have to correct this, the lens says: full or 3m-infinity. so we have no clue yet what the mfd is, but we know its significantly below 3m.


My apologies, you are absolutely right.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 13, 2020)

Is it just me, or does the RF 100-500 look narrower than the EF 100-400?

I'm betting that it isn't f/5.6 at 400mm; if it were, I would have thought it would be f/6.3 at 500mm, not f/7.1.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Disappointingly the TCs lack the matte metal Finish at their rear that matches the R mount. The lenses and control ring EF adapter all have this.
> 
> What lenses will the TCs serve? Could there be a RF300 f 2.8 on the way?



300 f2.8 and 500 f4 were not updated in the last round of big white EF updates and weight loss program. They may have he'd off because they couldn't get a significant weight reduction, but my thought has been that those will be the first Big Whites for the RF mount. I am guessing those are both good sellers for Canon.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 13, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Okay, I get that f7.1 isn’t a big deal for a mirrorless full frame camera, but for an “L” lens?
> 
> Doesn’t say “L” to me.



L also references build & IQ. If it is f5.6 @ 400mm and not much larger/heavier, I will take this over the 100-400 any day if it has the same/better IQ. The advantage is that I don't have to carry a teleconverter to get out to 500mm and am still at f7.1 instead of f8. Yes, I know I give up 60mm, but I will also have 40+mp to crop. Not a bad trade off. Combine that with better ISO performance of the new sensor and should be a net win.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 13, 2020)

Logically, I know that f7.1 is less than a stop difference from f5.6, but psychologically it feels like a lot more to me. There is also the part of me that says I already have a 600mm f6.3 lens that works very well on my R, so do I want a lens that's a little slower and a little shorter?


----------



## Pape (Feb 13, 2020)

This is smallest super tele canon making . There must be one with 7cm lense for weak nerds,older peoples and smallish japanese photographers.
They can make another 200-600 f6,3 for strong guys  or 200-800 f8 or 200-500 f5,6


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 13, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Is it just me, or does the RF 100-500 look narrower than the EF 100-400?
> 
> I'm betting that it isn't f/5.6 at 400mm; if it were, I would have thought it would be f/6.3 at 500mm, not f/7.1.



The filter size for the 100-400L II is 77mm. So 400/5.6 = 71.4mm. 500/7.1 = 70.4mm, which is comparable to the 400/5.6 ratio. 500/6.3 = 79.4mm. If this 100-500 is the RF version of the EF 100-400L II, then it can be f/5.6 at 400mm depending on how it is designed. However, it can not be f/6.3 at 500mm unless the lens diameter grows significantly.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.


If the new lens is sharper than the 100-400 and has better IS and better AF, then it will be better. Otherwise, pretty much samo samo except for the extra reach. The 70mm objective is the same, so essentially the same light gathering ability. Don't forget the linked IBIS, which probably won't be there for the 100-400, so I suspect the new lens will offer several stops more stabilization with an R5 or R6. Anything faster would have been unwieldy unless it was totally made of plastic and that is not the case here because this is an L lens. Actually, this lens with an R5 (assuming 45 MP) gets you to an APS-c crop that is equivalent to 1200mm FF with a 1.4 TC. I think that kind of answers the 7D III question.


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Feb 13, 2020)

if they could combine an EF-RF converter and an extender into one(so you dont have multiple mounts together) that would be a great item


----------



## Pape (Feb 13, 2020)

i been thinking they should make RF to EF converter, you already got Ef to RF so they would make together nice extension tube


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.


The arithmetic is correct but it doesn't mean the lens follows that. If it does, good.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Or buy the R5 - with 45MP, you won't need a teleconvertor.
> From my experience with the 5Ds - cropping gives a better quality output than using a teleconvertor anyway.


Get yourself a better teleconverter. I see a clear increase in resolution with one of my two 1.4xTCIIIs on my 100-400mm II but not the other.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Dragon said:


> If the new lens is sharper than the 100-400 and has better IS and better AF, then it will be better. Otherwise, pretty much samo samo except for the extra reach. The 70mm objective is the same, so essentially the same light gathering ability. Don't forget the linked IBIS, which probably won't be there for the 100-400, so I suspect the new lens will offer several stops more stabilization with an R5 or R6. Anything faster would have been unwieldy unless it was totally made of plastic and that is not the case here because this is an L lens. Actually, this lens with an R5 (assuming 45 MP) gets you to an APS-c equivalence of 1200mm with a 1.4 TC.


?? A 500mm lens + 1.4xTC on a 45 Mpx FF camera gives an equivalence of reach of a 515mm on a 90D. Basically, a 700mm lens on a 45 Mpx FF gives a very similar field of view and resolution to a 500mm on a 90D or M6 II.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 13, 2020)

My biggest question is what several others here already seem to be asking: what is the aperture at 400mm? If it is any dimmer than f5.6, that would represent only a “compromise upgrade” from the EF version - which would be out of line with the other options to this point...

However - there are supposedly 5 other unannounced lenses coming. Wasn’t a 70-400 4.5-5.6 rumored on this site a few weeks ago? Hopefully if not this one, another L tele-zoom lens offers f5.6 at 400mm.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.



I will also be keeping my 100-400ii, the 1.4x should be much impoved on the new R5 body based on the focusing no longer through PDAF


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Or buy the R5 - with 45MP, you won't need a teleconvertor.
> From my experience with the 5Ds - cropping gives a better quality output than using a teleconvertor anyway.




I have an EOS-R and a 5D4 and a 7D2. Would be very hard to justify just for this lens given the images the others can produce. Also given that this lens is a non-starter on my other bodies.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Sony's new 1.4x and 2xTCs work very well. I would hope that new Canon R TCs tailored for the R lenses would be similarly improved.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The arithmetic is correct but it doesn't mean the lens follows that. If it does, good.



Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500. 

Granted, lens design has subtleties, and there would presumably be issues introduced (possible mechanical getting that telescope distance - I'd cringe at a three-part telescope). But it's hard to imagine that the change would require reducing the aperture at 400mm. That's the last solution the designer would be allowed by the boss to revert to.

As an aside, one hopes that the RF mount enables other benefits in image quality and product configuration. I now assume that the magnificent RF 70-200 that won me over to Canon late last year was essentially the 100-400 adapted to those specs.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 13, 2020)

Act444 said:


> My biggest question is what several others here already seem to be asking: what is the aperture at 400mm? If it is any dimmer than f5.6, that would represent only a “compromise upgrade” from the EF version - which would be out of line with the other options to this point...
> 
> However - there are supposedly 5 other unannounced lenses coming. Wasn’t a 70-400 4.5-5.6 rumored on this site a few weeks ago? Hopefully if not this one, another L tele-zoom lens offers f5.6 at 400mm.



I bet it's 6.3 at 400 and 7.1 by 420. I'm still into it and can absolutely see myself buying one, especially if it comes in under $1,800.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I say, let the ISO or IS/IBIS make up for the lack of light (depending on the situation and how much action is in the frame). Give me a petite, L-grade, do-all telezoom I can pair with the 85/1.2 and (coming) 35/1.2. Add a single 14 to 20mm prime, and I have a 4-lens kit that takes me from the ultra wides all the way to 500mm.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The focus limiter suggests an MFD of 3.0 m, so apparently not. However the 100-400 has massive focus breathing, so if they've managed to improve on that it might not be quite as bad as the MFD implies.



I believe the 3.0m focus distance indicated is not the MFD. That's the "don't hunt up close" distance for the switch (3.0m-infinity, vs "full")


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 13, 2020)

Strange how Canon felt the need to make this one the development announcement and not a big white. It is exciting to see what those converters will be used for. I was really expecting rf-ef converters first.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> The truth will be in the sales as to whether or not f7.1 was a poor decision.



Maybe that's why they didn't call the 200-400 f4 with switchable 1.4x TC a "200-560". Because then they'd have to utter the "f5.6" number that psyched some buyers into thinking it was a slow consumer lens.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 13, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> The filter size for the 100-400L II is 77mm. So 400/5.6 = 71.4mm. 500/7.1 = 70.4mm, which is comparable to the 400/5.6 ratio. 500/6.3 = 79.4mm. If this 100-500 is the RF version of the EF 100-400L II, then it can be f/5.6 at 400mm depending on how it is designed. However, it can not be f/6.3 at 500mm unless the lens diameter grows significantly.


Do we know that the RF 100-500 has the same filter size as the EF 100-400? I was suggesting it looked narrower to me, so not only could it not be f/6.3 at 500mm, but I was speculating that it's a narrower aperture than f/5.6 at 400mm also.


----------



## padam (Feb 13, 2020)

It probably has the same 77mm filter size as the RF 70-200/2.8 IS
But I'm also expecting more or less the same 2700$ price tag as well.

Since the EF 70-200/2.8 IS III and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II were priced similarly as well.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 13, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Do we know that the RF 100-500 has the same filter size as the EF 100-400? I was suggesting it looked narrower to me, so not only could it not be f/6.3 at 500mm, but I was speculating that it's a narrower aperture than f/5.6 at 400mm also.



I do not know, but my post said "*If* this 100-500 is the RF version of the EF 100-400L II..." It might be longer/narrower but still maintain the same distance from the sensor to end of the lens if the RF100-500 is as long as the RF/EF adapter + 100-400L II.

You wrote:
_I'm betting that it isn't f/5.6 at 400mm; if it were, I would have thought it would be f/6.3 at 500mm, not f/7.1._

And what I argued is that the max aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm is consistent with f/7.1 at 500mm. A max aperture of f/6.3 at 500mm would correspond to f/5 at 400mm, which is larger than 100-400L II.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 13, 2020)

Any bets on the weather sealing for this lens?


----------



## padam (Feb 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Any bets on the weather sealing for this lens?


No complaints about the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II weather resistance, which improved on its pumped zooming predecessor, so the similarly designed RF lenses should do just fine as well.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 13, 2020)

tron said:


> Although a Canon user and fan I have to say that these f/6.3 3rd party lens users enjoy 600mm instead of 500mm and this is a significant difference.



The more I read, I really believe the 100-500 is the RF equivalent of the EF 100-400 II. The IQ of 400-500 should be better than a 100-400 II + 1.4x TC II since the lens is engineered to reach that length without the additional elements in a teleconverter. I actually thought we would see an RF 70-400 (pickup on the short end), but hey surprised me going the other direction. The RF 100-500 fills that general purpose long telephoto range. I do not think we will see a RF 70-400 or RF 100-400. This leaves an opening for Canon to deliver a higher end 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 focused on sport and wildlife photographers - somewhere between the 100-500 and big whites. I don't know if this is sound logic or wistful thinking.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Any bets on the weather sealing for this lens?


If it is an L, it should be sealed.


----------



## dwarven (Feb 13, 2020)

I'd rather have had one of these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1175034-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_200_500mm_f_5_6e.html


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500.
> 
> Granted, lens design has subtleties, and there would presumably be issues introduced (possible mechanical getting that telescope distance - I'd cringe at a three-part telescope). But it's hard to imagine that the change would require reducing the aperture at 400mm. That's the last solution the designer would be allowed by the boss to revert to.
> 
> As an aside, one hopes that the RF mount enables other benefits in image quality and product configuration. I now assume that the magnificent RF 70-200 that won me over to Canon late last year was essentially the 100-400 adapted to those specs.



Do you actually know much about lens design? If you do, I'll be happy to learn from you. Please show us a ray diagram of how pulling the objective lens forward makes a 400mm into a 500mm.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

As always, the proof is in the pricing. $2,700? $3,000? Add in another $3,000 or so for an R5 and pretty soon we're talking serious money.


----------



## Laslen (Feb 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> As always, the proof is in the pricing. $2,700? $3,000? Add in another $3,000 or so for an R5 and pretty soon we're talking serious money.


If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2020)

Laslen said:


> If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.


They will be.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 13, 2020)

Laslen said:


> If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.



Just looking at what they ask for the RF 70-200 and comparing the EF line.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 14, 2020)

definitely a nice lens but a 200-600 f/5.6 - f/6.3 would have been a better choice IMO


----------



## dwarven (Feb 14, 2020)

Laslen said:


> If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.



Unfortunately it probably will be. In their minds, a control ring and 3% better IQ is worth an extra $1k. I'm not sure how many pros are going to bite with a 7.1 maximum aperture though.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 14, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Any bets on the weather sealing for this lens?



"typical L lens". No reason why it should be any different to EF 100-400 L MK II.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 14, 2020)

6degrees said:


> Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L



RF 24 f/1.2


----------



## joestopper (Feb 14, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Unfortunately it probably will be. In their minds, a control ring and 3% better IQ is worth an extra $1k. I'm not sure how many pros are going to bite with a 7.1 maximum aperture though.



For sure it will. Only slightly less than RF 70-200.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 14, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> The more I read, I really believe the 100-500 is the RF equivalent of the EF 100-400 II. The IQ of 400-500 should be better than a 100-400 II + 1.4x TC II since the lens is engineered to reach that length without the additional elements in a teleconverter. I actually thought we would see an RF 70-400 (pickup on the short end), but hey surprised me going the other direction. The RF 100-500 fills that general purpose long telephoto range. I do not think we will see a RF 70-400 or RF 100-400. This leaves an opening for Canon to deliver a higher end 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 focused on sport and wildlife photographers - somewhere between the 100-500 and big whites. I don't know if this is sound logic or wistful thinking.



The problem i see is that both Nikon and Sony will have a relatively affordable 200-600 and both those lenses are/will be high quality. Now if Canon makes a 200-600 between the 100-500 and big whites then that lens cant really compete with the others in price.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 14, 2020)

Laslen said:


> If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.



The MSRP of the EF 100–400mm II is $2299. Why do you think this one should be any cheaper at launch?


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 14, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Seriously? Somehow everybody is fine with the 100–400mm with 1.4x at f/8 *but the same lens with a "1.25x" builtin extender that you don't even have to toggle on and off* is somehow "not L"? Sheesh…
> 
> The only reason f/5.6 was the limit for so long was that DSLRs could not focus reliably much beyond that. But DPAF can focus down to f/11, and at the same time sensors and IS systems are better than ever. There's absolutely no reason to artificially limit engineers by imposing an arbitrary f/5.6 max aperture limit.


Yeah, with 45Mp sensor you shoot at F5.6 with 100-400 lens and then crop to 500mm for framing. A stop of light can be a big deal if you are ISO limited already at F5.6
Or.. use that x1.4 extender if you really had to... options.


----------



## erader (Feb 14, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.



oh please quit making sense. these guys just wanna cry about something to keep the nikonians company


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 14, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Are we going to see a flurry of cheaper compact lenses now to pad the system out?
> 
> I'd sure like to see some fast primes (24, 35, 135) and and another f2 zoom first.


Put me down for a 50 and a 28mm f/2 or f/1.8 --similar to the RF 35 mm! That would be plenty fast and plenty expensive. I'm saving up for the R5s and the new RF 17mm TSE.......


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 14, 2020)

erader said:


> oh please quit making sense. these guys just wanna cry about something to keep the nikonians company


It won’t be at F5.6 at 400mm. It will be at F6.3 or slower. Otherwise it will be the size of 100-400 girth and weight 
Look at sigma and tamron 100-400/xx - 6.3 lenses. That’s a design prototype But scales up to 100-500. And those 100-400 lenses are dirt cheap.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Do you actually know much about lens design? If you do, I'll be happy to learn from you. Please show us a ray diagram of how pulling the objective lens forward makes a 400mm into a 500mm.


Lens designing is what he does at night in front of a keyboard...


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Lens designing is what he does at night in front of a keyboard...


And how would you know? Are you roommates?


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Do you actually know much about lens design? If you do, I'll be happy to learn from you. Please show us a ray diagram of how pulling the objective lens forward makes a 400mm into a 500mm.


No need to get snotty, man. He's talking 'ballpark'. On a rumor blog.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> ?? A 500mm lens + 1.4xTC on a 45 Mpx FF camera gives an equivalence of reach of a 515mm on a 90D. Basically, a 700mm lens on a 45 Mpx FF gives a very similar field of view and resolution to a 500mm on a 90D or M6 II.


Sorry I wasn't clear in my use of "equivalence". I was comparing to full frame and allowing that the R cameras can take an APS-C slice (in this case about 17.5 MP). The 90D is in a different league (I have one), but it is also on the noisy side at pixel level and higher ISOs (not a criticism, but rather just a consequence of such small pixels). The 17.5 MP aps-c area of the R6 should have noticeably better pixel level noise than the 90D. It probably won't be quite as croppable, but if the new AA filter used in 1dxIII is also used in the R5, then some of that ground may be gained back. I would expect at least 7D II equivalence in the ability to crop with much better DR and some better S/N at high ISO and I think that explains the absence of a 7D III. The early specs show the R5 as having a faster capture rate at FF than the 7DII at APS C with a mechanical shutter and double the rate with an electronic shutter. That means the historical readout rate advantage of APS-c is gone unless you hypothesize a 7DIII with a 1DXIII shutter and that would probably cost as much as the R5. Certainly for capturing fleeting subjects (like birds), being able to capture the FF area is a huge advantage. I have found this to be totally true of the 5DSr which has essentially equal pixel level resolution to 7DII, but without high frame rate of the R5. For those wanting 90D reach, the R5s will still likely have at least 10fps with mechanical shutter, but with a pixel level noise penalty due to the small pixels. Either one will be killer for BIF shots.


----------



## Pape (Feb 14, 2020)

RF 70-200 is here 3000E so rf100-500 maybe 3200


Laslen said:


> If this thing is over $2000 they're out of their minds.


About 10% more expensive than RF 70-200 i guess


----------



## brad-man (Feb 14, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> No need to get snotty, man. He's talking 'ballpark'. On a rumor blog.


Actually he isn't "talking ballpark." He is not offering opinions, he is making assertions. When you make an assertion you run the risk of being called out. How is that snotty?


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 14, 2020)

Perhaps Canon should have sold this as the "RF 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 with 1.25x extension functionality"

All the gear warriors who are so upset at the shame of buying an f/7.1 lens would then be quiet.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> He is not offering opinions, he is making assertions.


He said "...all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do..."

Is _nobody_ getting enough fiber in their diet?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 14, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> He said "...all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do..."
> 
> Is _nobody_ getting enough fiber in their diet?



He did say that, yes.

But he went beyond saying that they could do that, to, in essence, that they DID do that. He asserts that the lens will be f/5.6 at 400mm, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. He's asserting his opinion as fact.

Now I agree that IF it turns out to be f/[email protected], then the complaints are groundless, and they really did just extend the range without compromising what was already there. But others think it's possible that it's going to be f/6.3 at 400, in which case the now-old 100-400 L II can do 400mm better than this lens can, and it's not an improvement. We can't tell either way at this point, so saying it WILL be one way or the other is a groundless assertion.

So, contrary to your assertion that he made no assertion, he did make assertions.

(Note: I actually usually like Optics Patent's attitude; he regularly calls people out for arguing that something is useless because they personally don't want it, for instance. But in this particular case, he's jumped to what, for all the world, looks like an unwarranted conclusion and argued on that basis (an argument that would be good IF the conclusion were warranted). People are calling him on it. He can either demonstrate he's actually got good reason to believe what he says...or continue to take the heat.)

EDIT: rephrase without misleading quote marks.


----------



## yodani (Feb 14, 2020)

The Sony 200-600mm is the big contender here... price, aperture, weight.... 500mm on full frame is short for wildlife, I hope the aps-c is coming to the R series...


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 14, 2020)

You know... I wouldn't want to use this for trying to capture people, but between this 100-500 and the 24-105 you'd have a pretty killer 2-lens landscape kit.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 14, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Perhaps Canon should have sold this as the "RF 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 with 1.25x extension functionality"
> 
> All the gear warriors who are so upset at the shame of buying an f/7.1 lens would then be quiet.


Is it F5.6 at 400mm end though? Slim chances.


----------



## gzroxas (Feb 14, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Tension


Thanks! I have never used these kinds of lens so I didn’t know it was a thing!


----------



## Bonich (Feb 14, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 7.1? What's that with the teleconverter? Ugh..
> 
> Not what I was hoping for. I shoot F.8 with my 100-400L II with the 1.4. Looks like that will continue to be the better combo unless I'm missing something.


You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x. But you will have the chance for zooming in 20% beyond, just not f8.
If this lens is optically as expected from an RF this will be my walk and shoot for wildlife, ...
A bigger lens will never get this usage, i.e. the 200-400 f4 is far too heavy and bulky for this.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2020)

Bonich said:


> You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x. But you will have the chance for zooming in 20% beyond, just not f8.
> If this lens is optically as expected from an RF this will be my walk and shoot for wildlife, ...
> A bigger lens will never get this usage, i.e. the 200-400 f4 is far too heavy and bulky for this.


Only if it is f/5.6 at 400mm, and we don’t know if that is so. I agree that it will be a nice lens to walk around with.


----------



## ozturert (Feb 14, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Yes I will. Trust me on that one.


I think you didn't get my point. With the new lens, without teleconverter you get a comparable reach and aperture against 100-400mm + 1.4x. 500 v 560mm isnt't too much. You can still attach 1.4x to 100-500mm, of course. I think EOS R can AF down to f11, I'm sure R5 will do it too.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 14, 2020)

Ho-hum. I bet if this was a 100-600 or a 200-600 L zoom people would be whining about the weight & price instead.


----------



## Ruiloba (Feb 14, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> And what I argued is that the max aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm is consistent with f/7.1 at 500mm. A max aperture of f/6.3 at 500mm would correspond to f/5 at 400mm, which is larger than 100-400L II.



As a Tamron 150-600mm G2 user, i tell you that i have a 400mm 5.6 and as soon as i zoom in more it jumps to 6.3 so yes.. 500mm 6.3 is posible with 400mm 5.6... It doesn't have to become a 400mm f5


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 14, 2020)

So I did some exposure checks. A 'lovely' day in Scotland I got ISO 1000 1/200 F5.6 or ISO 1600 1/200 F/7.1, that'll be enough to get a stationary animal. To get action stopping light levels it would need to be f/4 or f/2.8 at 500mm before I get to ISO levels that destroy a image.

Personally it is more annoying that is has a variable aperture and that is a normal zoom and not the reverse zoom like I had on the 24-70(That lens was lovely in that is started on the useful end and expanded when you zoomed out to 24mm)


----------



## Daner (Feb 14, 2020)

ColinJR said:


> You know... I wouldn't want to use this for trying to capture people, but between this 100-500 and the 24-105 you'd have a pretty killer 2-lens landscape kit.



That's what I'm thinking.

I also want to add the RF 15-35 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for when I need them, and the 85 1.2 DS for portrait work.

Of course, with all that investment in glass, I have nothing left over for new bodies, so all of the new goodness on that front will have to wait a bit longer. (First-world problems)


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 14, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> I agree completely, plus you still have access to 100mm instead of 140mm. That matters to me as I need the reach for the racing event on the water and then try to capture the smiles as they paddle back into the dock.
> 
> However, they announced a 2x alongside this 100-500 as well, which puts it beyond f/11, what new tricks for focus limits might the new R5 have up it's sleeve?



Sony A9 does f/16 PDAF so you never know. 70-200/2.8 can't accept the TCs as there is no physical space. The 2x on the 100-500 at f/14 makes little sense (although I do occasionally shoot my 200-600 with 2xTC for 1200 f/13). There has to be a super-tele prime coming in the remaining 5 lenses (note on the roadmap the TCs are counting towards the 9 promised for 2020). Patents exist for 500/4 and 600/4. I'd be betting on the 500/4 coming first as EF 600/4 is recently updated. 500/4 with TCs up to 1000 f/8 and slapped on a 40-45MP EOS R would be birding heaven to me. So why did I just drop $20K on new Sony glass and bodies?? Well I need something to cure the GAS until July 

This lens only makes a 100-400 redudant IF (and that is a big IF) it is still f/5.6 @ 400mm. Then it is only a bonus as already pointed out many times. But if it is already f/6.3 or f/7.1 @ 400 then it is a compromise in some ways compared to the patent for the RF 70-400. But still could be a good lens to have. The Sony 200-600 is f/6.3 by 300mm already so I don't think we can really say what this lens will be at 400 yet and it doesn't necessarily follow some basic ratio math. 

I shoot my 200-600 with 1.4TC more than 50% of the time and that puts me at f/9. Believe it or not with IBIS and IS combined, f/7.1 or f/9 isn't as much of a hinderance as one may think. There are so many people already using 100-400 with 1.4TC and being at f/8. Well lose 60mm and gain 1/3 light and this lens is still useful. I'd still prefer a 200-600 design like Sony's. That lens has been a joy to use for me all be it is large and heavier but non-extending and a super short zoom throw are huge advantages I find that make up for the resulting length and weight penalties.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 14, 2020)

The duplication of lenses for RF from EF poses some questions for us as photographers. Im a self professed equipment geek but even I have to question when Im heavily invested in expensive EF lenses some of which are not that old how far I "add" to my collection in the RF mount. I currently own the holy trinity in EF, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS USM II, EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM, EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM, EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM etc. Then in RF for the EOS R I currently have the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM (used as a walk about lens). Ive the EF-RF adaptor which adds depth using the EF lenses on the EOS R but is completely usable.
What we have been "teased" so far makes the EOS R5 very desirable and definitely a contender to replace my trusty 5DS, but can I justify spending £ 7,100 / $ 9,175 to "replace" my holy trinity on top of the camera body cost which is more than likely in the UK to be circa. £ 3,500 at launch giving a combined total of £ 10,600 / $ 13,780. Will I get a meaningful jump in the results Im getting? its questionable and in the cold light of day makes me think Canon still needs to pursue a DSLR that offers many of the features the EOS R5 will have.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Do you actually know much about lens design? If you do, I'll be happy to learn from you. Please show us a ray diagram of how pulling the objective lens forward makes a 400mm into a 500mm.



I’m not a lens designer, and you might reread the post to see the qualifications I noted. As a thought experiment consider that the motion from 399-400 does not likely hit a optical limit that prevents the continued motion from 400-401 from giving the results I predict. 

I’m baffled by the tone of your post. Was there something inappropriate I said?


----------



## Act444 (Feb 14, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> The more I read, I really believe the 100-500 is the RF equivalent of the EF 100-400 II. The IQ of 400-500 should be better than a 100-400 II + 1.4x TC II since the lens is engineered to reach that length without the additional elements in a teleconverter. I actually thought we would see an RF 70-400 (pickup on the short end), but hey surprised me going the other direction. The RF 100-500 fills that general purpose long telephoto range. I do not think we will see a RF 70-400 or RF 100-400. This leaves an opening for Canon to deliver a higher end 200-600 f5.6 or f6.3 focused on sport and wildlife photographers - somewhere between the 100-500 and big whites. I don't know if this is sound logic or wistful thinking.



In the EF world we've got 70-300 and 100-400 (with the latter being 1/3 stop faster at 300mm). I say, why not 70-400 and 100-500 in this case? At least by offering this choice, ALL folks that want an EF 100-400 replacement in the RF world aren’t forced to accept f7.1 as a compromise (or any consequential light loss throughout the range as a result). This lens would make more sense to me in that aspect - a general 70-400 4.5-5.6 and this 100-500 which gives RF shooters a native 500mm without needing a TC or $8K worth of funds. 7.1 helps keep it within EF 100-400 dimensions for easy handholdability.

But since Canon only chose to confirm the existence of the 100-500, we can only speculate at this point. Among the lenses currently known to us, I admit I have a hard time figuring out where this fits. And I say this as someone who thinks they’ve absolutely been killing it with RF lens releases to date...


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2020)

I guess that Canon wanted to have a relatvely "compact" telephoto zoom at a reasonable (for a Canon) price. We have to admit that photos show it to be very compact (obviously at the 100 setting). This gives it the advantage of a travel wildlife zoom. But I would love to have the option of either a f/5.6 or f/6.3 f-stop or a 600mm focal length.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 14, 2020)

SteveC said:


> He did say that, yes.
> 
> But he went beyond "they could do that" to "they DID do that." He asserts that the lens will be f/5.6 at 400mm, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. He's asserting his opinion as fact.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the kind words. I must note that you put things in quotation marks and attribute them to me that I didn’t write. I wonder if you might edit your post to get the quotes correct. I consider that a greater error than if I mislabeled a prediction or speculation as a certain fact (and I welcome you calling me on that). 

There‘s a flame war apparently because I made (what I intended to be) a prediction of what would happen if one conducted a technical experiment. It fit my assumption that the designers would want to address all the worries we’re hearing about aperture by avoiding making it slower at 400. 

I might be wrong, but the gents who disagree haven’t yet suggested why my guess is wrong. I’m here to learn, and respect a good ray tracing diagram as much as the next guy, as they have occasionally arisen in my day job for decades.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> Sony A9 does f/16 PDAF so you never know. 70-200/2.8 can't accept the TCs as there is no physical space. The 2x on the 100-500 at f/14 makes little sense (although I do occasionally shoot my 200-600 with 2xTC for 1200 f/13). There has to be a super-tele prime coming in the remaining 5 lenses (note on the roadmap the TCs are counting towards the 9 promised for 2020). Patents exist for 500/4 and 600/4. I'd be betting on the 500/4 coming first as EF 600/4 is recently updated. 500/4 with TCs up to 1000 f/8 and slapped on a 40-45MP EOS R would be birding heaven to me. So why did I just drop $20K on new Sony glass and bodies?? Well I need something to cure the GAS until July
> 
> This lens only makes a 100-400 redudant IF (and that is a big IF) it is still f/5.6 @ 400mm. Then it is only a bonus as already pointed out many times. But if it is already f/6.3 or f/7.1 @ 400 then it is a compromise in some ways compared to the patent for the RF 70-400. But still could be a good lens to have. The Sony 200-600 is f/6.3 by 300mm already so I don't think we can really say what this lens will be at 400 yet and it doesn't necessarily follow some basic ratio math.
> 
> I shoot my 200-600 with 1.4TC more than 50% of the time and that puts me at f/9. Believe it or not with IBIS and IS combined, f/7.1 or f/9 isn't as much of a hinderance as one may think. There are so many people already using 100-400 with 1.4TC and being at f/8. Well lose 60mm and gain 1/3 light and this lens is still useful. I'd still prefer a 200-600 design like Sony's. That lens has been a joy to use for me all be it is large and heavier but non-extending and a super short zoom throw are huge advantages I find that make up for the resulting length and weight penalties.


Having a wide range of white teles (300/2.8,,400/4.500/4) I can say with certainty that I wouldn't "upgrade" them to an RF version. They are very useful in the EF mount. I would only be tempted by a 600DO lens.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 14, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> As a Tamron 150-600mm G2 user, i tell you that i have a 400mm 5.6 and as soon as i zoom in more it jumps to 6.3 so yes.. 500mm 6.3 is posible with 400mm 5.6... It doesn't have to become a 400mm f5



What size are the filter threads for the 100-400L II and the 150-600mm G2? The 100-400mm uses 77mm filters and the 150-600 uses 95mm filters. Still think the RF 100-500 can be f/6.3 at 500mm if it has 77mm filters like the 100-400?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Actually he isn't "talking ballpark." He is not offering opinions, he is making assertions. When you make an assertion you run the risk of being called out. How is that snotty?



Brad, you said "I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm" I said "I'll take the bet," and gave some of my presumptions and technical speculations below as to why (you call these "assertions" to justify what others describe as a snotty response). You call these assertions to justify "calling me out." Is this a playground bully battles I've stumbled into? Are there alpha nerds I'm threatening with technical speculations? Here what I wrote that seems to have triggered you - emphasis added:

_Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500. 

Granted, lens design has subtleties, and there would presumably be issues introduced (possible mechanical getting that telescope distance - I'd cringe at a three-part telescope). But it's hard to imagine that the change would require reducing the aperture at 400mm. That's the last solution the designer would be allowed by the boss to revert to._

If seeing my actual words causes you to reassess anything you posted, please let me know.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 14, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> And how would you know? Are you roommates?



Not his type. But his mom tells him everything when she gets home.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 14, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The duplication of lenses for RF from EF poses some questions for us as photographers. Im a self professed equipment geek but even I have to question when Im heavily invested in expensive EF lenses some of which are not that old how far I "add" to my collection in the RF mount. I currently own the holy trinity in EF, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS USM II, EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM, EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM, EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM etc. Then in RF for the EOS R I currently have the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM (used as a walk about lens). Ive the EF-RF adaptor which adds depth using the EF lenses on the EOS R but is completely usable.
> What we have been "teased" so far makes the EOS R5 very desirable and definitely a contender to replace my trusty 5DS, but can I justify spending £ 7,100 / $ 9,175 to "replace" my holy trinity on top of the camera body cost which is more than likely in the UK to be circa. £ 3,500 at launch giving a combined total of £ 10,600 / $ 13,780. Will I get a meaningful jump in the results Im getting? its questionable and in the cold light of day makes me think Canon still needs to pursue a DSLR that offers many of the features the EOS R5 will have.



The best advice I hear is that lenses tend to be assets that retain their value better than digital camera bodies, which are essentially disposable and depreciate to near-zero. That means your EF lenses will serve you well on the existing body.

Options:
1. Boring and sensible. Keep things as they are, and save up for a change. The longer you wait, the better and cheaper your options will be and the more options and information you'll have.
2. Fun. Sell EVERYTHING now (except maybe ones you truly need and for which there is no RF option). But the R5 and the start of your new copllection (I did this with my switch from Nikon late last year and it was fun). You'll have a smaller collection you might love better, plus the fun prospect for adding equipment as new options are released.
3. Hybrid. Buy the R5, keep the EF lenses, and sell and replace one at a time as budget permits. Be sure to get the control ring adapter. That adds an RF feature to all of your EF lenses (and looks better on the camera than the basic black one).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’m not a lens designer, and you might reread the post to see the qualifications I noted. As a thought experiment consider that the motion from 399-400 does not likely hit a optical limit that prevents the continued motion from 400-401 from giving the results I predict.
> 
> I’m baffled by the tone of your post. Was there something inappropriate I said?


Given your self-designation as "Optics Patent", I, and clearly more of us, had the impression that you are an expert on optical design. I was surprised by your arguments that just moving the objective lens forward on the 100-400mm would be sufficient to increase its focal length to 500mm and other comments that the lens could be f/7.1 at 500mm and f/5.6 at 400mm . So, I wanted to know whether indeed you do have lens designing experience. Thank you for answering that you do not and dispelling any myth that you do have specialist knowledge. As you described the zoom as having an "objective" lens, which telescopes have but camera lenses do not, I did suspect that your lens experience maybe more in telescopes.

The Sigma 150-600mm C has a 95mm diameter front lens, which gives f/6.3 at 600mm. That aperture is wide enough to give f/5.6 at 500mm and f/4 at 400mm (within the 5% limits allowed by lens descriptions - the 400mm DO II has a 95mm front lens for example). Yet, the lens remains f/6.3 from 600-400mm. Zoom lens design is far more complicated than for simple refracting telescopes. If Canon lens designers manage to have the RF 100-500mm at 400mm to be f/5.6, then kudos to them.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 14, 2020)

Wow! I stepped away from this thread for a day and it's all out war.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 14, 2020)

SteveC said:


> So, contrary to your assertion that he made no assertion, he did make assertions.


I admit I didn't catch the unsupported assertions when I first read that post. I was reacting to AlanF's _delivery_. I'm really worn thin for tolerance to 'snotty'. I appreciate the thoughtful, respectful tone that so many posters maintain in this blog. And I hate to see snotty or snarky (or whatever you'd call it) go unchallenged. I enjoy this distraction, reading these posts.

And, yes: off topic! Apologies!


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 14, 2020)

Sounds like that for a lot of us this falls short of what we were hoping for.

I understand and agree with all of the points made, I was hoping to see something that took what the 100-400 II offered and make it better - another 100mm without giving up the light.

For a person like me who shoots their 100-400 II at 560 99 percent of the time on a variety of different camera bodies this lens might not be for us - we'll have to wait and see. I get that I'm only giving up 60mm over the 100-400mm combo, but given the circumstances I shoot in up here in northern Washington, the use of a tele is most likely going to go out the window with the new lens.

BIFs with a tele at F8 with crap sky and light can be discouraging enough. Trying to do the same at F11 is a gut punch.

Not to mention I'd be restricted to using the EOS-R with this new lens which poses its own interesting challenges for BIFs and the like. hehe.. Still love her though.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 14, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The best advice I hear is that lenses tend to be assets that retain their value better than digital camera bodies, which are essentially disposable and depreciate to near-zero. That means your EF lenses will serve you well on the existing body.
> 
> Options:
> 1. Boring and sensible. Keep things as they are, and save up for a change. The longer you wait, the better and cheaper your options will be and the more options and information you'll have.
> ...



I'm probably going to go with #3, personally--except I might not bother to replace in some cases.

I do wish the control ring adapter came in the kits instead of the plain one. Or as an option. I'd happily pay $100 more for the kit if it came with the control ring adapter, and that's the difference in price between the two when sold separately.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Only if it is f/5.6 at 400mm, and we don’t know if that is so. I agree that it will be a nice lens to walk around with.


So all those folks walking around with a Sigma 150-600 (either variety) are doing the impossible? (They are both f/6.3 at 400). If AF and IS work better and DR and noise are also improved, how is 1/3 of a stop the end of the world?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2020)

Dragon said:


> So all those folks walking around with a Sigma 150-600 (either variety) are doing the impossible? (They are both f/6.3 at 400). If AF and IS work better and DR and noise are also improved, how is 1/3 of a stop the end of the world?


I was replying to the comment "You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x." with you will only be able to do that if the lens is f/5.6 at 400mm, because we don't know yet what the aperture will be at 400mm. I happen to walk around sometimes with a Sigma 150-600, and it is really good at 400mm f/6.3. So, I don't understand your post.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I was replying to the comment "You will be able to shoot F8 @400mm with the 1.4x." with you will only be able to do that if the lens is f/5.6 at 400mm, because we don't know yet what the aperture will be at 400mm. I happen to walk around sometimes with a Sigma 150-600, and it is really good at 400mm f/6.3. So, I don't understand your post.


Sorry, I didn't interpret you comment correctly. With DPAF, shooting at f/9 or even f/10 (at 700mm) should be an issue. I am sure Canon evaluated all these issues very carefully before moving in this direction. I regularly use my 800L with a 2x TC and have no issue with DPAF at f/11 and the newer bodies keep getting better at AF.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sorry, I didn't interpret you comment correctly. With DPAF, shooting at f/9 or even f/10 (at 700mm) should be an issue. I am sure Canon evaluated all these issues very carefully before moving in this direction. I regularly use my 800L with a 2x TC and have no issue with DPAF at f/11 and the newer bodies keep getting better at AF.


No offense taken! I think that the 100-500 will be a very successful lens, although it's not top of my list. I am very happy with just the bare 100-400mm II on the 90D for a walk around around lens as the pixels have got so small f/8 is becoming limiting. A 500/7.1 might actually be optimal for the lightest kit with a high density R series. My guess is that the new generation of cameras with effective smaller tele lenses is going to change what the amateur uses for nature photography.


----------



## capos (Feb 14, 2020)

For me it is not that simple what amateurs should use for wildlife photography. A amateur can sacrifice build quality and weight but needs a versatile zoom lens that wont ruin his limited time in the weekend. A f/7.1 is not a versatile lens. It's a huge restriction. I see some people talk about IBIS... sorry but IBIS won't freeze the movement. Some talk about raising the ISO but on a crop like 80/90D a bird photograph above ISO 1600 looks bad. High ISO ruins the feather detail. For me a 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop like D500 is a versatile combo. At the moment Canon don't have lens or body to satisfy the amateur bird photographer.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2020)

capos said:


> For me it is not that simple what amateurs should use for wildlife photography. A amateur can sacrifice build quality and weight but needs a versatile zoom lens that wont ruin his limited time in the weekend. A f/7.1 is not a versatile lens. It's a huge restriction. I see some people talk about IBIS... sorry but IBIS won't freeze the movement. Some talk about raising the ISO but on a crop like 80/90D a bird photograph above ISO 1600 looks bad. High ISO ruins the feather detail. For me a 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop like D500 is a versatile combo. At the moment Canon don't have lens or body to satisfy the amateur bird photographer.


Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 14, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Brad, you said "I'd bet even money that the 100-500 is at 6.3 @ 400mm" I said "I'll take the bet," and gave some of my presumptions and technical speculations below as to why (you call these "assertions" to justify what others describe as a snotty response). You call these assertions to justify "calling me out." Is this a playground bully battles I've stumbled into? Are there alpha nerds I'm threatening with technical speculations? Here what I wrote that seems to have triggered you - emphasis added:
> 
> _Agreed. Not necessarily 5.6 at 400, but I'll wager that when you have an established and successful multi-generation 100-400mm design that gives 5.6 at 400, all the designer basically (simplistically) needs to do it to make a telescoping tube a little longer and pull the objective lens a little father forward to get to 500mm. Honestly, if we took apart a 100-400 and just held the front element a little father forward, it would presumably image as a 500.
> 
> ...


You seem to be quite confused about the series of responses. Nothing "triggered" me in any way at any time. The "snotty" response had nothing to do with our very limited repartee, it was a reference to others. I said all I had to say with my "if only life were that simple" remark. You did come off several times as asserting your view like an armchair quaterback, but I couldn't care less. You may want to reread the thread...


----------



## Phil (Feb 14, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> I agree completely, plus you still have access to 100mm instead of 140mm. That matters to me as I need the reach for the racing event on the water and then try to capture the smiles as they paddle back into the dock.
> 
> However, they announced a 2x alongside this 100-500 as well, which puts it beyond f/11, what new tricks for focus limits might the new R5 have up it's sleeve?


Also we don’t know how good the new sensor is at high iso it could be a lot better than what we currently have with the R and RP.


----------



## Phil (Feb 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.


From what I’ve read the 500 5.6 PF is a great lens, I was kinda hoping Canon would release something similar to either the Nikon 200-500 5.6 or the Sony’s new 200-600 its priced well and I like the idea of the internal zoom but I guess the Canons 100-500 will be a lot more portable and lighter which can be a huge benefit.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 14, 2020)

Phil said:


> Also we don’t know how good the new sensor is at high iso it could be a lot better than what we currently have with the R and RP.



True. But lets not have too high expections. 1 stop is a lot (thats a wholetech generation). Dont expect more than that.


----------



## capos (Feb 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Are you using the 200-500 f/5.6 on the D500? I take a 500mm f/5.6 PF on the D500 for a walk-around prime while my wife either the 90D or 5DSR/IV +100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC). If a 100-500mm at 400mm is as good as the 100-400mm II, it will be good enough for us and we won't have to frig around with the TCs. I do prefer the files from the 500D and 5DSR over those from the 90D but the 90D is good. If I want a longer zoom, I grab my Sigma 150-600mm. It actually has sufficient IQ but the AF and IS aren't top class.


I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.


----------



## OutWithIt (Feb 15, 2020)

Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 15, 2020)

OutWithIt said:


> Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.


I am amazed. I just went on about how there's no way that could be true in the R5 thread. I have since visited Canon Japan and it does appear that those images are accurate. So I guess that means that no lens wider than 100 will be able to use them. I am shocked that they won't work on the 70-200 and serve me up a big dish of crow...


----------



## joestopper (Feb 15, 2020)

OutWithIt said:


> Is anyone else not devastated the extenders don't look like they will work with the RF 70-200? Perhaps there will be some additional adapter for the extender to work with this lens? As it stands, the rear element of the RF 70-200 has no room for the extenders protruding element. I bought the 70-200 banking on extenders eventually coming out for it but now looks like the RF 70-200 will not be extendable...at least not the first version of it. Ughhhh might be a good idea to sell now before everyone else figures this out.



Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2020)

capos said:


> I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.


The 100-400mm II is very good for BIF, much, much better than the 150-600mms. The 80D is not the best body for BIF, and I personally like a wider field of view and 400mm on crop is my favourite. The 500 on the D500 is a little on the narrow side for me but the blisteringly fast and accurate AF is the key factor that makes it all worthwhile, as well as the outstanding IQ and low weight of the lens. The Nikon 200-500mm is not ideal. There are many reports of its being soft at 300-500mm (though copy variation comes in), it is much slower to focus than the 500mm PF, closer to the 150-600mms, and it is heavy. Here is a careful comparison of the 200-500mm and the 500mm by an expert bird photographer which chimes with most things I have read http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/nikkor-af-s-500mm-f-5-6-pf-vr-review/


----------



## brad-man (Feb 15, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
> Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...


I have an EF 70-200 2.8L II so I have no desire for another, but I am interested in an RF 70-200 f/4L. This gives me great pause. I can't even consider the 100-500 until some reviews come out. Since most everything RF is so expensive, waiting is good. Not much fun though...


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2020)

capos said:


> I'm using Tamron 150-600 G2 with Canon 80D and I'm not very happy with the focusing for BIF. Most of my friends are using 200-500 f/5.6 on D500 and I tried it. It is very different from Canon and I'm afraid it will be hard to get used to it. I was hoping this new 100-500 lens to be f/5.6. F/7.1 is a complete disappointment for me.


Yet thousands of 100-400 Mkii + 1.4 ext users at f/8 and 560mm aren't disappointed at all


----------



## capos (Feb 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> … The 80D is not the best body for BIF, and I personally like a wider field of view and 400mm on crop is my favourite. ...


I have problems mostly with focus accuracy and I don't know if the 80d or the Tammy is causing the problem. Canon 7d mark2 is a very old camera to buy now. The 400 f/5.6 is very old too. Unfortunately don't think Canon have adequate body or lens for the enthusiast bird photographer. The 90d has more fps and a nice joystick but no focus system improvement. We will see the R5.. it might be good for wildlife but the announced 100-500 lens is not. No matter how compact and how light it is. To fill the frame you need a hide or a camouflage. I shoot from a beanbag, a pan or a tripod. So weight up to 2.5 kg is ok for me. To get good light you need to shoot 1-2 hours after sunrise and before sunset and keep the ISO up to 800 or 1600 as absolute maximum on a crop. If I want a sharp BIF I need to shoot at 1/2000-2500. How is this possible with a f/7.1 lens? I don't care if I can handle it easy if it can't get the job done... I'm not there for a easy walk after all.


----------



## OutWithIt (Feb 15, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Absolutely. I was thinking of getting the RF 70-200 with the hope to extend 2x in cases needed while enjoying the compactness for the rest of the time.
> Now that does not work and I am undecided if I should get the 100-500 instead ...



So I also own the RF 24-70 and took a good look at it's rear element, I noticed the rear element for the 24-70 has a square 'window' while the 70-200 is round and more open. This gives me hope that the extenders will still be somehow usable with the 70-200 as it looks like the 70-200 was designed in a way to utilize some kind of extension. All Canon's past extenders have worked with their 70-200 lenses, it doesn't make sense they would change this now...

Edit: To add now that I'm looking better at the 70-200, there are lips on the black surrounding part of the glass--almost like a semi socket for the extender's nub. I'm more confident the extender will come with some kind of round extension tube to circle the protruding nub element of the TC so it can also fit the 70-200. Pure speculation though but there are what appear to be potential design decisions to accept TCs.


----------



## Pape (Feb 15, 2020)

Fast focusing 100-600mm plastic f6,2 could be nice ,even when only sigma quality optic.
Its crazy how fast lenses get old these days .improved optic ,improved af ,improved is.
Maybe no more sense make strong L lenses so much when on 5 year they will be outdated? Only peoples who use them lot get benefit,hobbyists could use something more crappy.
Dunno about you guys but i am just good weather shooter .staying in if drizzling 
Or no idea 100-500mm surely got even better close up features what 100-400. I am so clueless what to do with camera stuff


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2020)

capos said:


> I have problems mostly with focus accuracy and I don't know if the 80d or the Tammy is causing the problem. Canon 7d mark2 is a very old camera to buy now. The 400 f/5.6 is very old too. Unfortunately don't think Canon have adequate body or lens for the enthusiast bird photographer. The 90d has more fps and a nice joystick but no focus system improvement. We will see the R5.. it might be good for wildlife but the announced 100-500 lens is not. No matter how compact and how light it is. To fill the frame you need a hide or a camouflage. I shoot from a beanbag, a pan or a tripod. So weight up to 2.5 kg is ok for me. To get good light you need to shoot 1-2 hours after sunrise and before sunset and keep the ISO up to 800 or 1600 as absolute maximum on a crop. If I want a sharp BIF I need to shoot at 1/2000-2500. How is this possible with a f/7.1 lens? I don't care if I can handle it easy if it can't get the job done... I'm not there for a easy walk after all.


I sometimes shoot BIF at f/8 with 1/3200s and iso800 on a sunny day at a typical manual setting when I have a 1.4xTC on an f/5.6. I up the iso if it‘s darker or increase in post. I prefer f/4 or f/5.6, but I manage with extenders on them.


----------



## IslanderMV (Feb 15, 2020)

I am using a Sigma 150-600 C. I got it as a gift so I don't complain about any of its faults (BIF).

However, with the disappointment with the 7.1 end of the RF 100-500, I would be very surprised if Sigma was not working on native RF series lenses. 

I have no idea if the new protocols the RF series uses are closely held proprietary info. Will Sigma have to reverse engineer the RF connection? If so, it could be a while before we see a Sigma RF 150-600 f/6.3.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 15, 2020)

OutWithIt said:


> So I also own the RF 24-70 and took a good look at it's rear element, I noticed the rear element for the 24-70 has a square 'window' while the 70-200 is round and more open. This gives me hope that the extenders will still be somehow usable with the 70-200 as it looks like the 70-200 was designed in a way to utilize some kind of extension. All Canon's past extenders have worked with their 70-200 lenses, it doesn't make sense they would change this now...
> 
> Edit: To add now that I'm looking better at the 70-200, there are lips on the black surrounding part of the glass--almost like a semi socket for the extender's nub. I'm more confident the extender will come with some kind of round extension tube to circle the protruding nub element of the TC so it can also fit the 70-200. Pure speculation though but there are what appear to be potential design decisions to accept TCs.


I’m not sure how a spacer could work. Consider the 70-200 and a future big white mounted directly to a camera, both lenses are designed to fill the sensor at that distance. The lens of the 1.4x has to be oriented between the body and both lenses the same or it would affect the image projection. It would be like adding a macro tube.


----------



## wilsoncraft (Feb 16, 2020)

Pretty slow overall, especially on the long end. Oh well, let’s see how it performs.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 16, 2020)

The fact that is slow is not a problem IF the size and weight are similar to the 100-400 and it's 5.6 at 400mm. The problem is if Canon will not release a 200-600, considering both Nikon and Sony will have one and they are pretty affordable and good.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The fact that is slow is not a problem IF the size and weight are similar to the 100-400 and it's 5.6 at 400mm. The problem is if Canon will not release a 200-600, considering both Nikon and Sony will have one and they are pretty affordable and good.


I can live with f/6.3 at 400mm. But, I rarely find 400mm too long and would be using it at 500mm 90+% of the time.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I can live with f/6.3 at 400mm. But, I rarely find 400mm too long and would be using it at 500mm 90+% of the time.



Then I would go for a Canon 500mm EF f4L IS II USM.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 16, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Then I would go for a Canon 500mm EF f4L IS II USM.



I've always thought that one of the great mysteries in life is the nonexistence of an EF 500mm f/5.6 L.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 16, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I've always thought that one of the great mysteries in life is the nonexistence of an EF 500mm f/5.6 L.



I think Canon's policy with the big whites is to go the limits i.e. the max aperture possible for a given focal length while still be reasonable convenient to carry.

A 500 f/5.6 does fit not in there. While it is not at the limits it would still be expensive and at the same time too close to the 100-400 II.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 16, 2020)

joestopper said:


> I think Canon's policy with the big whites is to go the limits i.e. the max aperture possible for a given focal length while still be reasonable convenient to carry.



They do have the 300mm/4L and 400mm/5.6L which seem to be very well-liked among those who can't afford f/2.8, but they're also very old and Canon doesn't seem to have had any interest in developing updated versions of them. So, uh, I think you have a point.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2020)

There is a 500mm f/5.6, but as Canon doesn't make it, I have bought the only one available and a D500 on which to fit it. Weighing less than a 100-400mm II and tack sharp, it is a joy to use. Why on earth Canon having invented the technology has not made one, I will never understand. The demand is so high, it's back-ordered. And it's not that expensive, around half the price of a 400mm DO II.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I've always thought that one of the great mysteries in life is the nonexistence of an EF 500mm f/5.6 L.


Yes!

the 400F5.6 sold well, I would have added a 500F5.6 to my kit....


----------



## joestopper (Feb 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> There is a 500mm f/5.6, but as Canon doesn't make it, I have bought the only one available and a D500 on which to fit it. Weighing less than a 100-400mm II and tack sharp, it is a joy to use. Why on earth Canon having invented the technology has not made one, I will never understand. The demand is so high, it's back-ordered. And it's not that expensive, around half the price of a 400mm DO II.



I think you told the reason: half price of 400 DO II not too heavy etc. It is simply not the best business for Canon to sell it. They would like to get such customers to buy one stop above.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 17, 2020)

joestopper said:


> I think you told the reason: half price of 400 DO II not too heavy etc. It is simply not the best business for Canon to sell it. They would like to get such customers to buy one stop above.



I don’t think Canon are so short sighted to think that selling 1 f/4 instead of 3 f/5.6 lenses is good business. £3000 lenses will always sell more quantity, and then you have to factor in the profit.
Which of the two lenses has a higher profit margin, again that would probably be the f/5.6 lens.


----------



## AJ (Feb 17, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’ll take the bet: 7.1 x 400 / 500 = 5.6.


Remember the 100-400 is f/5.6 at 312-400 mm.
It's very well possible that the 100-500 will be f/7.1 starting at 400 mm


----------



## AJ (Feb 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I've always thought that one of the great mysteries in life is the nonexistence of an EF 500mm f/5.6 L.


Indeed. FWIW, Canon used to make a 500/4.5L but it was discontinued.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 17, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you’re happy with zooming to 400 at 5.6 then don’t zoom To 500 if you don’t like slightly higher ISOs. This isn’t that hard. It’s the same specs as the beloved 100-400 but with a bit more reach for when circumstances support it.


But will this lens be a f5.6 at 400mm or will it be f6.3 at 400mm? I'd like to see the Spec sheet for the f-stop transitions. ...or maybe I missed that and it is available?


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 17, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> And the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter gives you a nice 140-400mm/5.6... except it looks like the TCs won't fit! Have to buy both anyway dammit!


I would be shocked if this new RF 100-500mm will cost more than the RF 70-200mm f2.8 IS, currently $2.699USD at B&H. I would suspect this 100-500mm to not be more than $2.399 at introduction. And less if they plan to sell in volume (i.e. be more competitive with the 3rd-party super-zooms). ...Of course Canon has never seemed to worry too much about 3rd-party lens offerings' pricing before.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 18, 2020)

At what price point is the f/7.1 forgiven?

Is it $1499?

That's what I think the price of this lens will be. Now, that doesn't mean that'll be the launch price. 

We may see a similar situation play out as we did with the EF 24-70 f/4L IS, Canon read the market wrong and they launched it at $1499, price reductions began less than 6 months and within a year there was a rebate that dropped the price nearly 30% and it ended up sticking at around a 33% price drop from launch after that.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 18, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Any bets on the weather sealing for this lens?


It's an "L" lens. What more do you need to know? The "L" lenses all have, 1) robust design and build, 2) weather-sealing, 3) best autofocusing motors, 4) best glass, 5) etc. etc.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 18, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> But will this lens be a f5.6 at 400mm or will it be f6.3 at 400mm? I'd like to see the Spec sheet for the f-stop transitions. ...or maybe I missed that and it is available?



If you were Canon with a venerable 100-400 lens that created a new market category, would you hobble the aperture at 400 in order to extend from 400 to 500 think that your buyers of $2000 lenses wouldn’t care? 

Basically, I trust the folks at Canon not to be that insanely stupid. I’m not worried. It will be f5.6 at 400. I guarantee it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you were Canon with a venerable 100-400 lens that created a new market category, would you hobble the aperture at 400 in order to extend from 400 to 500 think that your buyers of $2000 lenses wouldn’t care?
> 
> Basically, I trust the folks at Canon not to be that insanely stupid. I’m not worried. It will be f5.6 at 400. I guarantee it.


By the same sort of logic RF 70-200/2.8 should be a teie converter compatible lens. As predecessor was Tele converter compatible. However RF lens is not....
Guarantee is a very strong word. What happens if 100-500 / x-7.1 won’t be F5.6 at 400mm? You loose credibility?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 18, 2020)

AlanF said:


> There is a 500mm f/5.6, but as Canon doesn't make it, I have bought the only one available and a D500 on which to fit it. Weighing less than a 100-400mm II and tack sharp, it is a joy to use. Why on earth Canon having invented the technology has not made one, I will never understand. The demand is so high, it's back-ordered. And it's not that expensive, around half the price of a 400mm DO II.



That seems like an excellent offering if they are essentially dropping the crop frame options. With 8(!?) stops of IS and improving high ISO performance, hand holding long lenses should be realistic. 95mm filter size is a sweet spot.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> By the same sort of logic RF 70-200/2.8 should be a teie converter compatible lens. As predecessor was Tele converter compatible. However RF lens is not....
> Guarantee is a very strong word. What happens if 100-500 / x-7.1 won’t be F5.6 at 400mm? You loose credibility?



I’ll wager the price of the EF lens with a suitable stakeholder. Seriously. Any takers? (Crickets). Those who disputed my assumption most firmly have already offered hypothetical “kudos” to the designers for solving the challenge I presume was an imperative and already met by the fact the lens is announced. To repeat: the lens is already designed and announced. If they couldn’t have made it 5.6 at 400 this would not be the case. They’d still be working on it or surrendered to the “400 Barrier”. 

I’m here for my own enjoyment and sharing of my hobby. As happy to be assumed credible as incredible by others.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

Being a Canon shooter for long.. going to F7.1 was not a typical Canon logic. Far from it. So. Expect unexpected aperture values at around 400mm end.


----------



## Stitch (Feb 18, 2020)

Do we know if there will be a RF *something*-400mm in addition to that 100-500mm, or is that 500mm supposed to "replace" the 400mm that was rumored here before?


----------



## Kit. (Feb 18, 2020)

Will Canon try to sell this lens to anyone who already have the 100-400, though? Or do they target a lower-priced market?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Will Canon try to sell this lens to anyone who already have the 100-400, though? Or do they target a lower-priced market?


They have sold a huge number of the 100-400mm II, and it is now going through regular cycles of massive discounts. I would assume that Canon sees a new market in those going into mirrorless, either new customers altogether or from those who have EF lenses. This lens might draw me into Canon mirrorless. Currently, I am very happy with DSLRs. But,if they can knock a few hundred grams off the 100-400, without losing its AF or IQ and increase its focal length, then that could well be a deciding factor for me if the newer mirrorless have improved AF. I think the market is there for an £/$1800-2000.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

Stitch said:


> Do we know if there will be a RF *something*-400mm in addition to that 100-500mm, or is that 500mm supposed to "replace" the 400mm that was rumored here before?











Patent: Canon RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS and more


More telephoto zoom lens patents for the RF mount have been uncovered by Canon News. A couple of them look to be "consumer" zoom lenses along with what is lik



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## SteveC (Feb 18, 2020)

Of course it wasn't all that long ago that I broke down and bought the 100-400 mk II L


----------



## Stitch (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Patent: Canon RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS and more
> 
> 
> More telephoto zoom lens patents for the RF mount have been uncovered by Canon News. A couple of them look to be "consumer" zoom lenses along with what is lik
> ...



So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Of course it wasn't all that long ago that I broke down and bought the 100-400 mk II L


We have two, and worth every penny. We have had so much use from them that I wouldn't care if we had to give them away in a fire sale. Sharp from edge to edge and with AF as good as the 400mm DO II.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 18, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> If you were Canon with a venerable 100-400 lens that created a new market category, would you hobble the aperture at 400 in order to extend from 400 to 500 think that your buyers of $2000 lenses wouldn’t care?
> 
> Basically, I trust the folks at Canon not to be that insanely stupid. I’m not worried. It will be f5.6 at 400. I guarantee it.


My guess is that you are 100% correct. I just don't see them screwing with that METRIC. The RF mount perhaps helped their engineers add the extra 100mm with not too much weight-gain, not change the size too much - diameter, with only a 'minor' ding to the maximum f-stop (but no impact at 400mm).

Fun times for us photographers - professionals or hobbyists.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 18, 2020)

Stitch said:


> So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.



No, it merely means they they were working on the design, and thought it potentially worth preventing competitors from pursuing the concept. I imagine Canon files many many times more patent applications than they release lenses.

I do like the notion of an RF tele-zoom with a 95mm filter size. Lots of possibility there.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

Stitch said:


> So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.


no, it does not. it is though an indication of possibilities. this is a rumor website and not a repository of registered products. You asked for an indication of Canon's intent. well, here is an indication.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> You should be able to use the 100-500 as a 100-400 that is 5.6 at 400. Then you can reach to 500 if you want, but no-one's forcing you to.
> 
> In short, 100-500+TC _is_ a 100-400 + TC, that can also do a bit more _if_ you want to and accept the downsides of the smaller f-stop.
> 
> ...


Your assumption that 100-500 will be F5.6 at 400mm is most likely incorrect. Review your position based on 100-500 is at F6.3 at 400 and F7.1 at around 420mm and up. So probably not as straight forward as it would appear at a first sight.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 23, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> What makes you think it would be f6.3 at 400? Did you see that in the patent or something, or is it just a guess? To be clear my guess is as guess. I might not be right but I wouldn't tell someone who thought otherwise that they were "most likely incorrect".


it has been discussed many times on this forum. there numerous signs that the lens will unlikely to be F5.6 at 400mm end:

girth is one of these signs. observe how 100-400 / 4.0-5.6 changer its F number through focal lengths.

​
Modelf/4.0​f/4.5​f/5.0​f/5.6​f/6.3​Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens55-63mm​64-99mm​100-154mm​155-250mm​​Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens55-73mm​74-95mm​96-153mm​154-250mm​​Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ISL USM Lens70-103mm​104-154mm​155-228mm​229-300mm​​Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens70-84mm​85-134mm​135-224mm​225-300mm​​Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens​70-94mm​95-184mm​185-300mm​​Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens​100-129mm​130-259mm​260-400mm​​*Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM*​100-134mm​135-311mm​312-400mm​​Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Lens​80-134mm​135-249mm​250-400mm​​Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens​​150-173mm​174-312mm​313-500mm​Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens​​150-225mm​226-427mm​428-600mm​



now.. with that in mind, and based on information available at hand, I suggest that Canon RF 100-500 lens will be F6.3 at around 400mm. I suggest revisit this conversation when information become available. all the best for now.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 23, 2020)

Stitch said:


> So? A patent doesn't necessarily mean the product will be out some day.


no, it does not. I have explained that already. however, this is a possibility as any other rumours on this site.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2020)

It does get frustrating when there has been considerable discussion on a topic, like the possible aperture of the 100-500mm at 400mm, and a new poster makes a comment without having read the earlier exchanges. But, there are so many back posts to plough through for those not logging in frequently that polite repetition as here is helpful.


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

AlanF said:


> But, there are so many back posts to plough through for those not logging in frequently that polite repetition as here is helpful.


It may be helpful to some.

But we are at a point we're it is hard to argue with past experiences, as it seems that Canon is in the verge of bringing out a series of products that differ from their slow, conservative past.

All the talk that is getting particularly worked up about these topics is not helping anybody I believe. Making fun guesses is just right. It seemed crazy to think the R5 specs were right when they leaked initially. And now here we are.

At this point we simply don't have enough data points from the RF system, particularly concerning Tele lenses, to make any hard assumptions. So what modern Canon would and wouldn't do is in the stars. No need to force everybody to have the same _guess_. If they want to have a different opinion that should be fine after all we'll find out the truth eventually.


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> It's astonishing that you can't read and understand a simple post made in the last day. It's like the numbers, and "proving someone wrong" are a lot more important to you than actually photographing.


Calm down, there was nothing attacking or personal in Alan's post and questioning his photography makes you look plain silly. Ever visited the bird thread? I would highly recommend it.


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

I personally could see it going either way. I get the impression that the Canon engineers are allowed to explore the new freedoms that come from the shorter flange distance, as well as the new AF capabilities and the fully electronic image viewing.

We've already seen them doing things that many would consider 'unlike Canon' when they made the 24-240 mm require a slight crop because it's image circle doesn't cover the whole sensor at the wide end. Since the 24-105mm requires a firmware update as well, we might see them use a similar trick again. These are of course lenses with far different price and weight requirements than the 100-500 mm. But we also don't know the exact price and weight of that lens yet, so who knows...

But it shows that their past design behavior is different from what they are doing now.

More details can't come fast enough


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> [..]
> We've already seen them doing things that many would consider 'unlike Canon' when they made the 24-240 mm require a slight crop because it's image circle doesn't cover the whole sensor at the wide end. Since the 24-105mm requires a firmware update as well, we might see them use a similar trick again.[..]


At this point I wonder at the competence and foresight of the firmware and RF design team. Canon made a big deal out of the fact that all RF lenses have the correction and DLO included and transmit it to the body. But all the new lenses have needed a firmware upgrade of the body, the RF70-200 *twice*.


----------



## BillB (Feb 23, 2020)

AlanF said:


> We have two, and worth every penny. We have had so much use from them that I wouldn't care if we had to give them away in a fire sale. Sharp from edge to edge and with AF as good as the 400mm DO II.


The availability of the 100-400 II has to have cut into sales of the primes, especially those with slower apertures. Once again, Canon seems to have found a sweetspot and built a better mousetrap, at least from a sales point of view.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> Calm down, there was nothing attacking or personal in Alan's post and questioning his photography makes you look plain silly. Ever visited the bird thread? I would highly recommend it.


Thanks for this support, which is much appreciated. I don't think it was in fact aimed at me. In his temper tantrum, he attached his reply to my post by mistake instead of to an earlier one by someone else it was aimed at. That in no way condones his use of language, and all discourse on this forum should be conducted with mutual respect.


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2020)

AlanF said:


> all discourse on this forum should be conducted with mutual respect.


It's easy to see how one can get worked up about these subjects, after all we are here because we share a passion for photography and gear, as well as a curiosity for the new technologies coming from Canon and the industry as a whole.

Speculation and arguing about the various details that surround the matter is fun and informative in many cases. It's simply more fun and informative if we all try our best to keep in mind that we are talking to other people here, and there are no special awards for being wrong or right about something, especially predictions and rumors.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 24, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> At this point I wonder at the competence and foresight of the firmware and RF design team. Canon made a big deal out of the fact that all RF lenses have the correction and DLO included and transmit it to the body. But all the new lenses have needed a firmware upgrade of the body, the RF70-200 *twice*.



Meh, I think those are just bugfixes and maybe some iterative development of the protocols. Teething issues. It’s a brand new mount after all, and it’s impossible to pre-plan everything before you even have a reasonable number of different types of lenses in the system. Software engineering reality.


----------



## tron (Feb 25, 2020)

AJ said:


> Indeed. FWIW, Canon used to make a 500/4.5L but it was discontinued.


It was as big and heavy as the 500 4L if I recall correctly so no point.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Is it F5.6 at 400mm end though? Slim chances.



I'm 99% certain it will be f/5.6 at 400mm. The numbers calculate out that way (7.1*400/500 = 5.6)


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm 99% certain it will be f/5.6 at 400mm. The numbers calculate out that way (7.1*400/500 = 5.6)


I'm thinking this is going to be one sweet lens. I'm taking a wait and see approach and hoping for the best. I really liked my EF 400mm f/5.6L, but as good as Canon has been getting with the zooms I can see this lens as a real winner. A great zoom beats a prime of the same aperture in my world.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 26, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm 99% certain it will be f/5.6 at 400mm. The numbers calculate out that way (7.1*400/500 = 5.6)



yes numbers are correct - provided that girth and size of the 200-500 in overall is also proportionally larger than 100-400, however it looks more like 100-400/xx-6.3 (Sigma or Canon) scaled up to 200-500 size. Like I said, I hope I am mistaken however.... Sigma and Tamron 100-400/6.3 are sold at around AUD$600.00 this days. I think that Canon will have no hesitation in offering F6.3 at 400 mm end.. Let's wait and see


----------



## AlanF (Feb 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm thinking this is going to be one sweet lens. I'm taking a wait and see approach and hoping for the best. I really liked my EF 400mm f/5.6L, but as good as Canon has been getting with the zooms I can see this lens as a real winner. A great zoom beats a prime of the same aperture in my world.


I prefer my zooms to be small . Likewise, I am hoping for the best. And, I don't care if it's f/6.3 or f/5.6 at 400mm because if there is one thing I am 99% certain of it's that I'll be shooting at 500mm for 99% of the time and less than 1% at 400mm.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I prefer my zooms to be small . Likewise, I am hoping for the best. And, I don't care if it's f/6.3 or f/5.6 at 400mm because if there is one thing I am 99% certain of it's that I'll be shooting at 500mm for 99% of the time and less than 1% at 400mm.



Future innovation from Canon: a 100,500mm zoom lens. It replaces the zoom ring with a switch, you can select 100 or 500mm, nothing in between


----------



## AlanF (Feb 26, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Future innovation from Canon: a 100,500mm zoom lens. It replaces the zoom ring with a switch, you can select 100 or 500mm, nothing in between


Much of my photography is like that, a prime with one change of focal length with adding an extender. And Canon has it already in the 200-400mm - just flick in the built in TC.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 27, 2020)

Dpreview has posted photos of this new lens alongside EF 100-400mm mk II and this new lens is a little longer(nearly same as 100-400 with ef to rf adapter) and narrower in diameter.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 27, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Dpreview has posted photos of this new lens alongside EF 100-400mm mk II and this new lens is a little longer(nearly same as 100-400 with ef to rf adapter) and narrower in diameter.



Narrower? It looks thicker to me: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...rf-100-500mm-lens-under-glass-at-wppi?slide=7


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Narrower? It looks thicker to me: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...rf-100-500mm-lens-under-glass-at-wppi?slide=7


It's probably the same diameter as it most likely takes a 77mm filter. The angleof view is deceptive.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It's probably the same diameter as it most likely takes a 77mm filter. The angleof view is deceptive.



You're right, the next picture makes the 100-500 indeed look narrower: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...rf-100-500mm-lens-under-glass-at-wppi?slide=8


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 27, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You're right, the next picture makes the 100-500 indeed look narrower: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...rf-100-500mm-lens-under-glass-at-wppi?slide=8


I am curious about the weight(given how much Canon shaved off from 70-200) and how well its close focusing abilities are compared to EF 100-400mm as it will pair nicely with the rumoured APS-C RF based camera for both butterflies(larger cannopy fliers) and skinks which tend to be shy and even 180mm lens is useless for these critters.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Mar 2, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I currently use the RF 24-105 f4L and have been looking at the RF70-200mm but the price is eye watering. I've never used a teleconverter and wondered if the 2x converter would work with my current lens? Seems a better option than paying nearly £2700 for the 70-200mm. Anyone familiar with using teleconverters? I Know I might lose a stop or two and hopefully the new announced converters will be compatible.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 2, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> I currently use the RF 24-105 f4L and have been looking at the RF70-200mm but the price is eye watering. I've never used a teleconverter and wondered if the 2x converter would work with my current lens? Seems a better option than paying nearly £2700 for the 70-200mm. Anyone familiar with using teleconverters? I Know I might lose a stop or two and hopefully the new announced converters will be compatible.



Have a look at https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm-lens/specifications/ and scroll down to "*Extender Compatiblity*". It looks there are no RF lenses available from Canon that will support extenders. The RF100-500mm could be the first.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Mar 2, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm-lens/specifications/ and scroll down to "*Extender Compatiblity*". It looks there are no RF lenses available from Canon that will support extenders. The RF100-500mm could be the first.


Im not surprised, although a little disappointed. Thanks for the link.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 19, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> I currently use the RF 24-105 f4L and have been looking at the RF70-200mm but the price is eye watering. I've never used a teleconverter and wondered if the 2x converter would work with my current lens? Seems a better option than paying nearly £2700 for the 70-200mm. Anyone familiar with using teleconverters? I Know I might lose a stop or two and hopefully the new announced converters will be compatible.


I believe "traditionally", extenders were compatible with most white lenses, but I don't recall a black EF lens that could use them. Now that we're in the _RF zone_, I suppose all bets are off.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 19, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I believe "traditionally", extenders were compatible with most white lenses, but I don't recall a black EF lens that could use them. Now that we're in the _RF zone_, I suppose all bets are off.


The EF 135mm f/2L takes the extenders. I believe the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro also works with them.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The EF 135mm f/2L takes the extenders. I believe the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro also works with them.


Oops, quite right. I stand corrected.


----------

