# Canon will soon announce the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM, RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 3, 2021)

> It looks like Canon will be making some major lens announcements later this month.
> Canon will announce the following lenses in April:
> 
> Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 3, 2021)

If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!


----------



## ToddK (Apr 3, 2021)

Exciting times. I’m hoping they shave off even some more weight.


----------



## DrToast (Apr 3, 2021)

Is the macro 1:1 or the weird 1:1.4?


----------



## Fischer (Apr 3, 2021)

Painful that the RF 300mm F/2.8 IS L is not on that list. Maybe Canon is hoping that some will succumb to getting the RF 400mm f/2.8 IS L first. But its the difference between handholding - or not - for me, so not an option. I guess the same goes for many others. Optics of the 400mm will probably tell us a lot of what we can expect of a 300mm.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 3, 2021)

Wow! We are going to need a wheelbarrow full of money for those super RF Big Whites, but I guess they’ll be amazing paired with R5 or R6 bodies for pro wildlife and sports shooters, gamechangers even!


----------



## WilliamJ (Apr 3, 2021)

Shall we take bets on the price of the flagship big whites?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 3, 2021)

I remember seeing a patent here for the RF 100mm that had a size bigger than the EF 100L + adapter combined. I'd lose all interest if so. I've been impressed by the compact yet optimally amazing lenses both Sony and Sigma have released recently - would love to see Canon do something similar for a range of f/1.4 primes.


----------



## padam (Apr 3, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Painful that the RF 300mm F/2.8 IS L is not on that list. Maybe Canon is hoping that some will succumb to getting the RF 400mm f/2.8 IS L first. But its the difference between handholding - or not - for me, so not an option. I guess the same goes for many others. Optics of the 400mm will probably tell us a lot of what we can expect of a 300mm.


Maybe they are just RF-mount conversions of the version III 400mm and 600mm lenses so they work natively with the RF-mount cameras and teleconverters, while the rest will be new.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 3, 2021)

Wow! Now I have to decide between the 400 mm f2.8 and the 600 mm f4 lenses. Previously I owned the EF 400 mm f2.8 because in one lens I could get a 400 mm f2.8, which is great for BIF and a 800 mm f5.6. It can also fit in carry on luggage. A 600 mm f4 has the advantage of being a 1200 mm f8, but is not compatible with carry on luggage. 

Decisions Decisions....

Lastly, my guesses are prices are $13K for the 400 mm f2.8 and $14K for the 600 mm f4. Basically, a $1K price increase for each. Of course, Canon might keep the prices the same to better compete with Sony. Time will tell...


----------



## elias723 (Apr 3, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!


Yeah it will work, this is my next investment and them the RF 15-35mm 2.8L and complete my combo for wedding photography


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 3, 2021)

These would seem the ones Canon should releases first, but I agree RF 300mm F/2.8 IS L. Does not seem like it will happen because of the RF 100-500, but personally I would like a RF 500 F/5.6 IS L. Although, If I were to try the 100-500 I would surely like it.


----------



## elias723 (Apr 3, 2021)

Ouh Yeah! I will buy the Rf 100mm 2.8L 1:1 macro in the same day it appear for preorder, someone with me?


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 3, 2021)

It'll be interesting to see the price & weight for these lenses.

I'd like to say exactly what long teles I think they should have, but I've been so surprised at how happy I am with the (unexpected) RF 100-500L and even the IQ of the inexpensive RF 800 f11, that I'm just going to sit back and see what magic Canon has up their sleeves in the future! 
By the way, if you're interested in how those 2 lenses (with or without the RF 1.4x TC) stack up against each other, I created a resolution test thread (with AlanF's assistance) for them at: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...out-rf-1-4x-tc-for-super-telephoto-use.40240/


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 3, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!


I make a guess that it will be 2x the price.


----------



## StandardLumen (Apr 3, 2021)

This is surely great news for a lot of photographers. Personally, I'd be happy to see if these lenses are smaller, lighter, or cheaper than their EF counter parts (at least one of the three!) but I'm guessing they will not be.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 3, 2021)

DrToast said:


> Is the macro 1:1 or the weird 1:1.4?


That weird macro is the 1,4:1, meaning not 1x mag. but 1,4x mag - so even better.
It was typed the wrong way but when you read through the CanonNews article, you'll find this:


CanonNews said:


> This patent application shows that instead of resolving down to 1:1 like most macro lenses, these lenses shown go down to 1.4x.


This is what the table in the patent shows, too.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 3, 2021)

Guess the R1 is around the corner.

As for focal lengths, I'm a little surprised Canon started with longer focal lengths. With high res sensors, its easy to crop 300mm to get 400mm framing. If the R1 will have 20MP, the photographer will have 11MP after crop, that's enough for A3. Going the other way isn't that easy.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Apr 3, 2021)

Time to take the kids out of private school.


----------



## AdamBotond (Apr 3, 2021)

Planning to get an EF 400 F2.8L IS II USM soon. I guess release of those super telephoto RF lenses could help for the price drop of the EF 400 2.8.


----------



## dadohead (Apr 3, 2021)

Wake me up when they announce a 24mm tilt shift.


----------



## JohnGerlach (Apr 3, 2021)

I am not surprised the 100mm macro is being announced, but I would really prefer a longer macro in the 200mm range. While the 100mm macro is fine for studio work where you can control the background, the old 180mm macro was far superior to the outdoor nature photography I did and still use it today. Having a tripod collar, narrow angle of view, and more working distance made all the difference to better images that generated a huge amount of photo sales over the decades. So let's hear it for a longer macro lens!


----------



## djack41 (Apr 3, 2021)

How disappointing if Canon does not use DO technology. Several years ago, Canon was taking a 600mm F4 DO to the trade shows. It was very compact and light weight. The 400mm F4 DO ll has been an excellent lens. Canon has the technology to produce such lenses.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 3, 2021)

Any hint of prices-I'm afraid to even think of it.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 3, 2021)

DrToast said:


> Is the macro 1:1 or the weird 1:1.4?


Won't mind if it goes over 1x while keeping AF but less than 1x(1:1.4 or something else) would be disappointing replacement to excellent EF 100mm L IS


----------



## 58Special (Apr 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Good to see some Big White Len's coming, guess I better start saving up, going to be expensive.


----------



## efmshark (Apr 3, 2021)

RF 500mm f/5.6L IS or RF 600mm f/8L IS would have been much more interesting and unique lenses for the RF platform - also, a lot more reasonably priced.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2021)

efmshark said:


> RF 500mm f/5.6L IS or RF 600mm f/8L IS would have been much more interesting and unique lenses for the RF platform...


Not for the pro users who they want to get into the R1.


----------



## eosDave (Apr 3, 2021)

highdesertmesa said:


> Time to take the kids out of private school.


Do you have two kidneys?


----------



## eosDave (Apr 3, 2021)

Will they be any more available that the RF 100-500mm?


----------



## Jacksonhole Jeff (Apr 3, 2021)

About time!!!!!! Been waiting on the 400 and 600!!!


----------



## peters (Apr 3, 2021)

My bank account is allready crying


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 3, 2021)

That macro lens will be close to £2000..


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 3, 2021)

dadohead said:


> Wake me up when they announce a 24mm tilt shift.


Out of curiosity, what do you expect it to offer, that the TS-E 24mm w/ adaptor don't?


----------



## barton springs (Apr 3, 2021)

My EF 300 2.8L IS is my most used lens (sports) ...a 1.4x converter is on it ½ the time. I'm baffled Canon doesn't include it with the new 400 & 600


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Apr 3, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Guess the R1 is around the corner.
> 
> As for focal lengths, I'm a little surprised Canon started with longer focal lengths. With high res sensors, its easy to crop 300mm to get 400mm framing. If the R1 will have 20MP, the photographer will have 11MP after crop, that's enough for A3. Going the other way isn't that easy.


Maybe they can make the RF 400mm F2.8 with the weight of an EF 300 F2.8. But price wise the 400mm is way more expensive.


----------



## lexptr (Apr 3, 2021)

Wow, 100L macro - one of my most favorite lenses is coming to RF! Interesting, how it will excel the EF (besides native mount)? All (or almost all) RF lenses bring one or more improvement over the EF version. So I feel like a kid, waiting to see how Santa will surprise me


----------



## bdeutsch (Apr 3, 2021)

DrToast said:


> Is the macro 1:1 or the weird 1:1.4?


Remember, this is a "rumor" site, so any answer you get will just be a rumor. In fact, why not just start your own rumor? It's more fun that way.


Deutsch Photography: NYC’s Top Corporate, Executive and Actor Headshot Photographer NYC


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 3, 2021)

JohnGerlach said:


> I am not surprised the 100mm macro is being announced, but I would really prefer a longer macro in the 200mm range. While the 100mm macro is fine for studio work where you can control the background, the old 180mm macro was far superior to the outdoor nature photography I did and still use it today. Having a tripod collar, narrow angle of view, and more working distance made all the difference to better images that generated a huge amount of photo sales over the decades. So let's hear it for a longer macro lens!


I love my 180mm L macro, surprised it still hasn't been refreshed. looking online it was introduced in 1996! talk about longevity .. would also like something like the MPE 65mm Macro? I love a lot of the output people get, but its a very old lens ... 1-5x Mag!


----------



## AlanF (Apr 3, 2021)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> Maybe they can make the RF 400mm F2.8 with the weight of an EF 300 F2.8. But price wise the 400mm is way more expensive.


The 400mm f/4 DO II is just under the weight of the 300/2.8 II so it would be remarkable if they could make a 400/2.8 that light.


----------



## neonlight (Apr 3, 2021)

So, not DO then? RF conversion from the EF?
Or are we going to get some other DO lenses sitting between the RF600/800 telescopes and the big whites?


----------



## Ruiloba (Apr 3, 2021)

barton springs said:


> My EF 300 2.8L IS is my most used lens (sports) ...a 1.4x converter is on it ½ the time. I'm baffled Canon doesn't include it with the new 400 & 600


I don't know if you mean that they don't have an 1.4x and 2x for RF in the launch of the big whites... Because there is already an RF 1.4x and an RF 2x .. and i tested the 1.4x with the 100-500 and it is perfect


----------



## SonicStudios (Apr 3, 2021)

Outstanding!!! The 400 kind of reminds me of the move Canon made from the EF 100-400 to RF 100-500. Maybe the 300 is being replaced by the 400. Either way, I'M IN!


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 3, 2021)

djack41 said:


> How disappointing if Canon does not use DO technology. Several years ago, Canon was taking a 600mm F4 DO to the trade shows. It was very compact and light weight. The 400mm F4 DO ll has been an excellent lens. Canon has the technology to produce such lenses.


Several things:
1. Agree with you about the DO technology. I almost bought the 400 DO when I sold my 200-400, but thought I would wait for a RF 400 DO IS (L?) version. I thought is was a great lens and liked the weight / size. It also did very well with the 1.4x TC. I was actually hoping for a 500 DO even if they had to go to f5.6 to make it work. I tried the RF 800mm f11, liked the IQ but not happy with the f11. 
2. Very surprised they are releasing the RF 400 & RF 600 first since these RF lenses were recently updated and got the version III weight loss program. I am wondering if they were designed for both the EF/RF mounts during the last update and let's them bleed through EF inventory and have two BW ready to go. I really thought we would see the RF 300, 500 & 200-400 (500?) first. These are all very popular lenses, but I don't know how their sales compare to the 400/600. 
3. I have been on a mission to lighten my wildlife load and happy with any weight / size reductions they can make on the BW lenses.


----------



## jeanluc (Apr 3, 2021)

eosDave said:


> Will they be any more available that the RF 100-500mm?


I sure hope so for anybody who wants these. Still waiting for that one. Maybe produce some more of what you already release, THEN add more....


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2021)

neonlight said:


> So, not DO then? RF conversion from the EF?
> Or are we going to get some other DO lenses sitting between the RF600/800 telescopes and the big whites?


No, Canon will not be doing just a conversion. These will be specifically designed for RF.


----------



## padam (Apr 3, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No, Canon will not be doing just a conversion. These will be specifically designed for RF.


Not quite sure about that, the version III telephoto primes are less than 3 years old at this point, and they've really made them as light as possible. The focusing system already has fly-by-wire manual focusing just like the RF lenses.









The Great 400mm f/2.8 Teardown Comparison. Part 1 – The Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS III


We tend to not publish tear-downs of super-telephoto lenses. They're big and heavy, always well made and well engineered, like you would expect in something that costs as much as a used car. Big, heavy, and boring don't make for an interesting teardown. So we take them apart, make our in-house...



www.lensrentals.com





I says similar USM motor as in the RF 50mm f/1.2L lens

And if they designed these with the rear elements closer to the mount, they would not be compatible with the RF extenders, even the 100-500 is not usable through the full zoom range when an extender is mounted.
So it would be a bit surprising to see brand new designs so soon instead of other lenses that are even older in the EF-mount, like the 300 2.8, but maybe the development was running in parallel with the version III EF lenses or something.

From the article: "Obviously, there is a business advantage in using the same subsystem in several lenses. But putting the same electronic focusing system in this EF lens makes me think that going forward Canon lenses may have a lot of internal similarity in either RF or EF mount. Converting the Canon 400mm f/2.8 to an RF wouldn’t be quite as simple as a different rear element and an RF bayonet mount, of course. The additional electronics for the RF Control Ring would have to be stuffed in here and probably some optical tweaks made, but the core structure could be very similar."


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Apr 3, 2021)

djack41 said:


> How disappointing if Canon does not use DO technology. Several years ago, Canon was taking a 600mm F4 DO to the trade shows. It was very compact and light weight. The 400mm F4 DO ll has been an excellent lens. Canon has the technology to produce such lenses.


Who says they won't, in due course. This is only an announcement (rumour) of the 'next' lenses coming through - it doesn't exclude further announcements later. After all, Canon did both 400/2.8L and the DO in EF, so maybe will RF too?


----------



## navastronia (Apr 4, 2021)

These lenses ain't for me (I don't shoot sports or wildlife professionally) but I'm excited they exist and look forward to Canon revealing the R1 in due time.


----------



## terrellcwoods (Apr 4, 2021)

Kinda figures. Really sets up for the Olympic games, Superbowl, and whatever that new 1 body will be.


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Apr 4, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 400mm f/4 DO II is just under the weight of the 300/2.8 II so it would be remarkable if they could make a 400/2.8 that light.


The difference between the 400mm F2.8 III and 300mm F2.8 II is 490g.. A huge gap, but it doesn’t seem impossible to come close.


----------



## JohnGerlach (Apr 4, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> I love my 180mm L macro, surprised it still hasn't been refreshed. looking online it was introduced in 1996! talk about longevity .. would also like something like the MPE 65mm Macro? I love a lot of the output people get, but its a very old lens ... 1-5x Mag!


Oh yes, I do really enjoy using my 65mm macro for super high magnification. I hope they offer it in the RF mount too. Thankfully, due to the 180mm macro I did so well with, I no longer have to worry about affording it. That takes the stress out of deciding what to buy.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 4, 2021)

It's a big monetary jump - I have the 500/4 II and it's a stellar lens. A bit too heavy for handholding, but the image quality is excellent, with or without teleconverters. 

It's going to be a big move going from EF to RF though - new teleconverters and all. The downside of the new mount, but that's the cost of advancing. And the RF system is an advance, no doubt.


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 4, 2021)

JohnGerlach said:


> Oh yes, I do really enjoy using my 65mm macro for super high magnification. I hope they offer it in the RF mount too. Thankfully, due to the 180mm macro I did so well with, I no longer have to worry about affording it. That takes the stress out of deciding what to buy.


I sadly don't make a return on my investment... its pure hobby.


----------



## sanj (Apr 4, 2021)

SonicStudios said:


> Outstanding!!! The 400 kind of reminds me of the move Canon made from the EF 100-400 to RF 100-500. Maybe the 300 is being replaced by the 400. Either way, I'M IN!


How can 300 mm be replaced by 400 mm? I do not get it.


----------



## sanj (Apr 4, 2021)

Just because 300 mm is not mentioned in this list does not mean that it will not be announced (Rumor site) or if not announced now, it will not be announced soon afterwards.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2021)

The EF versions of the 400 and 600 were the only ones Canon updated to version III. That tells us which lenses they prioritized and one can speculate that was based on some combination of demand, profitability, return on investment and degree of improvement through design changes. Because they are the most recently updated lenses, it may also indicate that Canon needed fewer design changes to convert these to RF mount.

I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy. 

I would not be surprised to see this as a development announcement with the actual lenses released in 2022.


----------



## PFloyd (Apr 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you expect it to offer, that the TS-E 24mm w/ adaptor don't?


Autofocus.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 4, 2021)

I gotta think that Canon is looking at an RF???-300 2.8L zoom to compete with Nikon's that will cut them off at the knees by being MUCH lighter.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not for the pro users who they want to get into the R1.



Yes, Canon seem to be using the same approach they did with the R5/R6 - releases lenses first them follow through with bodies.


----------



## padam (Apr 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> Just because 300 mm is not mentioned in this list does not mean that it will not be announced (Rumor site) or if not announced now, it will not be announced soon afterwards.


If the earlier leaked roadmap is true (might be as it matches with these three lenses as well), then these are the remaining lenses for the next two years.

Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro

Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM


So a 300mm lens would come later.


----------



## Harry68 (Apr 4, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Wow! Now I have to decide between the 400 mm f2.8 and the 600 mm f4 lenses. Previously I owned the EF 400 mm f2.8 because in one lens I could get a 400 mm f2.8, which is great for BIF and a 800 mm f5.6. It can also fit in carry on luggage. A 600 mm f4 has the advantage of being a 1200 mm f8, but is not compatible with carry on luggage.
> ...


With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 4, 2021)

JohnGerlach said:


> I am not surprised the 100mm macro is being announced, but I would really prefer a longer macro in the 200mm range. While the 100mm macro is fine for studio work where you can control the background, the old 180mm macro was far superior to the outdoor nature photography I did and still use it today. Having a tripod collar, narrow angle of view, and more working distance made all the difference to better images that generated a huge amount of photo sales over the decades. So let's hear it for a longer macro lens!


I bought a 180L last year after renting it a few too many times  Compared to the 100L, the 180L has a few downsides:

The AF is slow
It isn't as sharp as the 100L or MP-E at MFD
More CA than modern lenses
It's still a great lens, but it has a lot of room for improvement. I tried filming dragonflies in a bog last year and the 180L was great for that:




The AF was *just* enough for a faint breeze rocking the dragonfly, but anything beyond that overwhelmed the AF. And I don't think I can blame the 1DX3 for driving the lens too slow  
Even a re-housed 180L with the same optics but better AF would be very tempting.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 4, 2021)

Harry68 said:


> With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)


Only if you put a spacer ring in between them, which will mess with infinity focus.


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 4, 2021)

I concur with some earlier comments 

- the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 are likely their best selling big whites
- DO lenses will follow but not as a priority
- I do love my 300mm but I also know I probably use it less than other big whites
- I think Canon like others have invested a lot of economies of scale and therefore common parts inside Ef and RF and across lenses is sensible
- I think the price of the lenses will increase a little - say 10% over the EF versions
- I think Canon will continue to want to show how their RF mount gives them more flexibility and more options. 
- I thought the majority of the optics for the big whites was still hand finished if not completely hand made.
- excluding the electronics therefore I think the optics will be different enough from the EF III 
- finally - how do you encourage existing owners of the EF big whites from changing to an RF version ? I think they need to offer some compelling advantages. And given what they have done with those lenses, sure they might improve sharpness a tad, but size and weight are surely going to be bigger wins / easier for them especially if the price increases

Same thing with the mirror less bodies - Canon had to make their 2nd gen significantly better than their dSLR bodies to stop people considering a migration and encourage them to trade in. Not saying they did it for all users in any way, but they upped their game from previous iterations - well for me they did.

As an ethusiast and not a pro, any of the RF lenses would have to offer a good step up over their excellent EF lenses for me to consider that swap.


----------



## Methodical (Apr 4, 2021)

Awww sh$#%$# now. The 600 f4. I can't wait to see what it brings to the table.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2021)

padam said:


> Not quite sure about that, the version III telephoto primes are less than 3 years old at this point, and they've really made them as light as possible. The focusing system already has fly-by-wire manual focusing just like the RF lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I respect the guys at Lens Rentals, it's speculation... just like what we are doing here. Lens Rentals does not make Canon design decisions.


----------



## Otara (Apr 4, 2021)

"finally - how do you encourage existing owners of the EF big whites from changing to an RF version ? I think they need to offer some compelling advantages. And given what they have done with those lenses, sure they might improve sharpness a tad, but size and weight are surely going to be bigger wins / easier for them especially if the price increases"

They probably don't expect to have too much problem selling them at first, given the comparatively small volumes and pent-up demand. No adapter in itself will be enough for many, going by forum comments about them.


----------



## sanj (Apr 4, 2021)

padam said:


> If the earlier leaked roadmap is true (might be as it matches with these three lenses as well), then these are the remaining lenses for the next two years.
> 
> Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
> Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
> ...


We will see. I don't think so.


----------



## justonemore (Apr 4, 2021)

Shut up and take my kidneys


----------



## mpmark (Apr 4, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Painful that the RF 300mm F/2.8 IS L is not on that list. Maybe Canon is hoping that some will succumb to getting the RF 400mm f/2.8 IS L first. But its the difference between handholding - or not - for me, so not an option. I guess the same goes for many others. Optics of the 400mm will probably tell us a lot of what we can expect of a 300mm.


I have no issues with my 300 2.8II on my R5, why the need to rush for the RF version?


----------



## Inspired (Apr 4, 2021)

ToddK said:


> Exciting times. I’m hoping they shave off even some more weight.


Yea, an arm here, a leg there lol.


----------



## Inspired (Apr 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'm waiting on the tilt-shifts.


----------



## eliz82 (Apr 4, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 400mm f/4 DO II is just under the weight of the 300/2.8 II so it would be remarkable if they could make a 400/2.8 that light.


400 f/2.8 III is as light as 300/2.8 II. I have used them side by side. You literally feel no difference between them. The weight is the same and the distance from the weight center of the lens to the mount is the same.


----------



## canonmike (Apr 4, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The EF versions of the 400 and 600 were the only ones Canon updated to version III. That tells us which lenses they prioritized and one can speculate that was based on some combination of demand, profitability, return on investment and degree of improvement through design changes. Because they are the most recently updated lenses, it may also indicate that Canon needed fewer design changes to convert these to RF mount.
> 
> I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy.
> 
> I would not be surprised to see this as a development announcement with the actual lenses released in 2022.


"I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy."

We can dream and hope this happens but I don't anticipate any bargain buys on 600mm F4L iii's anytime in the foreseeable future. We're all holding our collective breaths as we wait for a price announcement on these new RF tele offerings, knowing that I won't be able to afford one, no matter the price. Oh well, one can dream and wish and drool over those that can.


----------



## pzyber (Apr 4, 2021)

efmshark said:


> RF 500mm f/5.6L IS or RF 600mm f/8L IS would have been much more interesting and unique lenses for the RF platform - also, a lot more reasonably priced.


I totally agree. I would buy a R5 and a RF 600mm f/8L IS USM immedietly if they announced such a lens. I can't really motivate to buy the f/4L for my limited use. It's also big and heavy. Albeit my 7D and EF 400mm f/5.6L USM still performs well, used it to shoot cranes the other day.


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 4, 2021)

If I was already a 400III or 600III owner but now shooting RF, it would take one of these three things in order of preference for me to sell off the MkIII and buy an RF replacement:

1) DO like the 2015 prototype that reduced weight but most importantly reduced packing length for easier travel but also for easier handholding with a shorter lens for BIF. The 600DO's length would be more important to me than the weight. 600III weight with the prototype DO length (looked to be shorter than an EF 400/2.8) would even tempt me.

2) Significantly reduced weight over the current EF lenses

3) Built-in TC


----------



## john1970 (Apr 4, 2021)

Harry68 said:


> With 400mm F2.8 and 1.4x and 2x extender you can get 1200mm F8 as well. Or is it not possible to combine extenders from canon? (i have only kenko, and there it works)


With the Canon converters one can not readily stack them together. In theory one could stack the two converters if one also had an extension tube, but I do not know what effect this would have on focusing and image quality. Nikon once had a 3x teleconverter and I wished modern day equivalents would be made. Even if they made them using expensive fluorite elements I would readily buy one for a 400 mm f2.8 lens.


----------



## swkitt (Apr 4, 2021)

They do 400/2,8 and 600/4 first because Sony already have them and if you want a mirrorless with such lenses, you may switch to Sony as the price of the body is not that much compare to the lenses.
The 300 and 500 will come some months later.


----------



## rinamiele (Apr 4, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> If I was already a 400III or 600III owner but now shooting RF, it would take one of these three things in order of preference for me to sell off the MkIII and buy an RF replacement:
> 
> 1) DO like the 2015 prototype that reduced weight but most importantly reduced packing length for easier travel but also for easier handholding with a shorter lens for BIF. The 600DO's length would be more important to me than the weight. 600III weight with the prototype DO length (looked to be shorter than an EF 400/2.8) would even tempt me.
> 
> ...


Besides the native RF mount -- Literally any of these would be complete motivators for me to move on from my 600 f4 II. The 600 III was not necessarily worth the upgrade despite me wanting any weight savings I could get! (I'm a small woman! I am not strong! ha ha!)

The only issue for me is the R1. I still have a 1DX Mark III and couldn't use the RF 600 f4 with it obviously. So I'd appreciate an R1 announcement with these lens announcements! HA HA! You hear that Canon?

Saving my pennies now.


----------



## Traveler (Apr 4, 2021)

I'll be hated for this opinion but... I think that those lenses are the most unnecessary lenses of the whole RF lineup. If Canon didn't do some kind of magic then the RF lenses are gonna be pretty much same size as the EF lenses with the adapters on them.
And considering the price of them if I buy one adapter for each of them then it would be hassle free with no significant extra costs.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 4, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I'll be hated for this opinion but... I think that those lenses are the most unnecessary lenses of the whole RF lineup. If Canon didn't do some kind of magic then the RF lenses are gonna be pretty much same size as the EF lenses with the adapters on them.
> And considering the price of them if I buy one adapter for each of them then it would be hassle free with no significant extra costs.


Not hated, but you are obviously not the intended market for these lenses. I feel the same way about all the wide angle RF options that have been mentioned / requested because of my wildlife orientation. You could also use the adaptor argument for EF lenses in all categories. The reality is that Canon will need a full line of RF lenses to round out the R system. They can't launch a camera like the R1 without a fully baked lens lineup that will match the body / use case. I am a hobbyist, so I can accept the argument of using one of the EF Big Whites with an adaptor. If I was a pro on assignment, I wold not want to have an adaptor as a point of failure especially if I also needed a TC in the mix. Same goes when on a trip to Africa where an adaptor is just one more point of entry for dust. Canon is taking the same approach with the Big Whites they did with the RF trinity, get the best glass possible ready to support your bodies before launch (remember when everyone thought Canon was nuts before launch of R5/R6). Someone else pointed out there are competitive issues involved having RF BW lenses to complete with other mirrorless offerings. If I am buying a new R body and need a telephoto solution, whey would I want to drop $10k - $12 on a lens I KNEW was not the future direction of the system? 

As a hobbyist, I would personally stick with an EF Big White I already owned unless the RF is significantly better/ faster/smaller/lighter. I sold my 200-400 f4 (which I loved) because I was tired of dragging around an 8lb lens. I would buy back in a heartbeat if they delivered a 200-400/500 f4 @ 5 1/2 to 6lbs. I am really hoping that Canon will commit to high quality DO lenses to solve some of the size/weight issues - like the EF 400 DO IS II.

BTW - I was going to take the adaptor approach with all of my EF lenses. After trying the R5, I knew I was never going back, sold everything EF and committed 100% to the RF system. The sale of the 200-400 (which I loved) was more related to size/weight and I decided I could work with the RF 100-500. No regrets on the conversion, but I do want another high quality BW quality zoom. I would love a RF 200-500 f4-f5.6 L IS @ the 5-6 lbs which should be possible considering the EF version III weight reductions.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2021)

eliz82 said:


> 400 f/2.8 III is as light as 300/2.8 II. I have used them side by side. You literally feel no difference between them. The weight is the same and the distance from the weight center of the lens to the mount is the same.


​
According to The Digital Picture

400mm f/2.8 III
Manufacturer Specification Weight


100.3 oz (2840g)Actual Weight100.1 oz (2835g)Lens Hood Weight9 oz (255g)In-Use Weight109.1 oz (3090g)


​
300m f/2.8 II
Manufacturer Specification Weight
83 oz (2350g)Actual Weight82.6 oz (2340g)Lens Hood Weight6 oz (170g)In-Use Weight88.6 oz (2510g)


It does seem that the 400mm/2.8 III is heavier by 580g (1 .25lb).


----------



## Traveler (Apr 4, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Not hated, but you are obviously not the intended market for these lenses. I feel the same way about all the wide angle RF options that have been mentioned / requested because of my wildlife orientation. You could also use the adaptor argument for EF lenses in all categories. .....


Thanks for such detailed explanation. My point was that wide lenses can benefit from the short flange distance whereas telephoto lenses can't (the 70-200 are amazing but they got reduced due to different design). All those big whites already have a pretty long distance between the rear lens and the sensor. I'm happy to be wrong.
But I still understand that when you pay 10K you just don't want to deal with adaptors. And the good thing for Canon is that they can just use the same design therefore the RD cost are not gonna be that huge. 
I wish Canon can make the lenses smaller but I don't think it's even possible. And if it is possible then it would probably have been possible even for EF.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2021)

canonmike said:


> "I've rented the 600 EF and if this release puts more of the EF versions on the second-hand market, I'll be very happy."
> 
> We can dream and hope this happens but I don't anticipate any bargain buys on 600mm F4L iii's anytime in the foreseeable future. We're all holding our collective breaths as we wait for a price announcement on these new RF tele offerings, knowing that I won't be able to afford one, no matter the price. Oh well, one can dream and wish and drool over those that can.


Yeah, I know. But please, don't wake me from this pleasant dream.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2021)

padam said:


> Maybe they are just RF-mount conversions of the version III 400mm and 600mm lenses so they work natively with the RF-mount cameras and teleconverters, while the rest will be new.


That wouldn't be the best decision. the EF 400 III and 600 III are a noticeable step down from the II models. They are lighter, but that is AFAIK, just about their only redeeming virtue. The RF versions should be able to support the expected upcoming 100 MP body with grace.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 4, 2021)

mpmark said:


> I have no issues with my 300 2.8II on my R5, why the need to rush for the RF version?


Sold mine already as part of my RF transition. Better to sell while I can get a decent price. You may have noticed the first 3 Canon EF-lenses have now been discontinued. That's not good for resale values. Currently the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and RF 100-500mm IS L make due as my style of photography is severely hampered by Corona. After summer things should be better - and I will be longing for a fast 300mm prime again. YMMV.


----------



## Chig (Apr 4, 2021)

djack41 said:


> How disappointing if Canon does not use DO technology. Several years ago, Canon was taking a 600mm F4 DO to the trade shows. It was very compact and light weight. The 400mm F4 DO ll has been an excellent lens. Canon has the technology to produce such lenses.


I agree and an RF 400 DO f/4 would hopefully be even lighter than the EF version ii's 2.1 kg maybe around 1.8kg and perhaps could have built in extenders.
Seems odd Canon isn't using DO in all it's premium telephotos


----------



## Fischer (Apr 4, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> BTW - I was going to take the adaptor approach with all of my EF lenses. After trying the R5, I knew I was never going back, sold everything EF and committed 100% to the RF system. The sale of the 200-400 (which I loved) was more related to size/weight and I decided I could work with the RF 100-500. No regrets on the conversion, but I do want another high quality BW quality zoom. I would love a RF 200-500 f4-f5.6 L IS @ the 5-6 lbs which should be possible considering the EF version III weight reductions.


This... 

Time to move on. Sooner or later all EF lenses will have to be changed anyway. I fully understand that it is a cost issue for many. But having the option to choose I cannot be bothered with the EF system anymore. Only waiting for a fast RF 35mm prime so I can sell my 35 mm L II and I'm out for good.


----------



## Chig (Apr 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Really would like an RF 400 mm DO f/4 as the EF version is the only long fast telephoto light enough to handhold at 2.1 kg (and it works well with 1.4x and 2x extenders) and if the RF version had built in 1.4x and 2x extenders would be ideal for birds in flight and sports
Also hope Canon can make the RF DO with a much shorter minimum focusing distance
Can't understand why Canon doesn't use fresnel lenses in all their super telephotos


----------



## Bert63 (Apr 4, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> I make a guess that it will be 2x the price.



The current price for the 100L just went from $899 and regularly on sale for $749 to a new regular price of $1299. Still wondering what happened there.

If it’s twice the price of the current 100L f2.8 then I’ll go on record right now saying it’s not worth the money because the 100L is fantastic on the R5.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I guess this will the beginning of the end of Canon's pro DSLR line, because it would be too expensive to keep the EF versions of those superteles alive. It is quite logical now for Canon move on with ML cameras, given the shrinking market for system cameras. SLRs are mechanically and optically more complex than ML cameras and therefore more expensive to produce.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2021)

Chig said:


> Really would like an RF 400 mm DO f/4 as the EF version is the only long fast telephoto light enough to handhold at 2.1 kg (and it works well with 1.4x and 2x extenders) and if the RF version had built in 1.4x and 2x extenders would be ideal for birds in flight and sports
> Also hope Canon can make the RF DO with a much shorter minimum focusing distance
> Can't understand why Canon doesn't use fresnel lenses in all their super telephotos


If it has built-in 1.4x and 2xTCs, they will a 1/2 kg or so to the weight. I find the current 400mm DO II with the 2xTC weighing in at 2.6kg in use on the heavy side and I would like to use the bare lens without the extra weight of the TCs.


----------



## pcho (Apr 4, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Several things:
> 1. Agree with you about the DO technology. I almost bought the 400 DO when I sold my 200-400, but thought I would wait for a RF 400 DO IS (L?) version. I thought is was a great lens and liked the weight / size. It also did very well with the 1.4x TC. I was actually hoping for a 500 DO even if they had to go to f5.6 to make it work. I tried the RF 800mm f11, liked the IQ but not happy with the f11.
> 2. Very surprised they are releasing the RF 400 & RF 600 first since these RF lenses were recently updated and got the version III weight loss program. I am wondering if they were designed for both the EF/RF mounts during the last update and let's them bleed through EF inventory and have two BW ready to go. I really thought we would see the RF 300, 500 & 200-400 (500?) first. These are all very popular lenses, but I don't know how their sales compare to the 400/600.
> 3. I have been on a mission to lighten my wildlife load and happy with any weight / size reductions they can make on the BW lenses.


I think that’s exactly what happened with the 400 and 600 mklll. I was going to wait for the RF 600 but thought the EF 600mklll was more flexible as I still have 5dsR for birds and these bodies will still be around for 5-10 years. By then the designed will be too old and a new 600 will be released


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 5, 2021)

I thought it was going to be an f/2 macro? Oh well no 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 which should be priorities as the EF lenses were never updated to mk III. Why rush out a 400 and 600 when the EF versions work perfectly on RF anyway. No pro will suddenly just drop another $12-15K on these if they already have the mk III version.


----------



## Sean C (Apr 5, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I thought it was going to be an f/2 macro? Oh well no 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 which should be priorities as the EF lenses were never updated to mk III. Why rush out a 400 and 600 when the EF versions work perfectly on RF anyway. No pro will suddenly just drop another $12-15K on these if they already have the mk III version.


I wonder if they mostly completed developing the RF versions alongside the MK III versions so they've been ready but for the delays affecting everything. (RF transition planning has been underway at Canon for quite awhile, so it'd make sense to prepare for RF as much as practical in the last days of EF product design)


----------



## unfocused (Apr 5, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> I guess this will the beginning of the end of Canon's pro DSLR line, because it would be too expensive to keep the EF versions of those superteles alive. It is quite logical now for Canon move on with ML cameras, given the shrinking market for system cameras. SLRs are mechanically and optically more complex than ML cameras and therefore more expensive to produce.


That's a lot of assumptions.

We don't know if it would be too expensive to keep the EF versions of these lenses alive. From what I understand there is a lot of hand assembly and hand finishing with these supertelephotos. Those are not things that would be impacted by keeping both lines alive. Most likely with these super expensive lenses Canon makes a set number and then switches to another model or line until inventory drops and then builds more. We don't have any idea how involved it is to switch from EF to R mounts. Keeping both an RF and an EF version in the catalog may not be nearly as problematic as you imagine. Would they make more EF versions once current inventory runs out? That likely depends on the demand not the cost.

While SLRs may be more complex than Mirrorless, we don't know if that makes them significantly more expensive to produce. Canon has been making SLRs for nearly 100 years. They have the manufacturing down to maximum efficiency. Given that they can offer DSLRs for $500 the cost difference between a DSLR and a Mirrorless camera may be insignificant for all we know. In addition, it's not as though there are no commonalities between DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras. They are actually more alike than they are different and no doubt many costs can be shared by both lines. 

A shrinking market does not automatically mean a consolidation of lines. It's way too early in the life of Mirrorless cameras to know what percentage of customers will switch to the R line. As I posted before, Canon probably has a magic number in mind of what percentage of customers they can afford to lose vs. what it would cost them to maintain both DSLR and R lines. In many ways, a shrinking market in which each existing customer becomes more valuable to the company would argue for keeping both DSLRs and Rs going.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That's a lot of assumptions.
> 
> We don't know if it would be too expensive to keep the EF versions of these lenses alive. From what I understand there is a lot of hand assembly and hand finishing with these supertelephotos. Those are not things that would be impacted by keeping both lines alive. Most likely with these super expensive lenses Canon makes a set number and then switches to another model or line until inventory drops and then builds more. We don't have any idea how involved it is to switch from EF to R mounts. Keeping both an RF and an EF version in the catalog may not be nearly as problematic as you imagine. Would they make more EF versions once current inventory runs out? That likely depends on the demand not the cost.
> 
> ...


There is a delicate balance between harvesting a legacy product and moving customers to new technology /producto. There is a lot of cost other than manufacturing costs in a product offering - inventory, warehousing, marketing, service, support, etc. There may also be issues with both products requiring scarce materials. Assuming their manufacturing was sized for current EF production and is highly specialized, they will need to shift production to meet ramp up for the roll out and sales surge (hopefully). Canon will want to meet demand for the new RF series whic may require scaling back the EF. A lot will depend availability of the R5 and delivery of an R1. I moved to the R5 from 1dxII / 5D IV, absolutely no regrets shooting widlife with the R5. Canon did a really good job with the R5 and under normal circumstances I think we would see a rapid transition.


----------



## David_E (Apr 5, 2021)

DrToast said:


> Is the macro 1:1 or the weird 1:1.4?


Since it doesn’t exist yet, that would be hard to say. _*Is*_ is the wrong word.


----------



## David_E (Apr 5, 2021)

lexptr said:


> _how it will excel the EF_


Lighter, perhaps, and faster auto-focus? Better IS? The fact is, though, it doesn’t really have to excel the EF 100 mm macro in any significant way, the EF being such a superb, razor-sharp lens.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 5, 2021)

Chig said:


> Really would like an RF 400 mm DO f/4 as the EF version is the only long fast telephoto light enough to handhold at 2.1 kg (and it works well with 1.4x and 2x extenders) and if the RF version had built in 1.4x and 2x extenders would be ideal for birds in flight and sports
> Also hope Canon can make the RF DO with a much shorter minimum focusing distance
> Can't understand why Canon doesn't use fresnel lenses in all their super telephotos


Bokeh issues have never been solved. Nikon almost had me lured with their 300mm PF (Nikon's DO) - but background quality was a disappointment.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 5, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I thought it was going to be an f/2 macro? Oh well no 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 which should be priorities as the EF lenses were never updated to mk III. Why rush out a 400 and 600 when the EF versions work perfectly on RF anyway. No pro will suddenly just drop another $12-15K on these if they already have the mk III version.


Canon makes new models because people buy them. If you went from the 600mm IS L I or II to the 600mm IS L III then you should know why people would upgrade their EF version to the RF model. I got the 300mm IS L II for the minor upgrade it was - and never regretted it. Neither did I regret going from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L I to II to the RF 70-200mm IS L.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Bokeh issues have never been solved. Nikon almost had me lured with their 300mm PF (Nikon's DO) - but background quality was a disappointment.


Bokeh issues are not often a problem with nature photography, especially birds in flight etc. The Nikon 500mm PF is still often back ordered such is its popularity with bird photographers, and a few CR people have bought into Nikon to have a copy. The current 400mm DO II is very popular with birders, and used copies rarely come up for sale.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Bokeh issues are not often a problem with nature photography, especially birds in flight etc. The Nikon 500mm PF is still often back ordered such is its popularity with bird photographers, and a few CR people have bought into Nikon to have a copy. The current 400mm DO II is very popular with birders, and used copies rarely come up for sale.


Bokeh is certainly not relevant for BIF as there is none. Apart from that I find it imperative to have the best bokeh quality possible esspecially for nature shots, as they often involve difficult light situations and foliage highlights, which are notoriously tough on bokeh. The reason you do not see many used Canon 400mm DO lenses are that Canon never sold very many of these in the first place. I'd certainly never get one to bring on a safari where the 400mm IS L II would be the far superior choice.


----------



## Chig (Apr 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If it has built-in 1.4x and 2xTCs, they will a 1/2 kg or so to the weight. I find the current 400mm DO II with the 2xTC weighing in at 2.6kg in use on the heavy side and I would like to use the bare lens without the extra weight of the TCs.


That's a good point but not so sure it would add this much extra weight as the housing of separate TCs make up a large percentage of their weight (the glass elements inside are pretty small ) so incorporating them into the lens might only add 200-300gm and the RF version would probably be a bit lighter overall so an RF 400 DO with built in TCs might only be about 2 to 2.25kg or maybe even less


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 5, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> The current price for the 100L just went from $899 and regularly on sale for $749 to a new regular price of $1299. Still wondering what happened there.
> 
> If it’s twice the price of the current 100L f2.8 then I’ll go on record right now saying it’s not worth the money because the 100L is fantastic on the R5.


Fully agree if the price is that high

Here in Germany it is a flat curve at 899,- € (incl. VAT) since more than half a year:


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Bokeh is certainly not relevant for BIF as there is none. Apart from that I find it imperative to have the best bokeh quality possible esspecially for nature shots, as they often involve difficult light situations and foliage highlights, which are notoriously tough on bokeh. The reason you do not see many used Canon 400mm DO lenses are that Canon never sold very many of these in the first place. I'd certainly never get one to bring on a safari where the 400mm IS L II would be the far superior choice.


It is not true that there is no bokeh for BIF - the most interesting BIF shots are often against a background. Indeed, there are some expert BIF people, like Arbitrage, who think the absence of background is boring and he, like many of us desperate for a 600mm DO. Hand holding is key to BIF photography and a short lightweight lens gives a key edge. I reported years ago https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...f-an-400mm-2-8-iii-in-2018.35055/#post-720717 "_On a puffin in flight shoot, my 400mm DO II gave me dozens of keepers but my neighbours with 400mm f/2.8 got none because they couldn't swing their lenses fast enough._"

Grant Atkinson, who is a professional safari guide and photographer, who occasionally contributes to CR, wrote a rave review about the 400mm DO II https://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/canon-ef-400-f4-do-is-ii-usm-field-review You take what you think best on safari, and I'll take what I know is best for me.


----------



## swkitt (Apr 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It is not true that there is no bokeh for BIF - the most interesting BIF shots are often against a background. Indeed, there are some expert BIF people, like Arbitrage, who think the absence of background is boring and he, like many of us desperate for a 600mm DO. Hand holding is key to BIF photography and a short lightweight lens gives a key edge. I reported years ago https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...f-an-400mm-2-8-iii-in-2018.35055/#post-720717 "_On a puffin in flight shoot, my 400mm DO II gave me dozens of keepers but my neighbours with 400mm f/2.8 got none because they couldn't swing their lenses fast enough._"


On most birds in flight, you're not gonna shoot wide open at f/4 anyway if you want to be sure that the head is in focus and not only the tip of the wing. With AF on animal's eye it's better but still not perfect with fast subjects like puffins. It happens that the AF loose the eye and go back to the whole bird. So you'll shoot at f/5,6 to f/8 anyway... In this case why not using the 100-400 or 100-500 ? They have perfect IQ and are very easy to handle for this type of subject. Plus you can zoom out if the bird comes closer.
Btw I'm a photography guide in Iceland and shoot puffins in flight quite a lot, and the 100-400 is the best lens I used for that, better than big whites (I haven't tried the 100-500 yet). You can check my puffins on instagram @explographe


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

swkitt said:


> On most birds in flight, you're not gonna shoot wide open at f/4 anyway if you want to be sure that the head is in focus and not only the tip of the wing. With AF on animal's eye it's better but still not perfect with fast subjects like puffins. It happens that the AF loose the eye and go back to the whole bird. So you'll shoot at f/5,6 to f/8 anyway... In this case why not using the 100-400 or 100-500 ? They have perfect IQ and are very easy to handle for this type of subject. Plus you can zoom out if the bird comes closer.
> Btw I'm a photography guide in Iceland and shoot puffins in flight quite a lot, and the 100-400 is the best lens I used for that, better than big whites (I haven't tried the 100-500 yet). You can check my puffins on instagram @explographe


Great to have input from an Icelandic photography guide! The 100-400mm II is really good for BIF, and I have used it a lot, and am now using the 100-500mm. I gave up the 400mm DO II for my last 3 bird safaris accross continents and took the 100-400mm II instead. But, for my last Puffin trips in the UK I did take the 400mm DO II and managed to get sharp shots at f/4. I'd love to travel to Iceland for bird photography - my second vaccine is on Wednesday - so here's hoping for this year.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 5, 2021)

David_E said:


> Lighter, perhaps, and faster auto-focus? Better IS? The fact is, though, it doesn’t really have to excel the EF 100 mm macro in any significant way, the EF being such a superb, razor-sharp lens.


As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
There's always room for improvement.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 5, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
> PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
> There's always room for improvement.


I started shooting macro with the 100mm L on Canon, and went on to shoot Panasonic and Sony before coming back to Canon after some years. I can say that there's nothing out there as good as Canon's 100 when it comes to the combination of image quality when combined with autofocus capacity and that combined with image stabilization. After 12 years, no one has combined those three as well, which is both remarkable and disappointing. 

When shooting Sony a year ago, the various options, like those of Sigma, Laowa and Sony itself were typically fantastic in image quality, but stabilization and AF were not at the point where I considered either useful. I may have owned a dozen macro lenses of various types over those years, usually selling them within a year. The adapted Canon was always my favorite, with the small exception of the Laowa 15mm f/4, which is really a lens for a different purpose and doesn't require AF due to its focal length. 

My hope is that the stabilization and AF are better than the original with this new release. I know many don't use either for macro, but for the run-and-gun woods macro, this has always been the only lens worth having. Tracking identification would be nice, as we have for birds, for instance, but it will be very difficult without significant deep learning research investments. yesterday I was photographing a millipede for a regional nature magazine. Every body segment had a fake eye on it. Not overly-optimistic on that last one.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It is not true that there is no bokeh for BIF - the most interesting BIF shots are often against a background.
> 
> Grant Atkinson, who is a professional safari guide and photographer, who occasionally contributes to CR, wrote a rave review about the 400mm DO II https://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/canon-ef-400-f4-do-is-ii-usm-field-review You take what you think best on safari, and I'll take what I know is best for me.


Why resort to splitting hairs? You knew exactly what I meant as I replied to your claim that "Bokeh issues are not often a problem with nature photography." I even gave examples to when its relevant.

It is a challenge - no reason to deny reality. There are very long internet discussions and tests available for/against Nikon's DO-variants. And it would not take a split second to find hundreds of examples of wildlife pictures with disturbing bokeh issues because bokeh is esspecially difficult when it comes to nature shots.

I do not worry or care for what others shot, how they shot or what they shot with. Great if Canon DO works for you and some others. I would never invest in such a lens myself until the bokeh issues are resolved.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Why resort to splitting hairs? You knew exactly what I meant as I replied to your claim that "Bokeh issues are not often a problem with nature photography." I even gave examples to when its relevant.
> 
> It is a challenge - no reason to deny reality. There are very long internet discussions and tests available for/against Nikon's DO-variants. And it would not take a split second to find hundreds of examples of wildlife pictures with disturbing bokeh issues because bokeh is esspecially difficult when it comes to nature shots.
> 
> I do not worry or care for what others shot, how they shot or what they shot with. Great if Canon DO works for you and some others. I would never invest in such a lens myself until the bokeh issues are resolved.


The proof of the pudding is the eating: there are 212 pages of (mainly) nature images taken with 500mm PF in the FM Forum: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1549025/0 I am not suggesting that it or a Canon equivalent should be your choice of lens, but while some enjoy arguing on internet forums the pros and cons of the technology, others get on with the real business of using the equipment and getting images they enjoy.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 5, 2021)

sdf


Fischer said:


> Bokeh issues have never been solved. Nikon almost had me lured with their 300mm PF (Nikon's DO) - but background quality was a disappointment.


Completely agree. A few years back when I used Nikon gear I purchased the 300 mm PF lens. Absolutely loved the lightweight and compact size, but the background quality was poor. The background on Canon's DO is better, but still not as good as a non-DO lens in my opinion. Of course, this could all change as technology progresses....


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

john1970 said:


> sdf
> 
> Completely agree. A few years back when I used Nikon gear I purchased the 300 mm PF lens. Absolutely loved the lightweight and compact size, but the background quality was poor. The background on Canon's DO is better, but still not as good as a non-DO lens in my opinion. Of course, this could all change as technology progresses....


Have you actually used the 500mm f/5.6 PF, which is second generation? Here are appraisals of the bokeh from reviewers who have.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3889977670/shooting-with-nikon-s-new-500mm-f5p6-pf-in-kamchatka
I didn’t expect this baby lens to be capable of the same image quality as the F4E, but it is! The D850’s 46 megapixels place a huge demand on any lens, and the 500mm F5.6E PF really delivers. Bokeh looks great, I couldn’t persuade it to flare while shooting against backlighting and I didn't notice any issues with chromatic aberrations.

http://www.theluminarydiary.com/500mm-pf-img-quality/
Bokeh is great – super smooth and none of the artefacts usually associated with Phase Fresnel/Diffractive Optics are present, at least in my experience.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-vr-initial-impressions
Overall, I found bokeh and out of focus rendering to be quite pleasing and a tad smoother than what the 200-500mm produces. I found bokeh to be much better than what the 300 f/4 with the TC 1.4x combo can produce from the same distance, which is expected.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/500mm-f5.6e-pf-ed-af-s-vr-nikkor/review/
Ultimately, I like the bokeh on the 500mm f/5.6 lens, and if you can get close to your subject while keeping the background far away, you can get soft backgrounds with good subject separation and depth. If the price for having a lightweight and easy to use 500mm lens is that sometimes the background is not creamy soft, I'm okay with that.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_nikkor_500mm_f5_6_e_pf_ed_vr_review
Bokeh is a word used for the out-of-focus areas of a photograph, and is usually described in qualitative terms, such as smooth / creamy / harsh etc. In the AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, Nikon employed a diaphragm with 9 rounded blades, which resulted in a nice bokeh in our view.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/500mm-f56.htm#bokeh
Bokeh, the feel or quality of out-of-focus areas as opposed to how far out of focus they are, is very good. As with most ultrateles, backgrounds completely disappear:

https://www.anthonybaines.co.uk/blog/2019/9/20/some-thoughts-on-the-nikon-500mm-f56-pf-lens
I've seen some comments on some online forums that they don't like the quality of the out of focus areas (the bokeh) and the way the focus transitions between sharp and unsharp areas. I find these complaints hard to interpret. There's very smooth bokeh when the background is fully defocused. At the Shuttleworth Collection, I photographed several aircraft against various backgrounds that were not fully defocused, with small details from leaves, trees, and buildings. Under these conditions, my aperture is limited by the shutter speed I want: on a bright day, even at ISO Lo1, getting, say 1/80 may mean that the aperture is well stopped down, so the background is still partially focussed. Perhaps it could be smoother, but overall, it is a non-issue for my taste.

https://www.lenstip.com/540.7-Lens_....6E_PF_ED_VR_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
The appearance of out-of-focus images would be perfect if not for a lighter area in the centre of the circle. Apart from that you can spot a slight influence of mechanical vignetting.


----------



## WillT (Apr 5, 2021)

It is going to hurt my wallet, but I am switching RF mounts.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 5, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Guess the R1 is around the corner.
> 
> As for focal lengths, I'm a little surprised Canon started with longer focal lengths. With high res sensors, its easy to crop 300mm to get 400mm framing. If the R1 will have 20MP, the photographer will have 11MP after crop, that's enough for A3. Going the other way isn't that easy.


no 20MP for the R1


----------



## padam (Apr 5, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Guess the R1 is around the corner.
> 
> As for focal lengths, I'm a little surprised Canon started with longer focal lengths. With high res sensors, its easy to crop 300mm to get 400mm framing. If the R1 will have 20MP, the photographer will have 11MP after crop, that's enough for A3. Going the other way isn't that easy.


If the RF 135mm f/1.4L USM can set a new standard not just with pricing, but also sharpness while remaining compatible with the 2x RF extender, that could work well enough as a 270mm f/2.8


----------



## swkitt (Apr 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Great to have input from an Icelandic photography guide! The 100-400mm II is really good for BIF, and I have used it a lot, and am now using the 100-500mm. I gave up the 400mm DO II for my last 3 bird safaris accross continents and took the 100-400mm II instead. But, for my last Puffin trips in the UK I did take the 400mm DO II and managed to get sharp shots at f/4. I'd love to travel to Iceland for bird photography - my second vaccine is on Wednesday - so here's hoping for this year.


Yes you'll be fine with the vaccine for custom purposes after the 1st of may 
And yes I don't doubt that 400 f/4 gets you sharp shots on puffins, but maybe hardly on bigger wingspan birds. Anyway as the background (sky or sea) is far away, it won't make any improvement on the picture to make it at f/4 IMO. 
See you on the cliffs somewhere


----------



## Ahmed Hindawi (Apr 5, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you expect it to offer, that the TS-E 24mm w/ adaptor don't?


Auto Focus


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2021)

swkitt said:


> Yes you'll be fine with the vaccine for custom purposes after the 1st of may
> And yes I don't doubt that 400 f/4 gets you sharp shots on puffins, but maybe hardly on bigger wingspan birds. Anyway as the background (sky or sea) is far away, it won't make any improvement on the picture to make it at f/4 IMO.
> See you on the cliffs somewhere


I know it's off topic, but I visited Iceland once, 9 years ago, and took a 7D + 100-400mm (original version) and got this shot of a Tern feeding its chick in Reykjavik. The zoom was necessary as I had to zoom out and got good depth of field. I'll bring the RF 100-500 if I visit again.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 6, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Canon makes new models because people buy them. If you went from the 600mm IS L I or II to the 600mm IS L III then you should know why people would upgrade their EF version to the RF model. I got the 300mm IS L II for the minor upgrade it was - and never regretted it. Neither did I regret going from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L I to II to the RF 70-200mm IS L.


The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ. 

Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ.
> 
> Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.


The MkII 70-200 is a horrible portrait lens, way worse than the MkI or the non IS versions. Sharper for sure, but a comparatively horrible portrait lens.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 6, 2021)

PFloyd said:


> Autofocus.


That would be weird. Maybe if it also had autotilt.


----------



## sanj (Apr 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The MkII 70-200 is a horrible portrait lens, way worse than the MkI or the non IS versions. Sharper for sure, but a comparatively horrible portrait lens.


Why please.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

sanj said:


> Why please.


They traded sharpness, and the MII is undoubtedly sharper, for a weird out of focus roll off. Look at a lot of sports photos, particularly if they have busy backgrounds, and you can tell the difference.

This is an example of the MkII that you just don’t get with the MkI https://www.ephotozine.com/articles...ns-review-16101/images/canon70-200mmII304.jpg

I shoot people more than sports so I never ‘upgraded’, if I were primarily a sports shooter and especially if I ever used TC’s on it, I’d get the MkII or III.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Apr 6, 2021)

I’d happily get the 100 macro as long as it’s at least 1:1.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That's a lot of assumptions.


This is exactly what CR is about. 

I should emphasize that I still use DSLRs and like to work with optical viewfinders, since I also shoot with vintage gear and want to keep my eye and imagination trained. Plus, when I go for birding/ wildlife, I like to have a viewfinder through which I can watch with a tele lens if there is something e.g. in a nest is going to happen, without draining batteries. 

But, Canon, like Nikon, has already hesitated about a decade to give their ML camera products a full go, since they depend on long-term customers who grew up with SLRs. Now, it looks like they exactly do that with the R system. It reminds me of the 80s, when Canon decided to switch from the FD to the EF mount, not looking back anymore. With that radical decision they lost some old customers but gained a clean mount design. Nikon tried to keep their F mount compatible, which caused technical problems (which I know from own experience).


----------



## Fischer (Apr 6, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> The 300 II was lighter and worked a lot better with TC's, the mk II 70-200 was a lot better optically across the board, and worked amazingly well with the 1.4x TC, they weren't minor updates. Their is nothing the RF versions of the 400 and 600 will offer. They have already been made as light as currently possible in mk III updates, and will bring basically nothing new to the table in terms of IQ.
> 
> Zero need for these two lenses at this stage. If they were releasing the 300 and 500 simulataneously then it might make sense.


I'm not buying any of the three lenses just announced as I want to start with the 300mm f/2.8 first. But they apparently make sense to build for Canon - otherwise Canon would not - regardless of how it fits our perspectives. And people will be buying them. I myself have low expectations to the pure optical improvements Canon can bring to the RF 300mm f/2.8 IS L. A little extra functionality and weight and I'm good.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 6, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I’d happily get the 100 macro as long as it’s at least 1:1.



Probably it will be at least 1:1 I'm guessing the price tag will be around $2000-2500, but anyway I'll get one. Extremley pleased with my current 100mm L


----------



## SteB1 (Apr 6, 2021)

The reported 1.4x magnification, which should be written 1.4:1, not 1:1.4 reproduction ratio would be interesting and useful. However, as a specialist field macro photographer for a long time this is not enough. It doesn't even give the frame filling power on FF that you get with a 1:1 lens on a crop body, an effective 1.6x magnification. This is not enough to fill the frame with an average sized fly, let alone a smaller insect or flower part. 2x magnification would be much more useful. It's always been a difficult task using the MP-E 65mm and a 1:1 macro lens like the 100mm L IS f2.8, because you have this abrupt jump from 1:1 to greater than, and a lot of subjects span this gap. Even if you use 2 bodies you have to keep switching from one to the other. So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 6, 2021)

padam said:


> Not quite sure about that, the version III telephoto primes are less than 3 years old at this point, and they've really made them as light as possible. The focusing system already has fly-by-wire manual focusing just like the RF lenses.



Yes, the EF 600/4 L III basically feels like an RF lens.

It could be no coincidence that last week's firmware update has made electronic FTM work properly at last - it's very important for long lenses.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 6, 2021)

SteB1 said:


> The reported 1.4x magnification, which should be written 1.4:1, not 1:1.4 reproduction ratio would be interesting and useful. However, as a specialist field macro photographer for a long time this is not enough. It doesn't even give the frame filling power on FF that you get with a 1:1 lens on a crop body, an effective 1.6x magnification. This is not enough to fill the frame with an average sized fly, let alone a smaller insect or flower part. 2x magnification would be much more useful. It's always been a difficult task using the MP-E 65mm and a 1:1 macro lens like the 100mm L IS f2.8, because you have this abrupt jump from 1:1 to greater than, and a lot of subjects span this gap. Even if you use 2 bodies you have to keep switching from one to the other. So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.


Was discussing this with a friend at the weekend. The most useful upgrade to the 100L would be 2x macro while retaining infinity focusing. And the most useful upgrade to the MP-E65 would be increasing the range to 0.5-5x. But if I understand correctly, creating a lens which crosses the 1:1 'barrier' poses significant design challenges. I imagine this is why so few lenses actually do that.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 6, 2021)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Was discussing this with a friend at the weekend. The most useful upgrade to the 100L would be 2x macro while retaining infinity focusing. And the most useful upgrade to the MP-E65 would be increasing the range to 0.5-5x. But if I understand correctly, creating a lens which crosses the 1:1 'barrier' poses significant design challenges. I imagine this is why so few lenses actually do that.


I wouldn't mind giving up a bit on the MP-E ranges, I rarely go beyond 3x. The 2x setting is what I use most for solitary bees and ladybugs, which is why I was considering the Laowa 100mm EF version, Laowa removed electronic aperture for the RF version :/


----------



## padam (Apr 6, 2021)

SteB1 said:


> So you have to use extension tubes or close-up lenses, because the 100mm L won't take a converter.


I think that all EF lenses are able to take the RF 1.4x or 2.0x extender with a hacked EF adapter.









Hacked: Making All Canon EF and EF-S Lenses Compatible with Canon RF Extenders


Hacked: Making All Canon EF and EF-S Lenses Compatible with Canon RF Extenders — The-Digital-Picture.com




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## xps (Apr 6, 2021)

I´ll fetch the 600mm and sell my EF version III, if the sharpness is on the equal level than my EF II Version. 
Sadly, my copy of the 600 III is noticably not as sharp and not as highend as my older II version. Especially in the center.
It is welcome for my old hands, that it´s weight has been reduced.
But for 13999 European bugs, I would have liked to see better IQ.
I hope, the upcoming >100MP bodies will force Canon to get the image quality back on top - for the same price.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 6, 2021)

“The 300mm is a bit more interesting, according to my source, Canon may actually release the RF mount version of the 300 f/2.8 as a zoom.”

Nailed it.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 6, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!


Canon's certainly on roll to become stronger in no 1 position of FF ML - hope Nikon pulls it socks up and release more Z's.


----------



## ethermine (Apr 6, 2021)

If the reviews of the 600mm are what I expect them to be, it’ll be mine. Personally, the weight of these things don’t bother me, so that’ll never be a determining factor as it is for a lot of folks. My criteria for a good lens is focus speed, decent sharpness and weather sealing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you expect it to offer, that the TS-E 24mm w/ adaptor don't?


Well there are several big possibilities. It could have a built in rear filter slot, it could have more shift and they certainly need a lot more tilt, and the lack of a mirror box means all those are possible. It could have shift and tilt registration in EXIF which would mean you could do vignetting corrections in DPP. It could have AF and auto assisted tilt.

There are lots of areas the usability and functionality could be enhanced over and above IQ.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well there are several big possibilities. It could have a built in rear filter slot


Isn't there an EF to RF adaptor with a filter? 


privatebydesign said:


> it could have more shift and they certainly need a lot more tilt, and the lack of a mirror box means all those are possible. It could have shift and tilt registration in EXIF which would mean you could do vignetting corrections in DPP. It could have AF and auto assisted tilt.


All excellent ideas, but seem a bit speculative to expect Canon would implement them.

The TS-E lenses were recently refreshed (3-4 years ago), and for a niche market, so I doubt Canon will make new versions soon. Then again, if it can make those big improvements, it could make photographers switch brands, making it worth releasing soon.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 6, 2021)

xps said:


> Sadly, my copy of the 600 III is noticably not as sharp and not as highend as my older II version. Especially in the center.
> It is welcome for my old hands, that it´s weight has been reduced.
> But for 13999 European bugs, I would have liked to see better IQ.


Painful...


----------



## cruso (Apr 6, 2021)

Me as well


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Isn't there an EF to RF adaptor with a filter?
> 
> All excellent ideas, but seem a bit speculative to expect Canon would implement them.
> 
> The TS-E lenses were recently refreshed (3-4 years ago), and for a niche market, so I doubt Canon will make new versions soon. Then again, if it can make those big improvements, it could make photographers switch brands, making it worth releasing soon.


I wasn't suggesting one or any of them might be implemented, I was replying to the comment about what could possibly be in an RF T/S that isn't already in an EF one.

Hasselblad already do the EXIF and auto correction for tilt and shift. The filter holder is an obvious benefit for a 16/17mm RF T/S. 

The amount of tilt available because of the depth of the EF mirror box and shadowing is pathetic when compared to any other type of tilt, so improving that a lot would seem an absolute minimum to me. 

I would expect RF T/S's to be significant upgrades to the EF ones.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> They traded sharpness, and the MII is undoubtedly sharper, for a weird out of focus roll off. Look at a lot of sports photos, particularly if they have busy backgrounds, and you can tell the difference.
> 
> This is an example of the MkII that you just don’t get with the MkI https://www.ephotozine.com/articles...ns-review-16101/images/canon70-200mmII304.jpg
> 
> I shoot people more than sports so I never ‘upgraded’, if I were primarily a sports shooter and especially if I ever used TC’s on it, I’d get the MkII or III.


Thanks. So it is a 'bad' lens. Not just a portrait lens. As any lens can be a 'portrail' lens.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2021)

padam said:


> If the earlier leaked roadmap is true (might be as it matches with these three lenses as well), then these are the remaining lenses for the next two years.
> 
> Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
> Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
> ...











Canon will release RF versions of the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 in early 2022 [CR2]


As you may already know, Canon plans to officially announce the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM likely later this month. These are the first of



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## SteB1 (Apr 7, 2021)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Was discussing this with a friend at the weekend. The most useful upgrade to the 100L would be 2x macro while retaining infinity focusing. And the most useful upgrade to the MP-E65 would be increasing the range to 0.5-5x. But if I understand correctly, creating a lens which crosses the 1:1 'barrier' poses significant design challenges. I imagine this is why so few lenses actually do that.


I agree it's probably a challenge. But the Laowa lenses prove it is possible with good image quality. I'd love an MP-E type lens with 0.5x or even better 0.3 times, so you could fit dragonflies, bigger butterflies in the frame. However, for a walk around lens infinity focus is always useful in case some bigger suddenly pops up or happens in the distance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

sanj said:


> Thanks. So it is a 'bad' lens. Not just a portrait lens. As any lens can be a 'portrail' lens.


Hi sanj, I don’t think it is fair or correct to call the lens a ‘bad’ lens. I was just pointing out that there was a trade off for the newer versions increased sharpness. Also the MkII and MkIII works better with with TC’s. 

Basically you can make an informed choice with your own priorities. Ultimate subject sharpness and AF speed, vs, less ultimate subject sharpness, not quite as good with TC’s, nicer backgrounds and fall off. Though at this point in time the considerations between the two are more likely to be down to price, availability, and the ability to repair them if they have issues.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Apr 8, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Probably it will be at least 1:1 I'm guessing the price tag will be around $2000-2500, but anyway I'll get one. Extremley pleased with my current 100mm L


yep. I completely transitioned over to RF mount late last year after my studio got burgled and I lost all my EF equipment. The only EF lens I have is the 40 STM. Used it as an opportunity to "clean house" so to speak and picked up an R5, R6, and RP along with the RF 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8, 35 f1.8, and 50 f/1.8, all RF mount. I need a good macro lens for some of the types of product I shoot. The R5 is my main camera, the R6 backup, and RP walk around, personal use, spare body on a shoot, BTS video, etc.


----------



## barton springs (Apr 8, 2021)

Ruiloba said:


> I don't know if you mean that they don't have an 1.4x and 2x for RF in the launch of the big whites... Because there is already an RF 1.4x and an RF 2x .. and i tested the 1.4x with the 100-500 and it is perfect


 I knew about the availability of those RF converters. I was just emphasizing how I use my 300. The fact is I'll never be able to change to RF anyway. I'm so heavily invested in EF. I'd guess +/- $65k and the business is not profitable enough anymore. The gravy train is long gone (for me).


----------



## David_E (Apr 8, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
> PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
> There's always room for improvement.Seems there is always room for quibbling, as well. IsimplyS





Del Paso said:


> _As long as you haven't used the Leica R Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100...a 1987 design!
> PS: I agree the EF 100L is an excellent macro lens, I use it too, thanks to its OIS, but there are better lenses around (also the Sony 100 macro, the Zeiss Macro 100mm etc...)
> There's always room for improvement._


Seems that there is always room for quibbling as well. I simply do not believe that the etc. 100mm macro Lenses are better on a Canon camera than the Canon 100mm macro in any demonstrable way.


----------



## neonlight (Apr 10, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Several things:
> 1. Agree with you about the DO technology. I almost bought the 400 DO when I sold my 200-400, but thought I would wait for a RF 400 DO IS (L?) version. I thought is was a great lens and liked the weight / size. It also did very well with the 1.4x TC. I was actually hoping for a 500 DO even if they had to go to f5.6 to make it work. I tried the RF 800mm f11, liked the IQ but not happy with the f11.
> 2. Very surprised they are releasing the RF 400 & RF 600 first since these RF lenses were recently updated and got the version III weight loss program. I am wondering if they were designed for both the EF/RF mounts during the last update and let's them bleed through EF inventory and have two BW ready to go. I really thought we would see the RF 300, 500 & 200-400 (500?) first. These are all very popular lenses, but I don't know how their sales compare to the 400/600.
> 3. I have been on a mission to lighten my wildlife load and happy with any weight / size reductions they can make on the BW lenses.



I too wondered about the DO versions. I won't be able to afford the 600 whatever it costs, but I might get the chief accountant in our house to allow something equivalent to Nikon's 500 f/5.6. That was what I was hoping for when Canon produced the 600 f/11.
I suppose I'll add a 500 f/5.6 to the wish list and keep hoping.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 11, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Sold mine already as part of my RF transition. Better to sell while I can get a decent price. You may have noticed the first 3 Canon EF-lenses have now been discontinued. That's not good for resale values. Currently the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and RF 100-500mm IS L make due as my style of photography is severely hampered by Corona. After summer things should be better - and I will be longing for a fast 300mm prime again. YMMV.


I think we look at this in different ways, I’m not worried about resale, this lens is resiculously sharp, fast and with the R5 it’s accurate every time. No complaints to everyone upgrade. But to each their own.


----------



## tron (Apr 11, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> If the IS works together with the IBIS it would be worth replacing my EF 100L. That’s assuming it isn’t 2x the price!


Doesn't your IS work together with IBIS now? This functionality is not restricted to RF lenses.


----------



## Joules (Apr 11, 2021)

tron said:


> Doesn't your IS work together with IBIS now? This functionality is not restricted to RF lenses.


The IS collaboration between IBIS and EF IS is much more basic than with an RF lens though.


----------



## tron (Apr 11, 2021)

Joules said:


> The IS collaboration between IBIS and EF IS is much more basic than with an RF lens though.


 I understand this to a point and that's why I guess Canon updated the firmware of many RF lenses a year and a half ago but we cannot know how much is the difference.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 11, 2021)

tron said:


> I understand this to a point and that's why I guess Canon updated the firmware of many RF lenses a year and a half ago but we cannot know how much is the difference.


And sadly the firmware of the 100mm L can't be user upgraded. I don't noticed a difference between the 100mm L on an RP or on an R5, while with e.g. the MP-E I do notice a difference.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Apr 11, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And sadly the firmware of the 100mm L can't be user upgraded. I don't noticed a difference between the 100mm L on an RP or on an R5, while with e.g. the MP-E I do notice a difference.


Koenkooi, what is the difference (s) you notice with the MP-E on the R5? I'm interested to understand, as I have neither but am wondering about both - is it easier to use/ worse?

Thanks in advance. Stoical.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 12, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Koenkooi, what is the difference (s) you notice with the MP-E on the R5? I'm interested to understand, as I have neither but am wondering about both - is it easier to use/ worse?
> 
> Thanks in advance. Stoical.


The EVF is noticeably less jittery, handheld natural light stills are closer to being acceptable quality, but the biggest improvement is in video. The IBIS smooths out pretty much all high frequency micro shakes which makes stabilizing the rest in post a lot better.


----------



## padam (Apr 12, 2021)

Looks as predicted.
Apart from the distance scale disappearing and the additional part for the RF mount, they might be very similar to the version III EF lenses (but the RF teleconverters should perform be much better with these lenses).


----------



## john1970 (Apr 12, 2021)

I would not be surprised if they were identical optical designs to the EF III series. I also noticed the distance scale being removed and the new adapter for the RF mount as well. I wonder if there were any other changes (besides the price !).


----------



## padam (Apr 12, 2021)

Being native RF-mount, the communication between the lens and the camera will be way faster, so AF and IBIS might work more effectively and the designs were probably already optimised to work with the new teleconverters as well.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 13, 2021)

Supposedly this is them.....








First leaked pictures of the upcoming 400mm and 600mm RF lenses - Photo Rumors


Here are the first leaked pictures of the previously rumored 400mm and 600mm RF lenses – they will be announced together with the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L MACRO IS USM in the next 2 weeks: The US pricing of the new lenses is as follow: Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM: $1,399 Canon […]




photorumors.com


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 13, 2021)

In this first image, I sized the front element of the photo the same and layered the old 400 on top of the new 400 and the RF lens is now... longer?

Seems weird to me that they seemingly just stuck a built-in RF mount adapter on the end of the lens. They didn't even add a control ring to the lens?

To me it almost seems like it would make more sense to buy the EF mount one for versatility, and then just permanently keep a control ring adapter on the lens. I'm sure these lens will cost more than a new 400 III and adapter either way.


Second image for a non-overlayed comparison.


----------



## padam (Apr 13, 2021)

They cost exactly the same as the version III EF lenses (11999$ and 12999$) and as written before, the newer, better teleconverters will only work on the RF lenses without hacking (and it does not record the correct focal length to the camera so the IS may not be as effective)
Also, EOS R3 development announcement coming, so this will be the following model.


----------



## sanj (Apr 13, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Supposedly this is them.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I call this a fake.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Apr 13, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The EVF is noticeably less jittery, handheld natural light stills are closer to being acceptable quality, but the biggest improvement is in video. The IBIS smooths out pretty much all high frequency micro shakes which makes stabilizing the rest in post a lot better.


That's great - thanks for responding.
Cheers.


----------



## Methodical (Apr 14, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> If I was already a 400III or 600III owner but now shooting RF, it would take one of these three things in order of preference for me to sell off the MkIII and buy an RF replacement:
> 
> 1) DO like the 2015 prototype that reduced weight but most importantly reduced packing length for easier travel but also for easier handholding with a shorter lens for BIF. The 600DO's length would be more important to me than the weight. 600III weight with the prototype DO length (looked to be shorter than an EF 400/2.8) would even tempt me.
> 
> ...


Hey Arbitrage, I see you reside over here too. Btw, I'd want a lighter RF600 for me to let go of the 600II lens, otherwise, it will probably be a 2nd R5, so I can carry the 100-500 as a sidearm.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 19, 2021)

I am happy to see that the prices are the same!


----------

