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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2021)

> 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 many professional super-telephoto prime lenses for the RF mount.
> The EF versions of the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 were updated in September of 2018 to bring them to version 3.  Both the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and EF 500mm f/4L IS were last updated in 2011.
> I have been told that the RF versions of the latter lenses will come in early 2022 and that the new RF 500mm f/4L IS USM will be extremely light and much shorter than the current version. 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. Though there is reportedly a prime version also in development. I apologize for the confusion about the...



Continue reading...


----------



## sfericean (Apr 6, 2021)

I've never been more excited for lenses I could never afford at their retail price!


----------



## DaveGrice (Apr 6, 2021)

Interesting thought on that 300 2.8 zoom. I've eyed that Sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom jealously a few times. If I could get Canon's big white version of that, I'd probably pre-order... right after I talked to my banker.


----------



## juststeve (Apr 6, 2021)

When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 6, 2021)

A 120-300 2.8 at around 2,5kg! Would be awesome!
Sigmas is around 3,4kg.

I hope they give us more tele options... like two new L-Zooms (120-300 & ~300-800 or 400-800).


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 6, 2021)

juststeve said:


> When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.


There was an interview a while back where someone from Canon basically said that DO was a major part of the future of lens design, and that it would be included in many RF lenses. They will not be green banding them anymore - DO is just a normal part of many designs now.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Apr 6, 2021)

I wonder if they are looking at the RF equivalent of the old EF 28-300 F3.5-5.6L? I always liked the range of it but the weight put me off. Maybe an RF version could be lighter? I could trade both my 24-105 F4L & RF 70-200MM F2.8L as long as it was light enough lol


----------



## xps (Apr 6, 2021)

The 300mm 2.8 would be interesting. But can they improve the image quality of my EF version? This is just one of my best lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2021)

Why are people talking about zooms in a thread about primes to be released next spring? Jeez... start another thread.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 6, 2021)

With that many professional primes to come, the R1 might just be around the corner  
exciting times


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> There was an interview a while back where someone from Canon basically said that DO was a major part of the future of lens design, and that it would be included in many RF lenses. They will not be green banding them anymore - DO is just a normal part of many designs now.



Aye DO is just a standard part of the lens now. And that green band somehow made the product feel 'lesser' than if it had a red ring. Canon's DO and Nikon's PF is how these companies are going to really push super-tele lenses for mirrorless. But it looks like we are going for tried and proven first for the staple lenses.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 6, 2021)

I actually do not mind the weight of the EF 500 f/4 II that I own. Even saving 1-2 pounds would not be enough for me to upgrade as it is already such an amazing lens.

But shorter? ...and lighter? I'll wait for the IQ comparisons as I am not willing to compromise, but yeah, packing the 500 f/4 II can be a challenge. Heck, I own the Mindshift 40L just for that purpose. 

A 100-300 f/2.8 L might be a pre-order for me. 

Still haven't bought an RF lens. The EF lenses work fantastic on the R5, but those are two that could tempt me.


----------



## eosbob (Apr 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why are people talking about zooms in a thread about primes to be released next spring? Jeez... start another thread.


Did you not read the full article? This is why people are talking about zooms: "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."


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> And that green band somehow made the product feel 'lesser' than if it had a red ring.


Only for people that don’t know history....


----------



## Billybob (Apr 6, 2021)

I've been going back and forth about the 600mm. Although I'd really love a brighter lens, I'm not carrying a tripod, and I doubt that I'd enjoy shooting that beast handheld.

Now, if a smaller, lighter 500mm f/4 is in the works, I might go for that one instead despite giving up 100mm. I have and love the 500mm f/5.6 pf, but an extra stop of brightness might be enough to induce be to let go of the Nikon.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2021)

eosbob said:


> Did you not read the full article? This is why people are talking about zooms: "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."


Yeah, well, it won’t be a Sigma and won’t be a 28-300mm super zoom. Not gonna happen. Especially not as an “L”. Let’s keep it real.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Apr 6, 2021)

juststeve said:


> When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.


Yes, I don't know how else you get a fixed length prime to be "much shorter" than the existing item (and I hope/assume a mirror is definitely out of the question).


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2021)

Exciting times in which we live. I always enjoyed the 500 mm f4 as a lightweight alternative to the 600 mm f4 (based on equivalent design). The 500 mm f4 v2 is ~1.5 lbs lighter than 600 mm f4 v2. The 600 mm f4 III weighs in at 6.72 lbs so I am hopeful that the RF 500 mm f4 will weigh 5-5.25 lbs.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Aye DO is just a standard part of the lens now. And that green band somehow made the product feel 'lesser' than if it had a red ring. Canon's DO and Nikon's PF is how these companies are going to really push super-tele lenses for mirrorless. But it looks like we are going for tried and proven first for the staple lenses.


Get used to it, green is the new red!


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Apr 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, well, it won’t be a Sigma and won’t be a 28-300mm super zoom. Not gonna happen. Especially not as an “L”. Let’s keep it real.


So, what range of 300 f/2.8 incorporated into a zoom do you see it being then (assuming that part of the rumour might be real)?

Personally, the 35-350L was the first white Canon lens I bought (a long time ago), and while its quality is passed by any white prime and almost any shorter range zoom too, it wasn't useless, and is a great safari lens when you don't know what range you need and can't change lenses easily due to dust and bouncing in the back of a landrover  Given the direction of some recent lenses, I wouldn't rule a super zoom out (though not at a fixed 2.8 aperture, mind you).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 6, 2021)

Nikon already has a 120-300 2.8, so it's expected that Canon would make something similar. Even tho Nikon is not Canon's main competitor anymore. I'm looking forward to the new RF 500mm, although I will probably pick up a used EF 500 F4 for half the price.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> So, what range of 300 f/2.8 incorporated into a zoom do you see it being then (assuming that part of the rumour might be real)?
> 
> Personally, the 35-350L was the first white Canon lens I bought (a long time ago), and while its quality is passed by any white prime and almost any shorter range zoom too, it wasn't useless, and is a great safari lens when you don't know what range you need and can't change lenses easily due to dust and bouncing in the back of a landrover  Given the direction of some recent lenses, I wouldn't rule a super zoom out (though not at a fixed 2.8 aperture, mind you).


The words, “*may* release the 300mm f/2.8L as a zoom” lead me to think it will be a 300-300mm zoom. How’s that? Certainly won’t be any f/2.8 “L” 10x+ zoom silliness.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, well, it won’t be a Sigma and won’t be a 28-300mm super zoom. Not gonna happen. Especially not as an “L”. Let’s keep it real.



Will not be a 28-300 but very much possible to be a 120-300 type lens, just like Nikon released not so long ago for $10K


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Will not be a 28-300 but very much possible to be a 120-300 type lens, just like Nikon released not so long ago for $10K


Sure, it’s possible. However, bringing a 28-300 into this discussion of an L super-tele is silly. I think speculating about what is more appropriate as an italicized footnote is unrelated. If the rumor is true (about the zoom), then why no mention of the range? More logically, this is about the 2 primes.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 6, 2021)

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I'd love a good 100-300mm f/2.8L. It would honestly probably be the perfect lens for my uses.

100-300 2.8 for night sports/fires, 1.4x teleconverter giving me 140-420mm F/4 like the 200-400 for in-between uses, and a 200-600mm F/5.6 for wildlife and birding. It would honestly cover all of my bases. Would love that from Canon.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nikon already has a 120-300 2.8, so it's expected that Canon would make something similar. Even tho Nikon is not Canon's main competitor anymore. I'm looking forward to the new RF 500mm, although I will probably pick up a used EF 500 F4 for half the price.



Nikon are still Canon's main (and in many areas, only) competitor. Who else is going to push them?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Nikon are still Canon's main (and in many areas, only) competitor. Who else is going to push them?


For DSLRs, Nikon is Canon's main competitor, but not for mirrorless where every indicator is that it is Sony.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> For DSLRs, Nikon is Canon's main competitor, but not for mirrorless where every indicator is that it is Sony.


I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 6, 2021)

Another thought that crossed my mind, I can understand if Canon decided to go more of the small, DO route on the 500mm vs the 600mm. People who are using a 600mm are trying to get the most reach no matter what it costs, whereas the 500mm is more often for people who want long reach, but also want a more compact lens with less weight.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Canon decided to make the 500mm F/4 collapsible, much like the 800mm F/11. It would be a perfect big white contender for something like that, if someone had an issue with the design, they could just go for the 600mm.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Another thought that crossed my mind, I can understand if Canon decided to go more of the small, DO route on the 500mm vs the 600mm. People who are using a 600mm are trying to get the most reach no matter what it costs, whereas the 500mm is more often for people who want long reach, but also want a more compact lens with less weight.
> 
> I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Canon decided to make the 500mm F/4 collapsible, much like the 800mm F/11. It would be a perfect big white contender for something like that, if someone had an issue with the design, they could just go for the 600mm.


A 500 DO lens will be short anyway. The Nikon 500mm PF is only 237mm long, compared with the 291mm of the RF 800mm when it is collapsed and 362mm extended. The RF 100-500mm zoom when collapsed is only about 25mm (1") shorter than the 500PF. So, I doubt if they are going to make a collapsible 500 DO, given the extra difficulties and weight required to have a sliding weatherproofed L-class lens.


----------



## GMAX (Apr 6, 2021)

I own and love my EF2,8/300 II, but an additional lighter and shorter RF4.0/500 (against the EF) will be a hard test for my bank account as well as for my unavailable self control...


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2021)

I am excited to see what specs Canon puts into the soon to be announced 400 mm and 600 mm and would expect similar for the 500 mm and 300 mm. For example, if the 400 and 600 mm both and DO elements I would expect the same for the 500 and 300. Wait and see, but it is always fun to speculate....


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> A 500 DO lens will be short anyway. The Nikon 500mm PF is only 237mm long, compared with the 291mm of the RF 800mm when it is collapsed and 362mm extended. The RF 100-500mm zoom when collapsed is only about 25mm (1") shorter than the 500PF. So, I doubt if they are going to make a collapsible 500 DO, given the extra difficulties and weight required to have a sliding weatherproofed L-class lens.


Great point honestly, I knew the 500mm PF was short, but didn't realize it was that short!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> For DSLRs, Nikon is Canon's main competitor, but not for mirrorless where every indicator is that it is Sony.


I don't agree. Sony only has a 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 for wildlife shooters. Nikon has a whole host of lenses that compete with and push Canon forward. Sony still looks like a non-entity and aren't going to push Canon to make the next TS-E, DO super-tele, or MEP-65. Nikon pushes Canon, Sony is unlikely ever going to push Canon in any meaningful way.

Where's Sony's 300mm f/2.8, 180/200-400mm TC, DO super-tele, tilt-shift, 1-5x macro? Sure, event, wedding, and journalists can go Sony. But Canon covers that better with the little fat 70-200 and the f/1.2 50, and 85.

Sony put out a new body frequently and that is pushing Nikon and Canon's bodies, but they aren't putting out lenses that make me want to get into their system. Canon and Nikon have entire segments of photography to themselves.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 6, 2021)

The EF 300 2.8 II is a most beautiful lens. I'll be really curious to see how Canon could improve on it as I couldn't imagine anything being better. It's my favourite of all my lens. I use it handheld alot. It's no lightweight but its manageable. The image quality it outstanding. It's hard to justify the cost of it and I'm sure the RF will be even more expensive but I think the EF 300mm II has been worth it,
I've never used the 500 F4 but its probably the most common of the big whites. I'm sure it will be a good update.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Great point honestly, I knew the 500mm PF was short, but didn't realize it was that short!


It's remarkably small, about the same weight and size as the 100-500 f/7.1. I've reached the age where that is as about as much as I can manage to carry comfortably. So, I am very happy with the RF 100-500 and want more at that weight.


----------



## vladk (Apr 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The words, “*may* release the 300mm f/2.8L as a zoom” lead me to think it will be a 300-300mm zoom. How’s that? Certainly won’t be any f/2.8 “L” 10x+ zoom silliness.


Easy. Focus breathing can make it 295-305mm "zoom"


----------



## navastronia (Apr 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why are people talking about zooms in a thread about primes to be released next spring? Jeez... start another thread.


Because Craig mentioned it?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I don't agree. Sony only has a 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 for wildlife shooters. Nikon has a whole host of lenses that compete with and push Canon forward. Sony still looks like a non-entity and aren't going to push Canon to make the next TS-E, DO super-tele, or MEP-65. Nikon pushes Canon, Sony is unlikely ever going to push Canon in any meaningful way.
> 
> Where's Sony's 300mm f/2.8, 180/200-400mm TC, DO super-tele, tilt-shift, 1-5x macro? Sure, event, wedding, and journalists can go Sony. But Canon covers that better with the little fat 70-200 and the f/1.2 50, and 85.
> 
> Sony put out a new body frequently and that is pushing Nikon and Canon's bodies, but they aren't putting out lenses that make me want to get into their system. Canon and Nikon have entire segments of photography to themselves.


Sony also has the very popular 200-600mm. Just look at the sales figures of MILCs - Nikon is a very distant third. Maybe the Z9 will help Nikon catch up.

ps - the Sony 200-600mm thread on Fredmiranda has 213 pages compared with 212 pages for the Nikon 500PF.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 6, 2021)

juststeve said:


> When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.


I will buy if priced in the ballpark of the 400 DO IS II with typical BW IQ.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 6, 2021)

juststeve said:


> When talk about one of the great whites turns to it getting much shorter and lighter, one starts to think diffractive optics.


So, does that mean that the EF 200-400 f4 L IS w/ 1.4x TC wouldn't qualify when discussing Big Whites? I don't think you would find much difference in IQ between the 200-400 and the 300 mm / 400mm with the exception of bokeh.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 6, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> A 120-300 2.8 at around 2,5kg! Would be awesome!
> Sigmas is around 3,4kg.
> 
> I hope they give us more tele options... like two new L-Zooms (120-300 & ~300-800 or 400-800).


Agree with you, but I want a 200-500 f4 (maybe f5.6 @500mm to keep down size/weight).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Sony also has the very popular 200-600mm. Just look at the sales figures of MILCs - Nikon is a very distant third. Maybe the Z9 will help Nikon catch up.


The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.

Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Nikon: f/1.8 professional primes that cost bugger all, 300 and 500mm PF, 180-400 TC, range of PC/PC-E, no compromise f/1.2 primes.

Compelling reasons to get into Sony: Arguably better AF in their current bodies, open to third party lenses (that all make the same staple lenses).

Of course, this is my opinion, but it looks very much like Canon and Nikon are rivals and have been for decades. They both have lenses you can't get anywhere else. Sony doesn't have this. Why would I buy into Sony when Canon and Nikon have a better version of the lens Sony wants to sell?


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 6, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Another thought that crossed my mind, I can understand if Canon decided to go more of the small, DO route on the 500mm vs the 600mm. People who are using a 600mm are trying to get the most reach no matter what it costs, whereas the 500mm is more often for people who want long reach, but also want a more compact lens with less weight.
> 
> I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Canon decided to make the 500mm F/4 collapsible, much like the 800mm F/11. It would be a perfect big white contender for something like that, if someone had an issue with the design, they could just go for the 600mm.


I have wondered if that approach would work for the BW, but I think the lens barrel design and size of the front element would be a problem. When you look at the 600 & 800 f11 DO design, the lens barrel is very similar in diameter with an only slightly larger front element. Unless they have some neat/nifty new way to handle the image, the barrel of the BW has to get progressively larger as it extends to the front element. Would be great if that would work.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Agree with you, but I want a 200-500 f4 (maybe f5.6 @500mm to keep down size/weight).


A 200-500mm f/4.0 would be heavy, but would also live on a tripod and serve wildlife photographers as 'the' lens. Especially with a flick in 1.4X TC to make it a 280-700mm f/5.6


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.
> 
> Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.
> 
> ...


don't forget the 8-15mm/4 fisheye as well


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> don't forget the 8-15mm/4 fisheye as well


I did forget about that. Funnily enough I was talking to a guy wanting to get into skater photography today that was interested in fish eye lenses (because all the shots in the magazines are fish eye).


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 7, 2021)

What is the downside of using DO? Is it controling flare? Can bokeh be a problem? The size of the RF600/800 is achieved using DO even though they are not labelled DO


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I did forget about that. Funnily enough I was talking to a guy wanting to get into skater photography today that was interested in fish eye lenses (because all the shots in the magazines are fish eye).


You also see the 8-15mm used for astro and for underwater photography. Much easier to fit in whales with a fisheye. Street and architecture is hard to compose but fun to try


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> What is the downside of using DO? Is it controling flare? Can bokeh be a problem? The size of the RF600/800 is achieved using DO even though they are not labelled DO



DO and PF can have some weird bokeh issues. Older DO lenses really lacked contrast. I tried the original 400 f/4.0 L DO and it produced really meh looking images. The samples I've seen from the mark II and the images from my PF lens suggest all the issues with sharpness and contrast have been fixed and these are now inline with the big primes.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> You also see the 8-15mm used for astro and for underwater photography. Much easier to fit in whales with a fisheye. Street and architecture is hard to compose but fun to try


Underwater seems to be a great use case. And it is a environment where you can't guarantee perfect focus and fine motor control of the camera. So something wide that gets a lot of stuff in focus seems logical to me. But correct me if I am on on the wrong thought process.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A 200-500mm f/4.0 would be heavy, but would also live on a tripod and serve wildlife photographers as 'the' lens. Especially with a flick in 1.4X TC to make it a 280-700mm f/5.6


Making it f5.6 or f5.6 @500 would help with weight. The lens could also benefit from DO technology to reduce size/weight. I had the EF 200-400 f4 L IS 1.4x TC and it was my all time favorite super Telephoto with the exceptions of being heavy AND just a bit short for wildlife (even with TC). I think we will see something like a 200-500, but it may be a couple of years once they have the traditional BW in the lineup.


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2021)

A 300-500/2.8-4.0 or even a 300-500/2.8-4.5 zoom would be cool. And useful.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Underwater seems to be a great use case. And it is a environment where you can't guarantee perfect focus and fine motor control of the camera. So something wide that gets a lot of stuff in focus seems logical to me. But correct me if I am on on the wrong thought process.


Macro and super macro underwater needs critical focus and is certainly an issue when both you and the subject are moving. Light (strobes) are an additional source of fun  
A lot easier focus for wide angle shooting but still an issue. Eye-AF for animals don't work so well with underwater critters. I would love to go snorkeling with whales but that is both expensive and not possible with covid for some time to come. eye-af should work well with humpback whales


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?


Nope


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

sanj said:


> Nope


I’ll still be using them. I doubt if there will be any new models but I still intend to get at least 1 1DX III.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 7, 2021)

Finally, at least confirmation of the RF 500 f/4 and talk of being extremely light and much shorter has me wondering if they can get down below 2.4kg and as short as the 400 f/2.8 which is about 40mm shorter than the current 500 f/4.

I wonder if Canon was inspired by Nikon's awesome new 120-300 f/2.8 to release their own version. If they can reduce the weight over Nikon's by even 0.5kg it would be an extremely popular lens.

Highly doubt we'll see 28-300 sort of zoom, at best I'd like to see a 100-300 f/2.8 with 1.8m MFD and 2.7kg max. Would make a great 140-420 f/4.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 7, 2021)

xps said:


> The 300mm 2.8 would be interesting. But can they improve the image quality of my EF version? This is just one of my best lenses.



improve? You’re not happy with the current optics?


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 7, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?


Of course they will still be used in 5 years time. We can still buy/use film cameras. 
The number of models will certainly decrease. I see only a low end and high end models.
Low end DLSRs could still be sold if they are cheap enough. The 1500+kit lens is only ~USD600 including 10% GST and 200Dii+kit lens for USD750 incl 10% GST.
1DXiii for sure.... maybe the 5Div for a few years (with a price drop). If a cheaper FF model under RP then there won't be room for DLSR there.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’ll still be using them. I doubt if there will be any new models but I still intend to get at least 1 1DX III.


I wonder if I’ll still be around then, but if so, I will probably still be using DSLRs, just no longer buying them.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.
> 
> Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.
> 
> ...



I owned and loved the 200-600. There were some dumb things about it (the strap anchors weren't at the center of gravity, for instance), but it in fact was the best quality or image and speed of focus for a mid-aperture "white" zoom. Canon didn't have anything as good at the time in the range. That's coming from a guy who put more than 500,000 frames on a 100-400 Mark II. I now shoot the 100-500 on the R5, and I think the image quality is as good, but the range and aperture are worse in exchange for better ergs and size/weight. It's just a trade-off. If canon made a 200-600, I'm I'd likely prefer it over the 100-500 when I went out on hikes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I wonder if I’ll still be around then, but if so, I will probably still be using DSLRs, just no longer buying them.


probably the same as me, but we’ll see...


----------



## dominic_siu (Apr 7, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if DSLRs are even going to be around five years from now?


There will be no new DSLR for sure, also EF lenses. Of course you can buy used DSLR and EF lenses but no more brand new. EF lenses discontinuation is much faster after R5/6 introduction and their success push the transition at a faster pace.


----------



## Chig (Apr 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> What is the downside of using DO? Is it controling flare? Can bokeh be a problem? The size of the RF600/800 is achieved using DO even though they are not labelled DO


Can get weird Bokeh with some DO lenses such as the EF400mm f/4 DO which can have odd series of semi circles in it's bokeh but haven't heard that it's an issue with these particular lenses as they have no diaphragm blades so the bokeh is very circular


----------



## Chig (Apr 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Canon has a patent for a switchable 1.4x to 2x T.C and there was speculation that they might build it into the RF300 f/2.8 .
If so that would be pretty cool especially if it has DO elements to keep the weight down.
Imagine if it was about 2kg and could switch to 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 with the flick of a switch


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.
> 
> Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.
> 
> ...


The major revolution in photography in recent years has been the upsurge in MILCs vs DSLRs. And the push and technology behind that have certainly not been driven by Nikon. Sony’s innovation there has made it Canon’s major rival and pushed it into making the world-beating R5. Canon and Sony are now battling it out for supremacy. By the way, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp it rivals my 500PF.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 7, 2021)

DaveGrice said:


> Interesting thought on that 300 2.8 zoom. I've eyed that Sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom jealously a few times. If I could get Canon's big white version of that, I'd probably pre-order... right after I talked to my banker.


The Sigma 120-200mm f2.8 is an awful lens when compared to any version of the Canon ef 300mm f2.8 LIS prime. It's ridiculously heavy, it's not a true f2.8 and it's not a true 300mm either. It's closer to a 250mm f3.2 in reality and doesn't offer enough compared to a good 70-200 f2.8. It suffers from massive amounts of focus breathing, at Min Focus Distance it's not much longer than a 70-200 f2.8 at the same distance. So at min focus distance the focal length drops to about 220mm..utterly pointless given it's size and weight. The OS is truly clunky and awful, it's not even up to Canon's 1st gen IS level. The AF speed is so slow, inconsistent and erratic that even a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II LIS can get shots of moving objects that this poor Sigma can only dream of. My old ef 85mm f1.2 IIL is more accurate and less hesitant that this weird AF system. It's not worth the bother or the weight for something that only ticks boxes on paper. I owned this lens for about 3 months and I've never been more disappointed by an optic than this piece of 5h1t. Put it against any White lens form Canon and it'll expose this optics many many short comings.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The major revolution in photography in recent years has been the upsurge in MILCs vs DSLRs. And the push and technology behind that have certainly not been driven by Nikon. Sony’s innovation there has made it Canon’s major rival and pushed it into making the world-beating R5. Canon and Sony are now battling it out for supremacy. By the way, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp it rivals my 500PF.



And now that we have the R5, what reason would there possibly be to consider Sony?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 7, 2021)

The problem with Canon's big white Tele's for the RF mount is that there aren't the wide angle advantages of the mirrorless box. So there aren't any inherent design advantages compared to the EF mount. The last iteration of the mightily ef 400mm f2.8 LIS was the mkIII in 2018. A 400mm f2.8 design pushes a marques technical abilities to the limit as it's a very difficult lens to design and produce. To push the boundaries of this formula with each iteration requires a LOT of R&D with out a lot of lens sales. It's a very slow trickle of sales but it does create a strong headline. The problem with this stream of lenses is that the Pro RF body isn't yet announced or released. So any big white RF prime will be even slower to shift because Canon doesn't have a suitable camera body to drive it yet. 
For me, the RF mount is still a way off. While Id' like a pair of Eos r5's, they are way to hotly priced for me at the moment. My 5DIII's are still turning in great imagery for my pro / semi pro needs (most of my photo income streams have been locked down due to Covid). My hope for a new RF 400mm f2.8 LIS is that there will be a surplus of cheaper ef 400mm f2.8 III LIS lenses on the market, offering me a clear and reasonably priced upgrade for my fantastic but eye wateringly heavy ef 400mm f2.8 LIS mk I. £12K UKP for an occasion use lens is was too much for my current photographic income stream. Your mileage might vary.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> And now that we have the R5, what reason would there possibly be to consider Sony?


For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.



The issue is that Sony only had mirrorless bodies to push Canon and Nikon. In four years when the R1ii, R5ii, Z9ii, and Z8ii/Z7iii are out and all about feature parry, what will Sony have to push Canon then? Even now, we have the R5 and Canon has the most unique glass. I could still see myself buying a R1 and 600mm f/4.0 if it is lighter than the Z9 and Z 600mm f/4.0, Sony don't have a body like the upcoming Z9 and R1 and their 600mm f/4.0 isn't anything special.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The problem with Canon's big white Tele's for the RF mount is that there aren't the wide angle advantages of the mirrorless box. So there aren't any inherent design advantages compared to the EF mount. The last iteration of the mightily ef 400mm f2.8 LIS was the mkIII in 2018. A 400mm f2.8 design pushes a marques technical abilities to the limit as it's a very difficult lens to design and produce. To push the boundaries of this formula with each iteration requires a LOT of R&D with out a lot of lens sales. It's a very slow trickle of sales but it does create a strong headline. The problem with this stream of lenses is that the Pro RF body isn't yet announced or released. So any big white RF prime will be even slower to shift because Canon doesn't have a suitable camera body to drive it yet.
> For me, the RF mount is still a way off. While Id' like a pair of Eos r5's, they are way to hotly priced for me at the moment. My 5DIII's are still turning in great imagery for my pro / semi pro needs (most of my photo income streams have been locked down due to Covid). My hope for a new RF 400mm f2.8 LIS is that there will be a surplus of cheaper ef 400mm f2.8 III LIS lenses on the market, offering me a clear and reasonably priced upgrade for my fantastic but eye wateringly heavy ef 400mm f2.8 LIS mk I. £12K UKP for an occasion use lens is was too much for my current photographic income stream. Your mileage might vary.



At the very least we loose about an inch in length. That's enough to make a R1 and 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4.0 fit into a smaller bag or fit in the same bag with less shoving required.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The issue is that Sony only had mirrorless bodies to push Canon and Nikon. In four years when the R1ii, R5ii, Z9ii, and Z8ii/Z7iii are out and all about feature parry, what will Sony have to push Canon then? Even now, we have the R5 and Canon has the most unique glass. I could still see myself buying a R1 and 600mm f/4.0 if it is lighter than the Z9 and Z 600mm f/4.0, Sony don't have a body like the upcoming Z9 and R1 and their 600mm f/4.0 isn't anything special.


We don't know what will happen in four years time, and we don't even know how the R1 and Z9 will perform, let alone the hypothetical second generation. What we do know now from the latest figures is:
"According to research firm Techno System Research (Tokyo), Sony ranked first with 1.15 million units and Canon ranked second with 1.05 million units out of a total of 3.26 million mirrorless production units in 2020. Nikon has only 250,000 units. Of the total of 2.39 million SLR cameras, Canon had 1.71 million and Nikon had 650,000."





エラーページ - SankeiBiz（サンケイビズ）


SankeiBiz（サンケイビズ）は産経新聞グループの経済情報サイトです。「仕事・キャリア」「自分磨き」を主なテーマに、ニュースはもちろん、気鋭の経営者や識者が執筆する連載・コラムなどビジネスパーソンの知的好奇心を満たすコンテンツをご覧ください。




www.sankeibiz.jp




Canon and Sony are slugging it out head-to-toe in mirrorless sales and Nikon a distant 3rd, but it is the only real competitor for DSLRs. which I is precisely what I have been saying. But, Nikon has apparently taken the decision that the future is mirrorless so let's hope they don't go under.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Canon and Sony are slugging it out head-to-toe in mirrorless sales and Nikon a distant 3rd, but it is the only real competitor for DSLRs. which I is precisely what I have been saying. But, Nikon has apparently taken the decision that the future is mirrorless so let's hope they don't go under.



In the unlikely event Nikon (They can be in the red for decades before it becomes a issue.) go under, it leaves us with just Canon. Sony are shifting mirrorless bodies but are irrelevant to anyone not in the markets they serve. This isn't about unit sales, it is about completion. Sony does not compete with Nikon and Canon on so many fronts. Maybe in a decade they'll have a lens portfolio to compete, but it seems like they are only interested in making the mass market lenses they know they can sell to journalistic, wedding, and event photographers. 

I love Canon lenses, but I don't want them to be the only option.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> At the very least we loose about an inch in length. That's enough to make a R1 and 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4.0 fit into a smaller bag or fit in the same bag with less shoving required.


Not really...for wide angle lenses that's true, but anything over 50mm generally needs the mirror box dimension added to make the same focal length from the front objective optic to the sensor plane. So EF telephotos are generally shorter than Mirrorless with the same optical formula.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Not really...for wide angle lenses that's true, but anything over 50mm generally needs the mirror box dimension added to make the same focal length from the front objective optic to the sensor plane. So EF telephotos are generally shorter than Mirrorless with the same optical formula.



Let's make them all DO then. A full set of short and fat RF super-tele's would be smashing. We've seen people are willing to take a little IQ drop for weight loss already, I am sure the IQ loss from DO is more than made up for in the much smaller and potentially cheeper lens design. 

Other than IQ, I can only assume that DO glass is a finite thing per year. I heard the PF elements Nikon use are finite, even if they had more factories.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 7, 2021)

A 100-300 2.8 zoom would be highly desirable for indoor sports. While I could not afford one and at this point in my life wouldn't want to invest in one, I can see it as a great incentive for high end sports photographers (large NCAA schools and professional sports) to give the R1 a go. Even an f4 70-300 zoom would interest me.


----------



## DBounce (Apr 7, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> With that many professional primes to come, the R1 might just be around the corner
> exciting times


Looks like you may have been spot on!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> A 100-300 2.8 zoom would be highly desirable for indoor sports. While I could not afford one and at this point in my life wouldn't want to invest in one, I can see it as a great incentive for high end sports photographers (large NCAA schools and professional sports) to give the R1 a go. Even an f4 70-300 zoom would interest me.



The Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 seems to be better than the 300 primes it replaces, it also gives the 300 some meaning and differentiation from it being a 'cheeper 400/2.8'. I can see a RF 120-300 being someones bread and butter lens, replacing a 70-200 and 300.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> For me, absolutely none. The RF 100-500mm is as much as I can carry comfortably (as is the 500PF), the Sony 200-600mm is too heavy, and the R5 is close enough to the far more expensive A9 in performance. But, I am not going to run down Sony as they are worthy competitors, and competition is what is good for us consumers. Do, you think Canon would have moved this rapidly to make the R5 without Sony giving them a hammering in recent years in upmarket mirrorless? Canon executives have admitted they were too conservative and became complacent.


Goof for you, I'll take the Sony any day of the week over the Canon. For most of us that can use a 500/600 f/4 the 200-600 is lightweight. It's 30% cheaper, 100mm longer reach, 1/3rd stop faster, optically easily as good if not better and doesn't extend. It's tack sharp with the 1.4x TC even wide open, and has no stupid limitations of not being able to zoom through the entire range with a TC. The A9 in Australia can readily be found far cheaper than the R5 and the A9II is basically the same price. The best lightweight 500mm by a country mile is the Nikon 500 PF and if they release a 600 PF I'll definitely buy a Z9.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Will not be a 28-300 but very much possible to be a 120-300 type lens, just like Nikon released not so long ago for $10K


I would be heartbroken if there is a RF 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom and not a RF 300mm f/2.8 prime. RF 100-500mm is zoom enough for me already. And zooms _always _suffer on bokeh quality.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Of course they will still be used in 5 years time. We can still buy/use film cameras.
> The number of models will certainly decrease. I see only a low end and high end models.
> Low end DLSRs could still be sold if they are cheap enough. The 1500+kit lens is only ~USD600 including 10% GST and 200Dii+kit lens for USD750 incl 10% GST.
> 1DXiii for sure.... maybe the 5Div for a few years (with a price drop). If a cheaper FF model under RP then there won't be room for DLSR there.


They will likely produce their existing DSLR's as long as it pays to keep the productions lines running and gradually replace these with new mirrorless models as they are rolled out. No need to develop any new DSLR models.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I would be heartbroken if there is a RF 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom and not a RF 300mm f/2.8 prime. RF 100-500mm is zoom enough for me already. And zooms _always _suffer on bokeh quality.


Oh dear, you don't like the bokeh of DO prime lenses either. So, if telephoto choice from Canon is just between zooms and DOs, then it looks like you are going to be an unhappy man.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Oh dear, you don't like the bokeh of DO prime lenses either. So, if telephoto choice from Canon is just between zooms and DOs, then it looks like you are going to be an unhappy man.


Life is tough!


----------



## degos (Apr 8, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The Sigma 120-200mm f2.8 is an awful lens when compared to any version of the Canon ef 300mm f2.8 LIS prime.



Yet Sigma had the balls to try it, and refined the design over three revisions. Canon didn't even bother.

I've seen plenty of sports and safari photos shot on the 120-300 that wouldn't have existed without it because, well, it exists and is half the cost of the 300mm 2.8

Is it only half as much lens? Maybe so, but that's better than no lens at all.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 8, 2021)

degos said:


> Yet Sigma had the balls to try it, and refined the design over three revisions. Canon didn't even bother.
> 
> I've seen plenty of sports and safari photos shot on the 120-300 that wouldn't have existed without it because, well, it exists and is half the cost of the 300mm 2.8
> 
> Is it only half as much lens? Maybe so, but that's better than no lens at all.


This is hilarious. I have a Mamiya/Sekor 400mm f/8. Thank God Mamiya had the balls to try it. I have bunches of photos that wouldn’t exist without it. $20 lens balls beat Sigma balls? 

What the heck does that even mean?

How in the world does this equate with Canon lacking testicular testosterone? Sigma was doing the Alpha male thing? I think not.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Sony also has the very popular 200-600mm. Just look at the sales figures of MILCs - Nikon is a very distant third. Maybe the Z9 will help Nikon catch up.
> 
> ps - the Sony 200-600mm thread on Fredmiranda has 213 pages compared with 212 pages for the Nikon 500PF.


Sony is absolutely pushing Canon. Sony is why Canon is now taking MILC seriously, seriously enough to stop producing DSLR bodies and now discontinue many EF and EF-S lenses. Sony will flesh out their lens line-up as Canon is now doing. Canon will not underestimate Sony again, IMO. In my photography realm of bird and wildlife photography it is now Canon and Sony, while Nikon appears to be losing ground with wildlife shooters from what my tours suggest. I have seen many of my clients switch recently from Nikon to either Canon or Sony, some to both. The R5 is really getting a strong following very quickly among my clients.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 8, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The 200-600 isn't a professional lens and hasn't pushed Canon to compete with it. Nikon keeps pushing Canon. Sony hasn't made anything unique to their platform. Nikon has unique lenses you can't get anywhere else that push Canon to build unique lenses you can't get anywhere else, Sony doesn't have any unique selling point. Sony being mirrorless was their unique point and they have 'modern' marketing, but nothing in their system is the best at anything nor unique.
> 
> Compelling reasons to get into Canon: Large range of TS-E, fat 70-200 f/2.8, MPE-65, 200-400mm TC, no compromise f/1.2 primes.
> 
> ...


The Sony 200-600 may not be a GM lens, but it is being used by a lot of professional wildlife photographers. A large proportion of my clients are using it. The 200-600 on the a9II is deadly and it looks like it also works very well on the new a1 from the day I spent shooting with that combo. Canon may not have brought out a direct competitor to the 200-600 yet, but there is no doubt in my mind that Canon is being pushed by Sony. I love my two R5s and Canon is now showing what they have got when it comes to mirrorless ILC prowess, but they know Sony is not going away. Sony is why Canon is all in on Mirrorless.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 8, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I owned and loved the 200-600. There were some dumb things about it (the strap anchors weren't at the center of gravity, for instance), but it in fact was the best quality or image and speed of focus for a mid-aperture "white" zoom. Canon didn't have anything as good at the time in the range. That's coming from a guy who put more than 500,000 frames on a 100-400 Mark II. I now shoot the 100-500 on the R5, and I think the image quality is as good, but the range and aperture are worse in exchange for better ergs and size/weight. It's just a trade-off. If canon made a 200-600, I'm I'd likely prefer it over the 100-500 when I went out on hikes.


I would buy a Canon 200-600 immediately if it were offered. So would just about every wildlife photographer I know given all the conversations we have had on the subject since Canon brought out the 100-500.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> I would buy a Canon 200-600 immediately if it were offered. So would just about every wildlife photographer I know given all the conversations we have had on the subject since Canon brought out the 100-500.


Do you shoot from a vehicle with your clients or do you do some hiking?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 8, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Sony is absolutely pushing Canon. Sony is why Canon is now taking MILC seriously, seriously enough to stop producing DSLR bodies and now discontinue many EF and EF-S lenses. Sony will flesh out their lens line-up as Canon is now doing. Canon will not underestimate Sony again, IMO. In my photography realm of bird and wildlife photography it is now Canon and Sony, while Nikon appears to be losing ground with wildlife shooters from what my tours suggest. I have seen many of my clients switch recently from Nikon to either Canon or Sony, some to both. The R5 is really getting a strong following very quickly among my clients.


Sony has been in the ff /crop mirrorless game for over a decade. They are still fleshing things out? Glad Canon is here to push Sony along. In fact, Sony finally built two super-tele lenses,what, two years ago? Has it even been that long? Bodies are bodies. Lenses are where the bulk of the magic happens. Still waiting for Sony’s tilt shift line up to help flesh out a few gaping holes. I think Sony is getting far too much credit.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Do you shoot from a vehicle with your clients or do you do some hiking?


Many of my tours are from my customized pontoon boat; snail kites, swallow-tailed kites, Ospreys, Roseate Spoonbills. Some from blinds; belted kingfisher in the winter here in FL. So out west; Montana, here we hike. Spain; mostly hide-based shooting but some hiking too. Cheers.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 8, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sony has been in the ff /crop mirrorless game for over a decade. They are still fleshing things out? Glad Canon is here to push Sony along. In fact, Sony finally built two super-tele lenses,what, two years ago? Has it even been that long? Bodies are bodies. Lenses are where the bulk of the magic happens. Still waiting for Sony’s tilt shift line up to help flesh out a few gaping holes. I think Sony is getting far too much credit.


Oh, you are correct. The pushing and shoving goes both ways and Canon and Sony will be pushing each other along for years to come. Nikon too, most likely. I would be surprised if Nikon does not come on strong in the mirrorless ILC realm. For now, it is Canon and Sony pushing each other. My perspective if from the view of a wildlife photography professional and there are a lot of wildlife photographers both enthusiasts and professionals and it is Canon and Sony at this point in time.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Many of my tours are from my customized pontoon boat; snail kites, swallow-tailed kites, Ospreys, Roseate Spoonbills. Some from blinds; belted kingfisher in the winter here in FL. So out west; Montana, here we hike. Spain; mostly hide-based shooting but some hiking too. Cheers.


Useful to know, I can easily manage a 200-600mm for the Florida type of bird photography but too heavy for an old guy like me for hiking. Had one great winter bird photographing trip in FL.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 10, 2021)

Would be cool if canon could use their new 8-9cm fresnell lense machine to make front element fresnel lens for 400mm f4,5do plastic wonder objective .
But i guess it would eat big white sales too much. Like 2k lense with fast usm.
Like RF600mm it looks amazingly simple design.And sounds like it works good too


----------



## SonicStudios (Apr 10, 2021)

Does CRUMORS have a RF 300 rumored priced? If the RF 400 2.8 comes in around $13,000 I guess that would put the RF 300 around $12,000?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2021)

SonicStudios said:


> Does CRUMORS have a RF 300 rumored priced? If the RF 400 2.8 comes in around $13,000 I guess that would put the RF 300 around $12,000?


That doesn’t make any sense, the EF 300 is $6,000, the EF 400 is $12,000. Make an allowance for the RF premium and you are looking at probably $7,500, and $14,000.


----------



## SonicStudios (Apr 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That doesn’t make any sense, the EF 300 is $6,000, the EF 400 is $12,000. Make an allowance for the RF premium and you are looking at probably $7,500, and $14,000.


Ah cool, wasn't sure how the pricing worked. Not being a professional in the business, always found the shots taken with the 300 to be incredible, especially at Air shows and $7500 would be in my price range, thanks for your follow-up


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2021)

SonicStudios said:


> Ah cool, wasn't sure how the pricing worked. Not being a professional in the business, always found the shots taken with the 300 to be incredible, especially at Air shows and $7500 would be in my price range, thanks for your follow-up


300 for an air show is considered a bit short, probably need a 1.4 or 2x tc with that. The 100-400 was always popular and the third party 150-600’s work well. Top grade lens would probably be a prime 500 or possibly the 200-400 f4 with built in TC. I’d think the RF 100-500 is a natural for air shows.

I have shot air shows with a 300 f2.8 and they are reach limited, I can also see the practicality of a zoom.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 11, 2021)

SonicStudios said:


> Ah cool, wasn't sure how the pricing worked. Not being a professional in the business, always found the shots taken with the 300 to be incredible, especially at Air shows and $7500 would be in my price range, thanks for your follow-up


Agree that the price will likely be between 7.500 to 8.000 USD.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Apr 11, 2021)

A smaller and lighter 500 f4 would be a game changer and would cause a lot of photographers to go into Canon R (if they aren't already). Even their current small and light RF 70-200 2.8 is enough to make me consider to switching back to Canon (I went from EOS to Nikon F two years ago, mostly for the 500 PF lens).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 13, 2021)

degos said:


> Yet Sigma had the balls to try it, and refined the design over three revisions. Canon didn't even bother.
> 
> I've seen plenty of sports and safari photos shot on the 120-300 that wouldn't have existed without it because, well, it exists and is half the cost of the 300mm 2.8
> 
> Is it only half as much lens? Maybe so, but that's better than no lens at all.


Like I said, in my opinion it's a waste of glass and metal. It's AF is ridiculously slow and inaccurate. It's way way heavier than it should be and it's got some serious breathing issues with the optical formula. The build isn't a patch on a Canon L lens either. Put it next to a S/H 300mm f2.8LIS and it'll lose in every metric, and that's an old Canon lens. Canon releases lens revision when there's a good technical upgrade reason to. Sigma put out new revisions every few years with a new paint job...but the same mechanicals.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Agree that the price will likely be between 7.500 to 8.000 USD.


With the "low" RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS price touted today we could see a RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS come out at 6.500$ (maybe I'm hoping against hope here - but certainly the RF 400mm and 600mm were priced very reasonably).


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

Any updates on the 500mm and 300mm RF lens rumors? Early 2022 is just around the corner!


----------



## Alan B (Dec 31, 2021)

If and when the RF500 comes out, is there any likely hood the EF500f4 MKII will drop in price ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

Alan B said:


> If and when the RF500 comes out, is there any likely hood the EF500f4 MKII will drop in price ?


Unlikely, if you mean buying new. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses did not change in price after the RF versions launched. To the extent that the supply of used EF 500mm lenses increases, the cost of used lenses may go down but that hasn't happened with the 400 and 600mm lenses, either. So basically, I'd say don't get your hopes up.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unlikely, if you mean buying new. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses did not change in price after the RF versions launched. To the extent that the supply of used EF 500mm lenses increases, the cost of used lenses may go down but that hasn't happened with the 400 and 600mm lenses, either. So basically, I'd say don't get your hopes up.


OK, thanks for the reply and explanation


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unlikely, if you mean buying new. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses did not change in price after the RF versions launched. To the extent that the supply of used EF 500mm lenses increases, the cost of used lenses may go down but that hasn't happened with the 400 and 600mm lenses, either. So basically, I'd say don't get your hopes up.


A slight clarification is in order. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses were updated not all that long ago and the 400mm and 600mm RF versions are essentially the same lenses with a new mount. The EF 500mm f4 was rumored to be in line for an update at the same time the 400 and 600 EF lenses were updated. So, the "current" EF 500 lens is a much older model. I expect a new RF 500 will be lighter and have other improvements, making the older EF 500 less desirable and possibly a little (not much) cheaper on the used market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> A slight clarification is in order. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses were updated not all that long ago and the 400mm and 600mm RF versions are essentially the same lenses with a new mount. The EF 500mm f4 was rumored to be in line for an update at the same time the 400 and 600 EF lenses were updated. So, the "current" EF 500 lens is a much older model. I expect a new RF 500 will be lighter and have other improvements, making the older EF 500 less desirable and possibly a little (not much) cheaper on the used market.


Prices for the ‘less desirable’ used MkII version of the 600/4 didn’t seem to drop, either. But I have no plans to sell mine.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> A slight clarification is in order. The 400mm and 600mm EF lenses were updated not all that long ago and the 400mm and 600mm RF versions are essentially the same lenses with a new mount. The EF 500mm f4 was rumored to be in line for an update at the same time the 400 and 600 EF lenses were updated. So, the "current" EF 500 lens is a much older model. I expect a new RF 500 will be lighter and have other improvements, making the older EF 500 less desirable and possibly a little (not much) cheaper on the used market.


The EF 500mm f/4 II is grossly overpriced in the UK (£9559 ~ $13k). It's difficult to understand the pricing. The Sigma 500mm f/4, which has a very good reputation, is half that price. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF is one third of the price. £6000 for an extra stop over the Nikon just isn't worth it for me: I'd rather go out and buy a new copy of the 500PF and a Z9 for less money. 500 f/4 is betwixt and between the 400/2.8 and 600/4, and would be attractive as a cheaper alternative to its wider shorter length and same f-number longer siblings.


----------



## cruso (Jan 8, 2022)

is their Any up date on the telephoto Primes they keep bringing new cameras out that fast I cannot keep with them but as for the prime lenses very slow ?


----------



## SonicStudios (Jan 9, 2022)

I was really hoping 2022 would be the year of the RF 300 and R1. The R5 with the Ninja V+ was a total home run for me. My next step was to move up from R5 to an R1, not interested in anything in between. Then add an RF 300 to my RF primes and call it day.


----------



## cruso (Jan 9, 2022)

A rf 500 f4 would be nice or 300 2.8 that would take the 1.4 converter I cannot believe that canon brought out the 70-200 2.8 it was stupid because it will not take a 1.4 converter so it was a waste of time ? and I think it will be a flop in comparison to the old ef one


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2022)

cruso said:


> ... the 70-200 2.8 it was stupid because it will not take a 1.4 converter so it was a waste of time ? and I think it will be a flop in comparison to the old ef one


Yes it is a terrible flop. Currently out of stock at B&H and Adorama. Used RF versions selling for $400-$500 more than new EF versions. Canon probably hopes they have more flops like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2022)

cruso said:


> I cannot believe that canon brought out the 70-200 2.8 it was stupid because it will not take a 1.4 converter so it was a waste of time ? and I think it will be a flop in comparison to the old ef one


Yes, stupid Canon. It never ceases to amaze me how a few random people on the internet know way more about making and selling cameras and lenses than the global, multibillion dollar company that has dominated the ILC market for two decades.

Speaking for myself, I had the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II for 10 years, and both the 1.4x and 2x TCs (initially the MkII, replaced with the MkIII). I used them regularly with a 300/4 then with the 600/4 II, and occasionally with the TS-E 17/24 and MP-E 65. Over that decade, I used a TC with my 70-200/2.8 maybe 5-6 times. Results were acceptable, but not as good as with the 100-400 or 70-300L.

I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 II and bought the RF 70-200/2.8. I’m very happy with the much shorter collapsed length which makes it easier to pack, and the lighter weight is a great bonus. I’m not at all bothered by the lack of extender compatibility.

Do you supppse maybe Canon did a teensy weensy bit of market research before changing the design of the RF 70-200 lenses? Naaah, they’re stupid, right?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2022)

cruso said:


> ...I cannot believe that canon brought out the 70-200 2.8 it was stupid because it will not take a 1.4 converter so it was a waste of time ? and I think it will be a flop in comparison to the old ef one





neuroanatomist said:


> I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 II and bought the RF 70-200/2.8. *I’m very happy with the much shorter collapsed length* which makes it easier to pack, and the lighter weight is a great bonus. I’m not at all bothered by the lack of extender compatibility.


I'd think far more people would like the shorter collapsed length than the ability to take TC's, especially when the RF 100-500 is an option for people that wanted to put a TC on their 70-200.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yes it is a terrible flop. Currently out of stock at B&H and Adorama. Used RF versions selling for $400-$500 more than new EF versions. Canon probably hopes they have more flops like that.


It's readily available from dealers in the UK and also cheaper on the grey market from reliable importers.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 10, 2022)

cruso said:


> A rf 500 f4 would be nice or 300 2.8 that would take the 1.4 converter I cannot believe that canon brought out the 70-200 2.8 it was stupid because it will not take a 1.4 converter so it was a waste of time ? and I think it will be a flop in comparison to the old ef one


Using a 1.4x on the EF 70-200mm II was, for me, a waste of time and IQ. And my copy of that lens was otherwise stellar.

Looking forward to learning more about the RF 300mm with a 2x! Hoping it's a prime.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 10, 2022)

YuengLinger said:


> Using a 1.4x on the EF 70-200mm II was, for me, a waste of time and IQ. And my copy of that lens was otherwise stellar.
> 
> Looking forward to learning more about the RF 300mm with a 2x! Hoping it's a prime.


Same here.
My EF 70/200 has never even seen an extender, unlike the 100/400. Someday, i'll buy the RF version, without spending a single thought about using or not using an extender. The RF's compactness weighs far more than extender adaptability in my opinion.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 8, 2022)

Still waiting on this "500 F/4" you say is coming.


----------



## mpmark (Jul 12, 2022)

So, um, were well into the second half of 2022, no 300, no 500, I'm waiting on this 500/4. Maybe you should get new sources cause this hasnt happened.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 13, 2022)

mpmark said:


> So, um, were well into the second half of 2022, no 300, no 500, I'm waiting on this 500/4. Maybe you should get new sources cause this hasnt happened.


This is a “rumors” site.


----------



## dolina (Jul 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> This is a “rumors” site.


That's why I always wonder why members are angry at conjectures/


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 27, 2022)

Hopefully the timeline is just off due to Covid/supply chain. I'd very much appreciate these two lenses specifically. It will also something pretty much impossible to find in the mirrorless space (apart from the Fuji 200 F2 which is roughly 300/2.8 equiv but doesn't take a 2X TC)


----------



## cruso (Aug 14, 2022)

The Big white Prime Lenses are slow getting here ?


----------



## kaihp (Aug 14, 2022)

Apparently, yes. Whether it's covid, supply chain or Canon seeing that there are better returns in doing non-Big Whites, are anybody and everybodys guess.

My 300 Mk II is getting very little use after I got the 200-400.


----------



## cruso (Aug 14, 2022)

I would like a 200-600 like the Sony I find it would suite me personally I have the 600f4 mk2 but finding it to heaver nowadays in. my older age and only used in hides nowadays the 200-600 for wildlife would be great as I do like my canon gear


----------



## dolina (Sep 17, 2022)

Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.

Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S

I would not be surprised that these RF lenses will be less than 2.2 kilograms when released within 20 months

- RF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM
- RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
- RF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.
> 
> Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
> 
> ...


It seems like there’s an echo on the forums today.


----------

