# Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2022)

One of the more popular “big white lenses” from Canon was the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x. It was never a reach to assume Canon would make an RF follow-up to that lens. It also shouldn’t surprise anyone that Canon would do a redesign of the lens instead of a simply modifying the existing design

See full article...


----------



## GMAX (Dec 16, 2022)

A Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x would be the absolute must have for me, even it will cost a fortune


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 16, 2022)

Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.


----------



## imagesandbirds.com (Dec 16, 2022)

This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
I wonder about weight and cost. 
The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.


----------



## imagesandbirds.com (Dec 16, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.


You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.


----------



## padam (Dec 16, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
> I wonder about weight and cost.
> The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
> Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.


They can do a 200-400 that is a lot lighter than the current one.
The front element in a 200-500 has to be much bigger, although it will switch to electronic manual focusing, which in itself will save weight, not including the technical advancements made in optical design. Manufactures have shifted weight more and more rearwards with their latest super telephoto designs. So it will be much easier to handhold, even if it does not weigh a lot less on a scale.
Price will be sky-high indeed.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.


There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.


Same thoughts here. 
Though, I am always interested in what is technically possible and how will it perform. 
But price, weight, etc. will take me out of the market for that kind of super tele as well...


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 16, 2022)

That 300-700mm is far more attractive lens for wildlifers.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> That 300-700mm is far more attractive lens for wildlifers.


The 300-700 is not a thing.
It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Sounds like an ideal lens to take on a safari. Since for me, that’s pretty much the only used case where this lens would be preferable to the 100–500 or 600/4, rental would be the best option if I want to use one.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds like an ideal lens to take on a safari. Since for me, that’s pretty much the only used case where this lens would be preferable to the 100–500 or 600/4, rental would be the best option if I want to use one.


I agree, but I still question the weight of the lens. If I am on a game drive for 3-4 hrs with other individuals do I want to be dealing with such a large an heavy lens? Personally, I would prefer an ultralight 300 mm f2.8 or 500 mm f4 / f4.5 DO designs with built in 1.4x TCs or even a 200-600 mm f5.6-f6.3 similar to the Sony offering. 

I was always intrigued by the Canon EF 200-400 mm f4 L, but the weight of ~8 lbs was a big turn off for me and I doubt a 200-500 mm f4 would be lighter.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 16, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The 300-700 is not a thing.
> It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
> I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.


That's a real shame 300-700 f5.6 with TC wont exist, as that would make it a great wildlife lens at "reasonable" price(even a 300-700 5.6 without TC would be a great lens for wildlife).


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 16, 2022)

This would be the one big white I'd be really interested in. If I ever trip, fall and land in a pile of $15k I'll buy it!

-Brian


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 16, 2022)

I agree with what many have said. It would be a perfect lens except for weight and price. I wonder if Canon will ever use Diffractive Optics in their R mount lenses to save weight? (Nikon uses their equivalent - Phase Fresnel - in their Z mount 800 lens).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

MrFotoFool said:


> I wonder if Canon will ever use Diffractive Optics in their R mount lenses to save weight? (Nikon uses their equivalent - Phase Fresnel - in their Z mount 800 lens).


The relatively inexpensive RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 use diffractive optics.


----------



## Elmonducky (Dec 16, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
> I wonder about weight and cost.
> The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
> Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.


Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!


----------



## kaihp (Dec 16, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The 300-700 is not a thing.
> It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
> I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.


Ah, that explains the identical 120mm front element size of the two combinations.


----------



## fox40phil (Dec 16, 2022)

There is soooo much potential in lenses with TC included.... but we will wait for ever for lenses like Nikon now has (400 & 600 with TC). BUT Hey!!! we have a complete overpriced 800 & 1200mm without a TC...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2022)

Elmonducky said:


> Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!


Some would say the same about a prime lens.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 16, 2022)

Elmonducky said:


> Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!


Yes, in your opinion.

In other people's opinion, getting a zoom is much more useful.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2022)

Elmonducky said:


> Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!


Because a zoom lens like this would essentially be like having 2 or 3 top of the line lenses, making it far more versatile than a prime. Why anyone would buy a prime for 20k really boggles my mind as you are so limited in your subject distance!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Why anyone would buy a prime for 20k really boggles my mind as you are so limited in your subject distance!


Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!

Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!
> 
> Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?


The best lens I had had was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF - loved it. Then, I got the RF 100-500mm, and it was even better - almost as sharp, so much more versatile and would focus so much closer.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 16, 2022)

I find these lenses very interesting indeed. I am currently debating a big white lens purchase and kind of want to keep renting them until the RF mount get more filled out with their primes. The current big whites are just EF lenses with permanent mount adaptors, so I would probably just buy the EF version until they release a series of lenses with built in 1.4x TCs.


----------



## Froschphoto (Dec 17, 2022)

200-500 is my dream …


----------



## docsmith (Dec 17, 2022)

One of these lenses will end up in my bag. I love my EF 500 f4 II, but I like to alter between tight shots and bringing some of the environment in for context for wildlife shots. This is perfect. I can see a price point anywhere from $12k to $20k. That will determine how long I wait. Is it in the "save up" or "win the lottery" range.


----------



## itaylorm2 (Dec 17, 2022)

I have a 100-500 and it suits my needs well. For me to be interested in another lens it would have to have more magnification and be comfortable to carry with the 100-500 on one hip and the other lens on my other. I have been thinking a 800 with a 1.4 built in extender. f5.6 or 6.3 would be ideal. That way I have several different options from closer up to further away. Another scenario would be the 100-500 on a camera strap and the 800 on tripod. Portability is one of the most attractive things about the 100-500 paired with an R5 or R3


----------



## Tom Raymond (Dec 17, 2022)

Nikon has been pushing the RF sports lens theater with the introduction of the 120-300 F2.8 for indoor work, and the super light 400 2.8 with built in 1.4X. As an owner of the Canon 200-400, 600 F4, and the RF 100-500mm. I have found the new 100-500mm to be a terrific alternative to its much heavier cousins. I would not sell my 200-400 to get the proposed RF 200-500, but the 600 F4 would be out the door ASAP if a RF 400 2.8 with 1.4X became realty. FYI: I never carry the 200-400 & 600 to the same event. Which one I use totally depends on my access to the players (footballers, etc).


----------



## robinlee (Dec 17, 2022)

Weight and price would be the major letdown and complaints... at least Nikon got more PF lenses now (I'm jealous).


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 17, 2022)

Elmonducky said:


> Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!


The old EF 200-400 1.4x was at this pricepoint years ago.
If no one ever had bought it, Canon would not make a patent for a redesign. After the typical price increase of the last RF lenses (in comparison to the EF ones) this might be also in 15k+ range.

And of course you can decrease the weight also on zoom lenses, both RF 70-200 are the perfect example. Yes yes, they now extends and are no internal zoom as the EF ones anymore, I know. But maybe this is here also the case?


----------



## birdman916 (Dec 17, 2022)

This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2022)

birdman916 said:


> This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here


The R5 + RF 100-500 is an excellent setup for birding. What this lens might offer (it’s just patent at this point, and few patents become real lenses) is mainly a wider aperture. That means lower ISOs / faster shutter speeds. It also means less diffraction softening, which can be a minor issue with the R5 / R7 and a TC on the 100-500. Being a ‘great white’ the image quality will be technically better, but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens).

The trade-off is cost, size and weight. Whether those are significant issues depends on you. I expect a 200-500/4 + 1.4x to be a bit lighter than my 600/4 II. I can hike with the 600/4 and shoot handheld, but not everyone can. I do have a tripod and gimbal, I use those mainly with winter raptors where I’m standing in one place for a long period. On hikes, I carry the lens on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap, which is a left handed version because that makes sense for a heavy lens (lift and support with my left hand, shoot with my right). I carry a monopod with tilt-head for times when I pause in a spot (carried on a belt in a holder designed for a MagLite flashlight.

I almost always use the 600/4 with a 1.4x or 2x TC, the 200-500 would mean less reach (probably not enough for my needs).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2022)

birdman916 said:


> This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here


How you use it and what you can get out of it depends on how strong you are. It's too heavy for me, a keen opportunistic birder, to walk around with, but younger stronger guys and gals could cope with it, and a monopod would help. The IQ of the 100-500 is very impressive. A 200-500mm f/4 will have advantages in low light, 1 2/3rd stops, and should take extenders better in terms of combating diffraction, but the 100-500mm takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs very well. 

My post crossed with Neuro's in the ether, which makes the same points. A 200-500 f/4 is technically better optically than a 100-500 f/7.1 but the trade off in loss of portability and increased difficulty of handling makes a 100-500mm f/7.1 the preferred choice for most of us who use a lens on bird hikes and going from hide to hide.


----------



## birdman916 (Dec 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> How you use it and what you can get out of it depends on how strong you are. It's too heavy for me, a keen opportunistic birder, to walk around with, but younger stronger guys and gals could cope with it, and a monopod would help. The IQ of the 100-500 is very impressive. A 200-500mm f/4 will have advantages in low light, 1 2/3rd stops, and should take extenders better in terms of combating diffraction, but the 100-500mm takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs very well.
> 
> My post crossed with Neuro's in the ether, which makes the same points. A 200-500 f/4 is technically better optically than a 100-500 f/7.1 but the trade off in loss of portability and increased difficulty of handling makes a 100-500mm f/7.1 the preferred choice for most of us who use a lens on bird hikes and going from hide to hide.


Thanks both of you for such a wonderful response. I am trying to get "better" photos but don't want to stop being a birder either lol. Included a link for my Flickr to show how im progressing. I am wondering how all the hot shots on IG get all those insane tack sharp shots with perfect perches and backgrounds lol










Mark Sawyer


Explore Mark Sawyer’s 4,689 photos on Flickr!




www.flickr.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2022)

birdman916 said:


> I am wondering how all the hot shots on IG get all those insane tack sharp shots with perfect perches and backgrounds lol


Some people set up backyard feeders with a ‘preferred’ perch (a single available branch a few meters from the feeder, with a distant and pleasing background). Some raptor shots are taken at rehabilitation facilities that are set up for that, with flight paths and live bait.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people set up backyard feeders with a ‘preferred’ perch (a single available branch a few meters from the feeder, with a distant and pleasing background). Some raptor shots are taken at rehabilitation facilities that are set up for that, with flight paths and live bait.


For me, it‘s the thrill of the chase of finding new birds or opportunistically coming across them that drives my choice of gear - light and portable, versatile and sharp.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 18, 2022)

padam said:


> They can do a 200-400 that is a lot lighter than the current one.
> The front element in a 200-500 has to be much bigger, although it will switch to electronic manual focusing, which in itself will save weight, not including the technical advancements made in optical design. Manufactures have shifted weight more and more rearwards with their latest super telephoto designs. So it will be much easier to handhold, even if it does not weigh a lot less on a scale.
> Price will be sky-high indeed.


The 200-400mm is heavy... I was really surprised as it is double the RF100-500mm and much more front heavy.
Given the heavier/larger front element of a RF200-500mm/4, I am not sure that there will be much difference in weight overall but it should hopefully be more balanced.
The price will be super high but may be reasonable to rent for short periods/trips.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 18, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> The old EF 200-400 1.4x was at this pricepoint years ago.
> If no one ever had bought it, Canon would not make a patent for a redesign. After the typical price increase of the last RF lenses (in comparison to the EF ones) this might be also in 15k+ range.
> 
> And of course you can decrease the weight also on zoom lenses, both RF 70-200 are the perfect example. Yes yes, they now extends and are no internal zoom as the EF ones anymore, I know. But maybe this is here also the case?


Canon were happy to use extending lens designs for RF100-500 and RF70-200 but I am not convinced that the big whites will get the same treatment. I recall the fears of dust pumps from the older designs but that hasn't been the case so far.

External zoom would be incredibly practical for transportation but I get the impression that the big whites put up with the worst that nature throws at them and it may be a step too far for this level of price tag.


----------



## SnowMiku (Dec 18, 2022)

birdman916 said:


> This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here



If your looking for a bit more reach and happy to accept a little more noise (Higher ISO) you should consider the RF 800mm F11, you can use this as a walk around lens and won't have to worry about a tripod.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> If your looking for a bit more reach and happy to accept a little more noise (Higher ISO) you should consider the RF 800mm F11, you can use this as a walk around lens and won't have to worry about a tripod.


I have the 800mm f/11 and use it frequently, and it is a useful specialist lens. But, it's no substitute as a general lens for the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400mm (plus extenders). For a start, the mfd is 6m, which is limiting. Importantly, it's not good for birds in flight as the AF area is tiny, being just the central portion of the image and its like having a field of view of a 1600mm for following a bird.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 18, 2022)

all my bitching about canon priorities come true every day, no 50 1.4, no 28 or 85 f 2. but a 15,000 birding lens, YES SIR. Company management is totally lost its way


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 18, 2022)

Kiton said:


> all my bitching about canon priorities come true every day, no 50 1.4, no 28 or 85 f 2. but a 15,000 birding lens, YES SIR. Company management is totally lost its way


Are you sure there’s no 85 f/2? I used one yesterday


----------



## Kiton (Dec 18, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Are you sure there’s no 85 f/2? I used one yesterday



I have that lens, my dealer says i had the first in my city. But, it is a macro, focuses like shit in video and not very fast with stills. So it doesn't really count as an 85mm general purpose lens. Macro is still a specialty item. Nice, but.........


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2022)

Kiton said:


> all my bitching about canon priorities come true every day, no 50 1.4, no 28 or 85 f 2. but a 15,000 birding lens, YES SIR. Company management is totally lost its way


If by ‘losing their way’ you mean dominating the ILC market, selling nearly half of all cameras bought each year (more than twice as many cameras per year as their nearest competitor and more than the 2nd through 5th place brands combined), then yes they’ve ‘lots their way’. Lol.

But we all know what you really mean is they aren’t making the products you personally want, and that’s a you problem.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If by ‘losing their way’ you mean dominating the ILC market, selling nearly half of all cameras bought each year (more than twice as many cameras per year as their nearest competitor and more then the 2nd through 5th place brands combined), then yes they’ve ‘lots their way’. Lol.
> 
> But we all know what you really mean is they aren’t making the products you personally want, and that’s a you problem.


They are on top, no doubt. I started a switch to Sony and bailed out and went back to Canon. While I dislike management very much, I love what they do make, but I do not think I am alone in being disappointed by their choices and the delays for the "basics". They are basics for a reason after all. Canon plays to big flash items that generate buzz while leaving the core out in the cold. And refusing to allow Sigma to make RF mounts, and their explanation is contemptuous. I can love the gear and still shit on the company for short comings justly.


----------



## northlarch (Dec 18, 2022)

I’d much prefer Canon compete with Nikon’s PF lenses which are lightweight, good for handholding, sharp as a tack and enough light for most wildlife photography. The days of lugging around these massive lenses are behind us and Canon needs to get their act together on this front.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Kiton said:


> They are on top, no doubt. I started a switch to Sony and bailed out and went back to Canon. While I dislike management very much, I love what they do make, but I do not think I am alone in being disappointed by their choices and the delays for the "basics". They are basics for a reason after all. Canon plays to big flash items that generate buzz while leaving the core out in the cold. And refusing to allow Sigma to make RF mounts, and their explanation is contemptuous. I can love the gear and still shit on the company for short comings justly.


Shortcomings as you perceive them, of course. For the poster above, the want not being met is DO supertele primes. The point is that everyone wants what they want. Canon’s management needs to drive revenue and profit, and that means lenses that meet the needs of _the majority_ of buyers.

Considering the lenses Canon prioritized for the RF lineup (and keeping in mind they’re still building it), Canon seems to believe the majority driver of their profit comprises two segments, those wanting (relatively) inexpensive lenses who will accept narrower apertures, slower focusing, and a need for software correction and those wanting high-end L-series lenses.

I think they’ve done a very good job meeting the wants of both segments. One can build a 3-zoom kit covering 15-400mm for $1450, or swap the 15-30 for the 16/2.8 and get 16-400mm coverage for $1150. There are 7 primes from 16 to 800mm, all under $1000 and most under $500.

On the high end, there are many excellent zooms and primes. If that’s not enough, there are ample EF lenses that can be simply and effectively adapted (in some cases with improved convenience thanks to the drop-in filter adapter, which is great for lenses that don’t take front filters easily, for fast primes used for outdoor portraits, etc.).

The bottom line is that what you consider ‘the basics’ are lenses that Canon has chosen to not prioritize. Given that it’s in Canon’s best interest to meet the needs of the majority, certainly as far as the consumer-level lenses you’re talking about, it seems their assessment of lenses comprising ‘the basics’ differs from yours. I am certain that Canon has a much better understanding of what lenses meet the needs of the majority of buyers than you do. 

The fact that Canon isn’t making the lenses you want doesn’t mean their management is flawed, it means your personal wants aren’t aligned with the majority, or at least aren’t aligned with major profit drivers for Canon.

Canon’s market position is solid evidence that their management is effective. You can shit on it if you want, but that only makes you look petulant because you’re not getting what you want.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

Elmonducky said:


> Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!











Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-T8.9 PL Lens with SS-41-IASD Kit


Buy Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-T8.9 PL Lens with SS-41-IASD Kit featuring CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-T8.9 PL Lens, SS-41-IASD Full Servo Controller Kit, Focus Controller, Zoom Demand, Cables, 20x Zoom Range, 4K Super35 Support. Review Canon Cine-Servo




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I’d much prefer Canon compete with Nikon’s PF lenses which are lightweight, good for handholding, sharp as a tack and enough light for most wildlife photography. The days of lugging around these massive lenses are behind us and Canon needs to get their act together on this front.


I love my Canon RF 800 f/11


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I almost always use the 600/4 with a 1.4x or 2x TC, the 200-500 would mean less reach (probably not enough for my needs).


I guess you do not want to stack TC's.
The 200-500 with the TC activated would be more reach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I guess you do not want to stack TC's.
> The 200-500 with the TC activated would be more reach.


Because my 600/4 is an EF mount, with my modified EF-RF adapter I can put an RF TC behind the adapter and an EF TC in front, so with both 2x versions I have a 2400mm f/16 lens.


----------



## Nadoor (Dec 19, 2022)

with current RF pricing
100-400 $16,999
100-500 $21,999
300-700 $29,999
Good light


----------



## DhlcadR6 (Dec 19, 2022)

Nadoor said:


> with current RF pricing
> 100-400 $16,999
> 100-500 $21,999
> 300-700 $29,999
> Good light


You smoking hatter's salt? 

RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Nadoor said:


> with current RF pricing
> 100-400 $16,999
> 100-500 $21,999
> 300-700 $29,999
> Good light


There’s no 100-400 in the patent under discussion. 

There’s also no 300-700, that patent example is just the 200-500 with the built-in 1.4x TC engaged. 

If you had a point, you’re failing to make it.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 19, 2022)

DhlcadR6 said:


> You smoking hatter's salt?
> 
> RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.


I think the context here was f/4L zooms, so a hypothetical 100-400 f/4L constant aperture zoom.


----------



## JasonL (Dec 19, 2022)

100-500 F4 1.4x. Can be yours for only $12,000!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I think the context here was f/4L zooms, so a hypothetical 100-400 f/4L constant aperture zoom.


Except no such lens has been rumored. There is a *2*00-400/4 + 1.4x in the patent that is the subject of this thread, along with a 200-500/4 + 1.4x, and both are exemplified as the base lens and the lens with the TC engaged.


----------



## Nadoor (Dec 19, 2022)

DhlcadR6 said:


> You smoking hatter's salt?
> 
> RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.


do you know how much the Canon EF 200-400 with the 1.4x costs ? It's $11,599. we are not talking about a cheap RF with a variable aperture. Do your homework before you accuse others. My price assumptions are not far off. Their RF800/5.6 is 17999 and their RF1200/8 is 19,999.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Nadoor said:


> do you know how much the Canon EF 200-400 with the 1.4x costs ? It's $11,599. we are not talking about a cheap RF with a variable aperture. Do your homework before you accuse others. My price assumptions are not far off. Their RF800/5.6 is 17999 and their RF1200/8 is 19,999.


Then perhaps you should have listed 200-400 instead of 100-400. The confusion is due to your error, or lack of homework if you prefer. Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.



Nadoor said:


> 100-400 $16,999
> 100-500 $21,999
> 300-700 $29,999


Plus, as I already mentioned the 300-700 is not a separate lens, it's the 200-500 with the TC engaged. Speaking of doing your homework, try reading the actual patent and that would be clear. There's a reason the source for this CR article lists them as examples 4 and 4', not examples 4 and 5.


----------



## Nadoor (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then perhaps you should have listed 200-400 instead of 100-400. The confusion is due to your error, or lack of homework if you prefer. Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.
> 
> 
> Plus, as I already mentioned the 300-700 is not a separate lens, it's the 200-500 with the TC engaged. Speaking of doing your homework, try reading the actual patent and that would be clear. There's a reason the source for this CR article lists them as examples 4 and 4', not examples 4 and 5.


I did mean the 200-400 and yes it's 11K. Going from 400 to 500 is a big deal keeping the lens at a constant F4. So if this lens sees the light if day then it will be accordingly priced. In the patent it says a 300-700/5.6 with 1.4x so I believe it's for another optical design which again may never see the light of day. The point I am making is that Canon RF lens pricing is very high and the majority of us cannot afford them. The new 800 is almost 5k more than the EF version


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

DhlcadR6 said:


> You smoking hatter's salt?
> 
> RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.


I am guessing that was a typo and is meant to be 100-400 f/4 x 1.4.
The price still seems to be a bit exaggerated to make a point.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

JasonL said:


> 100-500 F4 1.4x. Can be yours for only $12,000!!


I would expect such a lens to cost more than that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 20, 2022)

The 500mmf4 LIS is legendary in the Wildlife stills world for being super practical, light and hand holdable. The 200-400 F4 was a nikon invention and dominated the sports stills areana and Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife. Too heavy for the mear 400mm. 
However, this new 200-500mm f4 with tele makes a lot of sense. However it's going to be a lot heavier, larger and way more expensive than the current ef 500mm f4 LIS II. If I was in the market for a £12K white lens I would give this some serious consideration along with a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS III


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 20, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The 500mmf4 LIS is legendary in the Wildlife stills world for being super practical, light and hand holdable. The 200-400 F4 was a nikon invention and dominated the sports stills areana and Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife. Too heavy for the mear 400mm.
> However, this new 200-500mm f4 with tele makes a lot of sense. However it's going to be a lot heavier, larger and way more expensive than the current ef 500mm f4 LIS II. If I was in the market for a £12K white lens I would give this some serious consideration along with a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS III


The current EF500L is from before Canon sent the superwhites on a diet, right? So it might be possible that a theoretical 100-500 F4L would weigh the same or only slightly more as the EF500L.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon came quite late to the party with their 200-400 f4 with integrated 1.4x. It was relatively big, heavy and expensive. Great for track and field, but not so great for wildlife.


Not compared to this:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2022)

Nadoor said:


> I did mean the 200-400 and yes it's 11K. Going from 400 to 500 is a big deal keeping the lens at a constant F4.


Obviously, but again…the original error was yours.



Nadoor said:


> In the patent it says a 300-700/5.6 with 1.4x so I believe it's for another optical design which again may never see the light of day.


No, it doesn’t. Thus the comment about doing your homework, which you evidently didn’t do despite your demand that others do so.

In the CR article (which is a blog post about another blog post about the actual patent), a 300-700/5.6 1.4x is listed separately, yes. That’s an error on CRguy’s part. Even so, look at the details…did it occur to you to wonder how the 200-500/4 and the 300-700/5.6 have the exact same overall length of 410.05 mm? A miracle of physics that Canon added 200mm onto the long end without the lens being longer? Lol.

You could have clicked the link to the source (asobinet), or gone further and read the actual patent (by searching the patent number “2022185663” on the Japan patent lookup tool), either of which would make it clear that there is no 300-700 + 1.4x in the patent. There is a 300-700/5.6 exemplified, which is the 200-500/4 example with the 1.4x engaged. There’s also a 300-560/5.6, which is the 200-400/4 with the TC engaged (all of those values are rounded from the actual focal lengths in the patent, as is typical).

You can continue to believe there is a 300-700 + 1.4x in the patent, just as you can believe the earth is flat, but neither belief is supported by facts.



Nadoor said:


> The point I am making is that Canon RF lens pricing is very high and the majority of us cannot afford them. The new 800 is almost 5k more than the EF version


Oh, is that your point? The RF 50/1.8 is $150, and that seems fairly affordable. Sure, high end lenses are expensive. Does that surprise you? Water is wet, too. The RF 600/4 is $13K. That’s $1K more I paid for my EF 600/4 II a decade ago, and given inflation the RF lens is significantly cheaper ($12K in 2012 is $15.5K in 2022).

Yes, the RF 800/5.6 launched at $5K more than the EF version (the price on the EF went up $1K, so the difference was $4K when the RF version launched). Of course, the RF version weighs a lot less and is noticeably better optically (my 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is optically better than the EF 800/5.6).

I’d say that for the majority, $13K for a single camera lens is no more affordable than $17K or $20K. Honestly, if that difference puts a lens out of reach for someone, I believe that person would be unwise buying any of those lenses.

Fortunately for the majority who cannot afford to spend $13K or $17K for a ‘great white’ supertele lens (or those having the wherewithal but lacking the ability to physically manage the size/weight), but still want the reach, Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture. Choice is good!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 20, 2022)

birdman916 said:


> This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here


Neuro and Alan have covered it well but I'll just add my bit. The 600 f/4 is probably the best regarded long lens but it is extremely expensive, and although hand holding is quite possible, it will be limiting in terms of how long and how far you can carry it. But in many situations it won't do appreciably better than what you have already.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.

It's a cliché but the most important aspect to producing best quality bird images is how close you can get to your subject. Fieldcraft and luck trump equipment. Coming to it as a birder, I'm sure you know that already


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture


On the low end of super-telephoto, Canon offers the RF 100-400, 600 f/11, and 800 f/11.
Those lenses plus the R10, R7, and R6 have made sports and wildlife accessible to many more people.
Granted people were using the 90D with Tamron and Sigma lenses but this is on a different level.
I still do hope that Canon brings out those patented mirror lenses that have AF and IS.
The high-end goes from 400 to 1200 mm but there are still a few lenses missing.
Those lenses exist in EF versions so I am not sure those need to be a priority.
What is really missing are more mid-tier lenses like the RF 100-500 L.
The RF 100-400 to the RF 100-500 L is an achievable upgrade for more folks than the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 are to the 600 f/4 and 800 f/5.6.
Although, if we factor in the used market then there are plenty of mid-priced super-telephotos out there.
At the same time, there is not a viable used market everywhere.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fortunately for the majority who cannot afford to spend $13K or $17K for a ‘great white’ supertele lens (or those having the wherewithal but lacking the ability to physically manage the size/weight), but still want the reach, Canon offers the RF 100-500 for under $3K and it takes TCs very well. For those unable to afford that, they offer the RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 for under $1000, which deliver good IQ, albeit with a slow and fixed aperture. Choice is good!


The RF 100-500mm does take TCs surprisingly well. I was shocked, in the pleasant sense, about the performance with the 2xTC at 1000mm f/14 on the R5, it resolves as well as the 800mm f/11. The 2x should be relatively even better on your R3 with its bigger pixels.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.


I have seen plenty of folks with both the RF 100-500 and RF 800 f/11.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> 've been pleasantly surprised by the 800 f/11 but its primary appeal is extreme reach (especially with an extender) in a small/light package at a budget price. Not much point in it versus adding 2x to your 100-500.


I was writing my last post as yours was being posted, and this reiterates. I use the 800/11 and also the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x, and find them of similar resolution at 800mm vs 1000mm (they both have the same size front element). When I travel, the zoom plus TC covers just about all of my wild-life needs and the 800/11 stays at home. (Unless travel in the UK by car and can fill it with gear).


----------



## scyrene (Dec 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I have seen plenty of folks with both the RF 100-500 and RF 800 f/11.


Fair point, and if I had the money for a 100-500 I'd not get rid of my 800, although that's partly because the latter isn't worth very much (they already sell secondhand here for 20-30% below RRP). But coming from the other direction, I'm not sure it makes as much sense.


----------



## Ian K (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!
> 
> Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?


Good luck with that on a Safari. I'm sure the lions would enjoy you zooming. 

I used the EF 200-400 on a 7D Mark II on safari and it was a dream. Something close you can pull back to 200mm (or switch to by EF 100-400 on 5D), something small and far away throw the TC and push to 560mm. I'm certainly not claiming out of the jeep to get closer.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2022)

Ian K said:


> Good luck with that on a Safari. I'm sure the lions would enjoy you zooming.
> 
> I used the EF 200-400 on a 7D Mark II on safari and it was a dream. Something close you can pull back to 200mm (or switch to by EF 100-400 on 5D), something small and far away throw the TC and push to 560mm. I'm certainly not claiming out of the jeep to get closer.


I don't think throwing a TC would stop a lion. Mind you, a well-aimed 200-400/4 would pack a weighty punch.


----------



## birdman916 (Dec 21, 2022)

I appreciate everyone that responsed ti my questions


----------



## Curahee (Dec 21, 2022)

The 300-700mm would be absolutely awesome. Out of my budget but for those needing reach for wildlife and flexibility of a zoom and not stuck with one focal length this would be amazing.
Now make the 300-700mm without the 1.4X in a non-L for us mere mortals, listening Canon?
With no 3rd party lenses allowed start making exciting affordable lenses as well. Thank you.


----------



## Nemorino (Dec 21, 2022)

The 300-700 is the 200-500 with inserted extender as the diagram in the linked article shows:






Looks like an internal zoom with a lot of glass in the front.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2022)

Curahee said:


> The 300-700mm would be absolutely awesome. Out of my budget but for those needing reach for wildlife and flexibility of a zoom and not stuck with one focal length this would be amazing.
> Now make the 300-700mm without the 1.4X in a non-L for us mere mortals, listening Canon?
> With no 3rd party lenses allowed start making exciting affordable lenses as well. Thank you.


What @Nemorino is getting at, as @neuroanatomist did earlier, is that the 300-700mm without the TC is the 200-500mm.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> The 300-700 is the 200-500 with inserted extender as the diagram in the linked article shows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is right. Canon and Sony managed to decrease the weight of the 600/4 and 400/2.8 primes by reducing the number of the large front elements, which has the added bonus of moving the centre of gravity closer to the camera. This zoom is going to be quite a monster to hand hold.


----------



## Chig (Dec 22, 2022)

Tom Raymond said:


> Nikon has been pushing the RF sports lens theater with the introduction of the 120-300 F2.8 for indoor work, and the super light 400 2.8 with built in 1.4X. As an owner of the Canon 200-400, 600 F4, and the RF 100-500mm. I have found the new 100-500mm to be a terrific alternative to its much heavier cousins. I would not sell my 200-400 to get the proposed RF 200-500, but the 600 F4 would be out the door ASAP if a RF 400 2.8 with 1.4X became realty. FYI: I never carry the 200-400 & 600 to the same event. Which one I use totally depends on my access to the players (footballers, etc).


Nikon's 400mm 2.8 isn't "super light" at 3.8kg compared with Canon's RF400 f/2.8 at 2.9kg . The built in T.C is great though


----------



## ISv (Dec 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Some would say the same about a prime lens.


 -some people are still in the time when the primes were really significantly superior than the zooms. Now in the real life one can find zooms that are about the image quality of the primes (plus the flexibility!!!). In the lab the primes would perform (some of them just slightly) better but in the real life you by far can't achieve that "better" by many reasons... Off course it's about your personal interaction with the rig - as it always has been!
It doesn't change the natural (+/-) advantage of the primes - it just change their advantage in your own hands. What is important for me: the final result!


----------



## ISv (Dec 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The R5 + RF 100-500 is an excellent setup for birding. What this lens might offer (it’s just patent at this point, and few patents become real lenses) is mainly a wider aperture. That means lower ISOs / faster shutter speeds. It also means less diffraction softening, which can be a minor issue with the R5 / R7 and a TC on the 100-500. Being a ‘great white’ the image quality will be technically better, but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens).
> 
> The trade-off is cost, size and weight. Whether those are significant issues depends on you. I expect a 200-500/4 + 1.4x to be a bit lighter than my 600/4 II. I can hike with the 600/4 and shoot handheld, but not everyone can. I do have a tripod and gimbal, I use those mainly with winter raptors where I’m standing in one place for a long period. On hikes, I carry the lens on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap, which is a left handed version because that makes sense for a heavy lens (lift and support with my left hand, shoot with my right). I carry a monopod with tilt-head for times when I pause in a spot (carried on a belt in a holder designed for a MagLite flashlight.
> 
> I almost always use the 600/4 with a 1.4x or 2x TC, the 200-500 would mean less reach (probably not enough for my needs).


"...but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens)." Well I think you say it all...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The current EF500L is from before Canon sent the superwhites on a diet, right? So it might be possible that a theoretical 100-500 F4L would weigh the same or only slightly more as the EF500L.


The mk1 ef 500L was the lightest of the super whites and was hand holdable-ish. Certainly more than the 600/4 or the 400/2.8. The 500mm f4 MkII bought significant weight reductions and it is now very hand holdable. Canon didn't bother with a mkIII version becuase it was already light enough and remained at teh lower price point as a result. 
Who knows what the new RF 200-500LIS TC will bring to the table? However, one thing is fir sure it will be optically stellar and cripplingly expensive.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not compared to this:


Ha! Yes i remmeber that Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 beast. It used it's own battery just for the AF! 
I had a go of one at at trade show about 8 years ago. The diameter, length and sheer bulk were extraordinary large. The reps wouldn't let me take it off the tripod (It was bolted down) so I have no idea how it handled when mounting. What I did notice was that it wasn't as sharp as I'd have liked wide open when focussing at around 10m. The battery looked a bit low. What struk me was that it was 3x heavier than my ef 400mm LIS mk I for only an extra 100mm and it was not as sharp or accurate.


----------



## MihalyLaczko (Dec 23, 2022)

These big white zoom proposals are good for a bird photograper, but not for an airshow or airplane spotter. We need a wider range, larger aperture zoom lenses. So it would be more useable, if the zoom range remains the same 100-500mm, but the aperture steps up to f4 - f5.6. And from this specs we need an in-built 1.4 extender.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The mk1 ef 500L was the lightest of the super whites and was hand holdable-ish. Certainly more than the 600/4 or the 400/2.8. The 500mm f4 MkII bought significant weight reductions and it is now very hand holdable. Canon didn't bother with a mkIII version becuase it was already light enough and remained at teh lower price point as a result.
> Who knows what the new RF 200-500LIS TC will bring to the table? However, one thing is fir sure it will be optically stellar and cripplingly expensive.


The EF 500/4 II is heavier than the EF 600/4 III, and twice the weight of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The EF 500/4 II is [...] twice the weight of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.


Well, that's to be expected, since the (front) lens elements will be twice the area of the f/5.6, right?


----------



## MiJax (Dec 24, 2022)

The EF 500L II is far from heavy for its class. True, it wasn't sent on a second diet like the RF's and EF III's, but its still the lightest 500 F4 out there. But don't fret, Canon will no doubt hurt the optical performance (even if only very specific and small losses) and lighten it further in the next iteration like they did with all of their other lenses. 

I think the estimates are an additional pound or so of lightening by moving some the heavier elements rearward and shrinking them. Both improvements (shifting the balance rearward and lightening the lens) would be welcome, but as the other newer lenses have shown, that weight loss comes with a performance cost. Every next-gen lens has lost a relatively "significant" amount of resolution with TCs, but on the positive side have held very close to par on the bare lens. So people like me who use TCs a lot are not looking forward to the weight savings. However if the new 500L doesn't have a integrated TC, its a non-starter for me any way. Not even a 500 DO shift will budge me on that. Not in the market for a new lens for the sake of a new lens, its got to solve a problem. The old lens is too good to change for diminishing returns (or more likely, worse performance).

As far as the 200-500L rumor, that's great but not something I'm interested in owning. The zoom is going to be heavy. And I'm just not in the market for a 8-9lb 200-500 f/4. Its a sports shooter's dream monopod monster, but not very high on a wildlife shooter's list, IMO.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Well, that's to be expected, since the (front) lens elements will be twice the area of the f/5.6, right?


That was in reply to my mentioning that the EF 500 II is twice the weight of the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Lenses are three-dimensional, not two-dimensional, and the front lens elements are only part of the structure. So, it is not expected that twice the area of the front elements would mean the lens will be twice the weight. It doesn't even mean that the front elements will be twice the weight if the area is double because the thickness across the lens is not uniform and the thickness will most likely change as well, and it's changes in volume that give changes in mass.

But, what I was getting at is that a 500/4 is much heavier than a 500/5.6, which is an important factor for many.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2022)

MiJax said:


> I think the estimates are an additional pound or so of lightening by moving some the heavier elements rearward and shrinking them. Both improvements (shifting the balance rearward and lightening the lens) would be welcome, but as the other newer lenses have shown, that weight loss comes with a performance cost. Every next-gen lens has lost a relatively "significant" amount of resolution with TCs,


Sony has used exactly the same design trick of reducing the weights of the 400/4 and 600/4, but it has done so without losing "significant" resolution with TCs, as reported by those who have used both Sony and Canon, and seen on the TDP site https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
So, weight loss need not necessarily mean a performance loss.


----------



## MiJax (Dec 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Sony has used exactly the same design trick of reducing the weights of the 400/4 and 600/4, but it has done so without losing "significant" resolution with TCs, as reported by those who have used both Sony and Canon, and seen on the TDP site https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> So, weight loss need not necessarily mean a performance loss.


Sony doesn't have lenses from the previous design formula to compare the losses to. This is Sony's first rodeo in the super tele zone. Their initial 500 f/4 was a little more than a joke with the cameras to choose from, not to mention the lens just wasn't that good. So, it's hard to measure up Sony's weight loss affects. Knowing Canon has been the best in teleconverters for decades, I have to assume Sony's weight loss would also see a drop off from the optimal optical formula. They are using the same technology, so I would imagine the downsides are the same all the way around. 

For reference, take a look at the Canon 500L II f/4 at 1000mm on that same site and see how Sony's 600 holds up. The trick they are using to lose weight is costly and requires significant correction to clean up. But I suspect they can't clean it up fully...yet. As new tech and methods are discovered this will be less and less of an issue. But for now, if you look at any Canon lens made after the EF III on that site, you'll see they all have the same drop off with a TC attached.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2022)

MiJax said:


> Sony doesn't have lenses from the previous design formula to compare the losses to. This is Sony's first rodeo in the super tele zone. Their initial 500 f/4 was a little more than a joke with the cameras to choose from, not to mention the lens just wasn't that good. So, it's hard to measure up Sony's weight loss affects. Knowing Canon has been the best in teleconverters for decades, I have to assume Sony's weight loss would also see a drop off from the optimal optical formula. They are using the same technology, so I would imagine the downsides are the same all the way around.
> 
> For reference, take a look at the Canon 500L II f/4 at 1000mm on that same site and see how Sony's 600 holds up. The trick they are using to lose weight is costly and requires significant correction to clean up. But I suspect they can't clean it up fully...yet. As new tech and methods are discovered this will be less and less of an issue. But for now, if you look at any Canon lens made after the EF III on that site, you'll see they all have the same drop off with a TC attached.


The blindingly obvious point is that the Sony 600/4 with near identical design to the Canon RF 600/4 takes the Sony 2x TC well but the Canon RF 2x doesn’t match its 600/4 lens well. And the proof that it is the matching of the Canon TC that is at fault comes from comparing the RF 600/4 plus RF 2x with the RF 1200/8, which has the identical optical design to the 600/4 but a custom-designed 2x TC built in, the 1200/8 is sharper - https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## MiJax (Dec 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The blindingly obvious point is that the Sony 600/4 with near identical design to the Canon RF 600/4 takes the Sony 2x TC well but the Canon RF 2x doesn’t match its 600/4 lens well. And the proof that it is the matching of the Canon TC that is at fault comes from comparing the RF 600/4 plus RF 2x with the RF 1200/8, which has the identical optical design to the 600/4 but a custom-designed 2x TC built in, the 1200/8 is sharper - https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


I would say the Sony's are a smidgeon better than the matching RF lens with TCs, but it's not significant and possibly explained by variation. But even if the Sonys are better, they still pale compared to the second gen EFs with TCs. This suggests the compromises that they are making in the designs to get the weight out is a technology issue and they haven't yet found a cost-effective answer to the issue. 

I would agree that the 800 and 1200 are better than the 400 and 600 with TCs. However, I don't think that is a failure though. That is a feature of the 800 and 1200's design. Even though they have very similar elements in their optical designs, I would expect them to be optimized in the 800 and 1200 formulas. They don't have to account for various different lenses being used with the TCs and they can make the aberration corrections as good as they can without compromising another lenses' performance. This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC). So, I would expect the performance improvement to be present on the monster teles.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2022)

MiJax said:


> I would agree that the 800 and 1200 are better than the 400 and 600 with TCs. However, I don't think that is a failure though. That is a feature of the 800 and 1200's design. Even though they have very similar elements in their optical designs, I would expect them to be optimized in the 800 and 1200 formulas. They don't have to account for various different lenses being used with the TCs and they can make the aberration corrections as good as they can without compromising another lenses' performance. This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC). So, I would expect the performance improvement to be present on the monster teles.


https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-1200mm-F8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx 
"Then we learned that the two new lenses shared the major design components with existing RF lenses. Specifically, the RF 400mm F2.8 L IS and the RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lenses were used for the front of the new lenses.

"Inheriting the optical system of the "RF 600mm F4 L IS USM" that realizes weight reduction and image quality at a high level, the optimum magnifying optical system is placed at the rear of the lens..." [Canon Japan, translated]"

Bryan Carnathan then goes on to discuss that it is the 2xTC element that has been optimised in the new design.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sunday at 10:14 AM)

Note these formulas are 30+ elements. Is that a record or if not, what IS the record?

Back in the 90s so many lenses would impact contrast hugely but it doesn\'t seem to be much of an issue any more.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sunday at 1:09 PM)

SwissFrank said:


> Note these formulas are 30+ elements. Is that a record or if not, what IS the record?
> 
> Back in the 90s so many lenses would impact contrast hugely but it doesn\'t seem to be much of an issue any more.


That includes the teleconverter


----------



## SwissFrank (Sunday at 1:33 PM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That includes the teleconverter


Good point, "4." Still, what I'm saying is that my old 70-200/2.8IS or 600/4IS (both MkI) went downhill substantially with the TC and while we don't have charts for this exact lens, basically ALL the current L's are fantastic compared to the old kit.


----------



## GoldWing (Wednesday at 1:18 AM)

GMAX said:


> A Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x would be the absolute must have for me, even it will cost a fortune


----------



## SwissFrank (Wednesday at 6:24 AM)

MiJax said:


> This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC).


I'm also wondering about the fact that the TC is "one size fits all": it has to work with a huge range of lenses, so does that compromise its design? I frankly don't understand this aspect of optics enough to even guess. If it does lead to compromise though, then a lens with built-in TC would have some advantage.

For me, there was no point using the EF 70-200/2.8 and 600/4 had there been no teleconverter option. Film resolution was so bad that even destroying the lenses' theoretical resolution still resulted in far better photos. But today's sensors are good enough we might not find the old TC's even acceptable, and anyway they don't work on the RF 70-200 which to me makes these RF tele zooms kind of useless. That said the 100-500 is IN EFFECT a 70-200 with built-in 1.4x and 2.0x when you need them.


----------



## Tony5787 (Yesterday at 5:53 PM)

Hoping this means Canon will repeat what they did with the EF 200-400 and 400 DO II and have two lenses that get you to 500 f4, just with one being a compact, lightweight prime and the other being a big hefty (but extremely flexible) zoom. The integrated TC is really going to be the kicker here, if they don’t follow suit with what Nikon’s doing with their supertele’s that’s a huge mistake IMO. Not having to fumble around with caps, remove the body from the lens, or rebalance a gimbal would be incredible.


----------

