# New rumor of Supertelephoto DO’s and the R1 [CR2]



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

> According to a reliable rumor source (thank you!) Canon is testing prototypes of the following DO super telephotos;
> 
> RF 400mm f/3.5 DO IS USM
> RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

(sorry there was alot of edits to this because of lack of coffee, too many donuts, and that i hate wordpress)


----------



## SV (Feb 28, 2022)

Oh Richard, Wordpress isn't so bad. As fyi, when viewing in "dark mode", the table font is white on a white table, so one needs to do a select (drag and select) the table to see the text.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 28, 2022)

markko said:


> I'm reading CanonRumors in 'dark mode' style, which makes reading some parts of the article difficult:


Me too...


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 28, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


Those are really interesting aperture ranges. Looks like Canon is experimenting a lot in where they can push things on the RF mount.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 28, 2022)

SV said:


> Oh Richard, Wordpress isn't so bad. As fyi, when viewing in "dark mode", the table font is white on a white table, so one needs to do a select (drag and select) the table to see the text.


At Least the issue of typing text has been fixed, but yes using the dark mode with tables makes things quite bad for reading.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2022)

With delivery issues for the R3 and many of the existing lenses Canon are not really in a position to add another high end camera with yet more back orders and exotic lenses in the same position. The other elephant in the room is what are they going to do about the crop Rebel / xxD / xxxD series cameras that they have generated new customers many of which have moved up as they become more affluent. 
In many ways Canon should have launched the R1 first and then the R3 then they would have had less pressure the same could be said about the R5C. A R7 for instance to replace the EOS 7D MKII which they launched in September 2014 would I’m sure have a huge following if it’s a crop sensor with at least 32MP.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

markko said:


> I'm reading CanonRumors in 'dark mode' style, which makes reading some parts of the article difficult:
> 
> View attachment 202643


okay I'm on this. not sure why it's the stupid wordpress plugin.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

RF 400mm f/3.5 DO IS USM
RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
f/3.5 is only 0.4 stops faster and will add expense, width and weight

RF 500mm f/4.5 DO IS USM
RF 500mm f/5 DO IS USM
f/4.5 is only 0.3 stops faster than f/5. f/5 is 1 stop faster than 500mm f/7.1.

RF 800mm f/9.5 DO IS USM
is only 0.4 stops faster than the current f/11. So, what's the point unless it is an L with up-rated weather sealing, AF and IS etc?


----------



## docsavage123 (Feb 28, 2022)

I may be interested in an RF 400 DO to replace my EF 400 DO mk1


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

Dark mode all fixed! thanks for the heads up everyone. I had to break down and code it directly in HTML. feel my pain.


----------



## dcm (Feb 28, 2022)

It might actually be a stylesheet issue. Dark mode requires a different color scheme. There were some color issues when the site first rolled out dark mode (I'm color blind and could see the dark red text on a dark background). You need different color schemes for light mode and dark mode to be accessible. Seems the table text and background haven't been similarly updated for dark mode. This should save editing in HTML.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 28, 2022)

Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.

They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.


----------



## john1970 (Feb 28, 2022)

An RF 500 mm f4.5 DO lens would be an excellent lens for low-weight applications. I would buy one the day of the announcement.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

dcm said:


> It might actually be a stylesheet issue. Dark mode requires a different color scheme. There were some color issues when the site first rolled out dark mode (I'm color blind and could see the dark red text on a dark background). You need different color schemes for light mode and dark mode to be accessible. Seems the table text and background haven't been similarly updated for dark mode. This should save editing in HTML.



Naw not that easy. the site seems to use a plugin used for tables - I don't seem to have a way to set particular stylesheets for the tables though. have tables been a problem in the past here?


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

markko said:


> Thanks for fixing the table; the list items at the top of the article are still of low contrast:
> 
> View attachment 202644


fixed.


----------



## stillviking (Feb 28, 2022)

If they are > 10k I'm gonna cry out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> If they are > 10k I'm gonna cry out.


Get your vocal cords ready. You only need look at the current price for a 500mm f/4 at $9000 to guess the price of a RF version. Probably $12-15K.


----------



## stillviking (Feb 28, 2022)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Get your vocal cords ready. You only need look at the current price for a 500mm f/4 at $9000 to guess the price of a RF version. Probably $12-15K.



I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


So what happened to the EF 400 f5.6? My understanding is they still work.....


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


yeah but that lens came out in 1993 for around 185000 Yen (1600 USD in today's exchange). that would be around $3100 USD today if it came out .. without IS, modern EF,etc. i'm not even sure they just didn't take the FD lens and convert it tbh. they did that alot back then.


----------



## tron (Feb 28, 2022)

500mm f/5 hmm interesting. Still I know a Nikon lens that is 500mm f/5.6PF that is in ... my bag 

So maybe something over 600 would tempt me.

I wonder about 800 f/9.5. Isn't is a little "dark"? It will have to be very short and very light to be interesting. Otherwise there is this thing like 400mm DO II + 2XIII + EOS-R adapter


----------



## canonnews (Feb 28, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.
> 
> They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.



When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.

A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.

Also, Canon in the past has never had two strong competitors each with their "flagship" Z 9 and A1 and Canon without one at all, outside of the 1DX Mark III that doesn't really count in this discussion.

IMO, there's about the same chance in hades freezing over it's going to be less than 45MP. not with the A1 and Z9 both shooting 8K.


----------



## stillviking (Feb 28, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> So what happened to the EF 400 f5.6? My understanding is they still work.....



No more Canon official support.. it's "dead" to them, but I still love it!


----------



## Dragon (Feb 28, 2022)

john1970 said:


> An RF 500 mm f4.5 DO lens would be an excellent lens for low-weight applications. I would buy one the day of the announcement.



Yep, if they can make it really sharp, it could be a cool lightweight replacement for the EF 500 f/4 L, but it needs to be a cut above the 400 and 600 in sharpness to be a proper replacement for the EF 500.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 28, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.
> 
> They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.


The current RF big whites have similar MTFs, and perform admirably on the 45mp R5, with and without extenders. So I wouldn't take the MTF chart as any indication of anything on the resolution of the R1. 


john1970 said:


> An RF 500 mm f4.5 DO lens would be an excellent lens for low-weight applications. I would buy one the day of the announcement.


Me too, but it'll be 3x too expensive for me. 

Brian


----------



## masterpix (Feb 28, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


I hope that the 500 and 800 Do won't coast five figures..


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> If they are > 10k I'm gonna cry out.


With the RF 800 at $17k and RF 1200 at $20k, Canon is trumpeting that inflation applies to the camera industry. You won't see the RF 600 for $13k for long. Maybe $15k in a year.

Lots of room then for a $10k DO.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 28, 2022)

canonnews said:


> When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.
> 
> A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.
> 
> ...


Yes I think 45MP is the minimum it will be. It's the first time in my memory than Canon was not the premier full frame camera. The R3 was an unusual camera at the time, very good but not the best, it was if it were developed but outpaced by the time it got to the market. Either that or the R1 couldn't be what they wanted to be so they brought out what they had. Personally for me the 20MP on the IDX Mark III and 24MP R3 were undercooked. 30MP in both cases would have made for a better camera. I await the R1. I can't wait for it.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


I use that lens on my R6. Still a great lens. Love it.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 28, 2022)

tron said:


> 500mm f/5 hmm interesting. Still I know a Nikon lens that is 500mm f/5.6PF that is in ... my bag
> 
> So maybe something over 600 would tempt me.
> 
> I wonder about 800 f/9.5. Isn't is a little "dark"? It will have to be very short and very light to be interesting. Otherwise there is this thing like 400mm DO II + 2XIII + EOS-R adapter


A lot of people like that 800mm f/11, so it might not be too bad on RF with how well the newer cameras do in low light conditions. I imagine it’s targeted at day time nature and sports.


----------



## tron (Feb 28, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> A lot of people like that 800mm f/11, so it might not be too bad on RF with how well the newer cameras do in low light conditions. I imagine it’s targeted at day time nature and sports.


800mm f/11 has a reasonable price. I believe the new DO optic will cost over 6K (judging from the price of 400mm DO f/4 IS II) so a 6K or more for a 800 f/9.5 will be out of the question. As Alan mentioned the 800 f/11 has 0.4 stops only difference.

A 500mm f/5 DO IS might be the most reasonable choice. It will give Canon the excuse to ask a lot (more than the 400DO II price) and it will be small and light enough to be used by mane people. Finally, it will accept tele-converters well (judging again by 400DOII).

All of the above are of course just my opinion.

EDIT: I forgot to add what lens would tempt me: A 600mm f/6.3 DO IS. But this is not an option.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Yes I think 45MP is the minimum it will be. It's the first time in my memory than Canon was not the premier full frame camera. The R3 was an unusual camera at the time, very good but not the best, it was if it were developed but outpaced by the time it got to the market. Either that or the R1 couldn't be what they wanted to be so they brought out what they had. Personally for me the 20MP on the IDX Mark III and 24MP R3 were undercooked. 30MP in both cases would have made for a better camera. I await the R1. I can't wait for it.


I can wait - the R5 is doing all I want for now. Maybe I don't want enough at present?


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 28, 2022)

The 500mm F/5 DO would be a very, very interesting lens to me. I've always been a fan of the Nikon 500mm F/5.6, if Canon can get an F/5 anywhere close to as small as the Nikon 5.6, this could be one of the best birding lenses out there. I have no problem with my 100-400 at 5.6 and 560mm F/8, so this would be a big step up in reach and in aperture for those uses. I never particularly found the 400mm DO as compelling, since it gives a brighter aperture but the same reach. I'd greatly prefer something that, unextended, gives me more reach with the ability to get closer. 

The 500mm F/4L IS II has been on my list for a while, so a smaller, lighter, slightly darker version would be a big draw for me, especially depending on the price.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 28, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.
> 
> They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.


My thoughts also. I didn't expect an R1 announcement till fall of 2023 at earliest with release early 2024. But hey, I love gear so bring it on Canon!!

My choice out of all these DO lenses would be the 500 f/4.5


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 28, 2022)

masterpix said:


> I hope that the 500 and 800 Do won't coast five figures..


A 500 f/4.5 would surely cost 5 figures. An f/5 maybe not. That 800 probably wouldn't hit 5 figures as it is just 1/2 stop slower than the current 800/11 which is dirt cheap. I actually can't imagine them releasing an 800 f/9.5...doesn't make much sense. 800/8 maybe.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

Very happy with the R5 but excited for the R1 as I plan on upgrading, assuming it’s a high MP “jack-of-all-trades” to compete with the A1 and Z9.

With supply issues being the way they are I could see Canon teasing this for the better part of a year, similar to the R5 rollout. They need a presence in the flagship discussion before 2024 with what Nikon is doing with their pricing and super teles. Competition is heating up. I’d guess a tease later in the year, nearly a year of teases, and then a release for the following Olympics.

I’d like to see a 500PF competitor from Canon here. Would be quite happy with an f/5 provided they don’t hold back with optics quality and sealing. Nikon deserves a ton of credit for their 500PF and raising the bar here; they left nothing on the table with that lens and the sales and happy customers prove that. With this release, Canon needs to step their DO quality up to compete in this space, especially following Nikon’s 400 and 800PF teases, or risk losing many of the wildlife shooters to them, IMO.


----------



## SteB1 (Feb 28, 2022)

The Nikon PF 500mm f5.6 lens is a pretty epic wildlife/bird lens, for anyone that doesn't want one of the big fast telephoto primes, either because of weight or cost. It's basically as sharp as the big lenses, but lighter than a 100-400 zoom. I have absolutely no idea why Canon didn't learn from this and produce an equivalent, but one that they could actually supply to anyone who wanted one. It would be a hugely popular lens with nature photographers. Yes, to some extent the 100-500mm zoom has filled this niche. But it is not a prime, and it is 2/3 stop slower, even if the weight and cost are similar. A 500mm f5 would be nice, but expect it to be bigger, and more expensive.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> No more Canon official support.. it's "dead" to them, but I still love it!


In general that doesn't stop them working.

My EF 300 f2.8 IS, EF 24-70 f2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8 IS, and EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye are all unsupported lenses....


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> In general that doesn't stop them working.
> 
> My EF 300 f2.8 IS, EF 24-70 f2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8 IS, and EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye are all unsupported lenses....


You'll soon be begging on the streets: working but 4 unsupported lenses to support.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

SteB1 said:


> The Nikon PF 500mm f5.6 lens is a pretty epic wildlife/bird lens, for anyone that doesn't want one of the big fast telephoto primes, either because of weight or cost. It's basically as sharp as the big lenses, but lighter than a 100-400 zoom. I have absolutely no idea why Canon didn't learn from this and produce an equivalent, but one that they could actually supply to anyone who wanted one. It would be a hugely popular lens with nature photographers. Yes, to some extent the 100-500mm zoom has filled this niche. But it is not a prime, and it is 2/3 stop slower, even if the weight and cost are similar. A 500mm f5 would be nice, but expect it to be bigger, and more expensive.


I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?


----------



## juststeve (Feb 28, 2022)

I had an FD 500/4.5L on loan once for a month. It was about as long as the current EF 500/4 L ii but a fair amount lighter, if memory serves. Of course, I was about 40 years younger then and a lot stronger then but it made a wonderful birding lens. It was a true sweetheart of lens. 

A DO version about 12-13 inches long and 5 pounds or less would sure make my heart go a racing and my credit card scream in terror.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper.


The 100-500 is a wonderful lens that I use daily, as well. Love the versatility. But I’m often wanting more light when shooting moving critters at dusk. f/7.1 —> f/5 would be a very nice addition to the lineup if it has 500PF image quality.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 28, 2022)

Comparing the relevant Nikon lineup: 500 5.6 PF, 800 6.3, 400 2.8 TC
There is actually not a single Canon super tele lens being on par when it comes to innovation and added value.
The 500 4.5 DO might come close. But where is or are long prime lenses with built in switchable TCs?
Why the hell should I give away my EF 600 MII or my 200-400 4.0 Extender 1.4? Both are exceptional @ EF mount, even better adapted to RF. 

The only one giving added value is Nikon. What does this mean?


----------



## Bonich (Feb 28, 2022)

juststeve said:


> I had an FD 500/4.5L on loan once for a month. It was about as long as the current EF 500/4 L ii but a fair amount lighter, if memory serves. Of course, I was about 40 years younger then and a lot stronger then but it made a wonderful birding lens. It was a true sweetheart of lens.
> 
> A DO version about 12-13 inches long and 5 pounds or less would sure make my heart go a racing and my credit card scream in terror.


Oh, this FD400 4.5 made me become a bird photographer, an exceptional nice lens. There was never a more mobile long lens in my life to carry around for accidental shooting. The Nikon 500 PF is in the same league with close to half a century enhanced technology built in, but nothing from Canon.
I do use the 100-500 for this purpose today but it has less open aperture and is by far less durable.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 28, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


The very best lens in this league was the FD 400mm 4.5, light, durable, clicking all boxes in this pre AF times.
There was never a AF prime on par with this. The 400 5.6 came close, but it lacked the IS from the 300 4.0 .

Today we spend by far more money to get less fun.


----------



## tron (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?


And ... only 1/3rd of a stop faster than 500mm f/5.6 PF


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

northlarch said:


> The 100-500 is a wonderful lens that I use daily, as well. Love the versatility. But I’m often wanting more light when shooting moving critters at dusk. f/7.1 —> f/5 would be a very nice addition to the lineup if it has 500PF image quality.


You edited out the final sentence of my post:
"A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?" That was the key question leading to: Would you go out for a days shooting with a 500/5 or a 100-500/7.1? Just a one stop advantage wouldn't be enough for me, an ultralight 500/4 would, a 500/4.5 maybe.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You edited out the final sentence of my post:
> "A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?" That was the key question leading to: Would you go out for a days shooting with a 500/5 or a 100-500/7.1? Just a one stop advantage wouldn't be enough for me, an ultralight 500/4 would, a 500/4.5 maybe.


I did no such thing. It looks like you edited your post to add that final sentence after the fact. Perhaps I responded before the edit.

I think there’s without a doubt a place in the market for both lenses. Personally, I’d shoot with my 100-500 the bulk of the time for versatility with the prime coming out for low light situations in which I know what I’m shooting (usually wildlife). I shoot handheld 95% of the time so the larger primes on a tripod is not my cup of tea. This mid-range PF/DO set of lenses is my sweet spot when wanting prime-like quality and speed in a smaller package.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

tron said:


> And ... only 1/3rd of a stop faster than 500mm f/5.6 PF


That 1/3rd of a stop would be icing. Personally I’d be happy if Canon just had an equivalent 500 f/5.6 in the same league and size. I have to go to Nikon for that presently.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I did no such thing. It looks like you edited your post to add that final sentence after the fact. Perhaps I responded before the edit.
> 
> I think there’s without a doubt a place in the market for both lenses. Personally, I’d shoot with my 100-500 the bulk of the time for versatility with the prime coming out for low light situations in which I know what I’m shooting (usually wildlife). I shoot handheld 95% of the time so the larger primes on a tripod is not my cup of tea. This mid-range PF/DO set of lenses is my sweet spot when wanting prime-like quality and speed in a smaller package.


My post was edited at 8.11, your reply posted at 8.13 after the edit. OK, I realise you missed it because your page was not refreshed and it wasn't deliberate on your part. I shoot similarly to you, but if I wanted low light shooting I'd want more than a stop advantage. That was my deciding factor for why I also sold my 400mm f/4 DO II, which has the same light gathering ability as a 500/5 (both have 100mm diameter front elements). Also, a 500/4 would give a slightly better image because of of less diffraction blurring.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> My post was edited at 8.11, your reply posted at 8.13 after the edit. OK, I realise you missed it because your page was not refreshed and it wasn't deliberate on your part. I shoot similarly to you, but if I wanted low light shooting I'd want more than a stop advantage. That was my deciding factor for why I also sold my 400mm f/4 DO II, which has the same light gathering ability as a 500/4 (both have 100mm diameter front elements). Also, a 500/4 would give a slightly better image because of of less diffraction blurring.


I’m with you on getting as much light as possible. A lot of people pay a lot of money for one additional stop of light, so it’s not that insignificant at this range. It sounds like you are comfortable with your 500 f/4 and using a tripod more often, and that makes sense—a lot of wildlife folks share your sentiment. I’m running and gunning in the backcountry more than roadside, so those handheld mid-tiers are perfect for me. To each their own; options are great!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

northlarch said:


> That 1/3rd of a stop would be icing. Personally I’d be happy if Canon just had an equivalent 500 f/5.6 in the same league and size. I have to go to Nikon for that presently.


In the Nikon Forums, there are reports from several selling their 500/5.6 and buying the new Nikon 100-400. So, it's horses for courses and we all have our individual preferences. 


northlarch said:


> I’m with you on getting as much light as possible. A lot of people pay a lot of money for one additional stop of light, so it’s not that insignificant. It sounds like you are comfortable with your 500 f/4 and using a tripod more often, which a lot of wildlife folks share your sentiment. I’m running and gunning in the backcountry more than roadside, so those handheld mid-rangers are perfect for me. To each their own; options are great!


I never use a tripod, the 500/4 would have to be under 2kg to make it acceptable to me, that's why I say ultralight 500/4. If you go to Nikon and you are worried about weight, then the Z9 might not be for you since it's over 1.3kg (weighs about the same as an R5 +RF100-400mm attached), the Z7 II doesn't have very good AF with tracking, so you would probably be best with a D500 DSLR for wildlife - it does make an excellent combination with the 500PF. I had thought of keeping the 500PF, in case Nikon came out with a suitable mirrorless, but the weight of Z9 put me off. Fully agree with you on to each their own.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> In the Nikon Forums, there are reports from several selling their 500/5.6 and buying the new Nikon 100-400. So, it's horses for courses and we all have our individual preferences.
> 
> I never use a tripod, the 500/4 would have to be under 2kg to make it acceptable to me, that's why I say ultralight 500/4. If you go to Nikon and you are worried about weight, then the Z9 might not be for you since it's over 1.3kg (weighs about the same as an R5 +RF100-400mm attached), the Z7 II doesn't have very good AF with tracking, so you would probably be best with a D500 DSLR for wildlife - it does make an excellent combination with the 500PF. I had thought of keeping the 500PF, in case Nikon came out with a suitable mirrorless, but the weight of Z9 put me off. Fully agree with you on to each their own.


Honestly the weight is not so much my issue, personally, it’s the size of the larger telephotos. They’re awkward to carry around when you’re doing much other than roadside or front country. I’d much prefer giving up a little light (but not too much) for a smaller prime package that I can lug around on a hike or overnighter.

That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the 100-500; quite the contrary, it’s my go-to lens 75% of the time. And if I was shooting roadside at dusk I would not mind the longer primes one bit for extra light, even on a tripod. We need the full range.

Personally, I’d much prefer to shoot with Canon as my primary system so I’m hoping they fill out the wildlife lineup and compete with Nikon here on the PFs, but I would not hesitate for a second to purchase a Z9 with their PF lineup. I agree with you, I’ve used their D500/D850 combo with that 500PF for handheld wildlife and it’s a fantastic setup.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> My post was edited at 8.11, your reply posted at 8.13 after the edit. OK, I realise you missed it because your page was not refreshed and it wasn't deliberate on your part. I shoot similarly to you, but if I wanted low light shooting I'd want more than a stop advantage. That was my deciding factor for why I also sold my 400mm f/4 DO II, which has the same light gathering ability as a* 500/4 (both have 100mm diameter front elements)*. Also, a 500/4 would give a slightly better image because of of less diffraction blurring.


Why would a 500/4 have a 100mm entrance pupil?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Why would a 500/4 have a 100mm entrance pupil?


Typo, I meant 500/5. I'll go back and correct it . Thanks.


----------



## amfoto1 (Feb 28, 2022)

I think the Canon R1 will not be a sports camera. The R3 serves that purpose.
Therefore, an R1 annoncement & launch doesn't need to coincide with Olympics or other major sports events.
I suspect Canon is going back to offering two different pro cameras... A fast one with modest resolution for sports action alongside a slower one with ultra high resolution for studio, weddings, fashion, landscape, etc. pro shooters. It will be like the old days, before 1DX, when they sold 1D-series for pro sports/action and 1Ds-series for other pro specialties.
They won't repeat the mistake they made back then, offering a much cheaper camera with the same high resolution as the 1Ds-series. Even pros switched to 5D-series, gutting the sales of 1Ds models. Future variants of the R5 might increase to 60MP range, but likely won't ever compete directly with the R1, the way 5D models did against 1Ds models.
A lot of the other R1 specs listed also sound silly...... But you never know. Canon likes to surprise us!


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 28, 2022)

My guess for R1 specs from 2 years ago... Some items have come to life in the R3, others already in the Z9. Would you pay USD8k for it?

Minimum specs as R5 but in 1D body ( AF-On smart controller buttons, dual CFe slots) with:
- Global shutter (no mechanical shutter). Rolling shutter artifacts significantly better than current electronic shutter
- Flash sync at any shutter speed
- 45mp sensor with IBIS (IBIS can be turned off)
- QPAF in very low light
- 30fps electronic shutter burst with full tracking - perhaps with buffer ie not unlimited
- ~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at full 30fps unlimited buffer. Best of both worlds.
- Dual Digic X to spread the heat generation and generate less heat per CPU
- Unlimited 8k cinema raw lite internal recording to CFe card capacity
- 6K/60. 4k/120 unlimited no crop internal recording.
- No line skipping/pixel binning 4k/6k modes ie oversampled from full sensor width
- 29:59 recording limit
- Clog2/3
- Minimum 16fps using anti-flicker depending on frequency of the flicker lighting
- Pixel shift high res stills
- 9+ megadot EFV with no blackout and fast refresh rates (at least 120fps). >0.5" in size
- Full sized HDMI 2.1 port (48G) or thunderbolt 3 USB-C or both
- Mini XLR audio option
- Ethernet port
- Flippy screen included. This one I am not sure on but still needed I think. Weather sealing will need to be excellent though


----------



## unfocused (Feb 28, 2022)

After having used the R3 for a few months, I can see a few things I expect will be in the R1.

Dual CFExpress (no brainer)
No mechanical shutter
Eye Control Autofocus 2.0 (lots of room to improve here)
45-50 mp.
Next Generation CRaw (As it stands, the differences between CRaw and Raw are pretty much indistinguishable, so I expect the next generation to offer smaller files sizes with no loss of quality.)
Larger buffer and faster throughput.
Quad pixel or similar autofocus that works more like a DSLR.
New battery, backwards compatible with current battery.
Typical autofocus improvements (two improvements they really need: 1) better recognition of non-white subjects; 2) select front facing subject, even if back facing subject is closer -- R3 tends to pick the nearest subject to focus on, even if it is the back of someone's head, rather than a face)
Related to the above -- selecting the eye rather than head on more distant subjects.

I expect the improvements to be incremental over the R3 and 1Dx III, nothing revolutionary as this is the 1 series after all.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 28, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I use that lens on my R6. Still a great lens. Love it.


Does IBIS give any appreciable stabilisation with it?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 1, 2022)

canonnews said:


> When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.
> 
> A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.
> 
> ...


Canon hasn't broken all of its old molds but it has gone in some directions most of us would never have thought. 
I think the timetables of yesteryear are over.


----------



## tron (Mar 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> ...
> *Quad pixel or similar autofocus that works more like a DSLR.*
> ...


This is for me the only reason to buy a mirrorless Canon again. R5 seems like years behind DSLRs in BIF. OK it may be just me and/or my R5 - I know Alan takes great BIF pictures with the same combo - but the things I do - without being an expert, pro, etc - with my D500 or D850 and 500PF in BIF I cannot do with R5 and 100-500. Even 5DsR has taken some very nice BIF pictures.

On the other hand R5 combined with the RF wide angles and mid-range zooms and fixed lenses is quite a power horse for precision focusing and low light photography.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 1, 2022)

Canon has done pro body releases around the Super Bowl too, it's not ALWAYS the Olympics.


And I'd totally be all over an RF 500 f4.5 DO


----------



## fox40phil (Mar 1, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


I was thinking about a NEW 400 f5.6L today... with modern build quality... if it could maybe around 400-500g?!


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 1, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.
> 
> They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.


A lot of people must agree with you. The orders for the Z9 are unprecedented. No one is waiting 2 years for a 24MP, R1.


----------



## tron (Mar 1, 2022)

I think between EF and RF lenses I am ... (more than) full and I am not going to buy a new lens (OK if some friends read this they will laugh!).

But: having many lenses which by the way cannot get used very often and cover a big range (14-500) I believe may save me many thousands:

EF500II is super sharp and combined with 2XIII gives a super decent quality 1000mm f/8 even from the 5DsR days.

400mm DO II can be used with 1.4XIII or 2XIII and R5 to give a 560 f/5.6 or a 800 f/8.

I used to combine 400 with 1.4III with my 7D2 and I had very good results once (although the last trip disappointed me it may be due to hot air and not due to 7D2). Anyway 7D2 is sold and 90D is not the same. Better sensor less capabilities which - for me - somehow killed it for BIF.

R5/100-500 is super sharp and versatile for nature/wildlife/static birds.

If I wanted to have it all and be reasonably portable I would get D850 or D500 with 500PF and R5/100-500 with TCs for these extreme far away shots because it makes a fantastic portable 1000mm combo.

So no reason for me to get a new big white. Low weight would tempt me but that's what Nikon's 500mm PF is for.


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?


I think this thread is a great example of "the grass is always greener..." If only Canon had something like the Nikon 500mm PF!

Maybe Canon has something better. I, too, would choose the Canon RF 100-500 over the Nikon 500 PF for the reasons stated above - especially the convenience of a zoom versus a prime, especially for locating your subject.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 1, 2022)

I hope we do see the R1 this year. That would be pretty incredible, but I am pretty concerned we're going to see a $7500-8000 camera.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 1, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Does IBIS give any appreciable stabilisation with it?


Definitely helps. Also why my 180mm f/3.5 macro is used way more now. Love that one the most. But i use the 400mm a lot more often now too.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Mar 1, 2022)

Current prices of diffractive optics lenses - Canon 400 DO II is around $6900USD and the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf is $3600 USD. A Canon 500 at f/4.5 or 5 you would think would come in higher than the Nikon and likely close to the Canon. Although with the prices of new lenses from Canon recently I could be highly underestimating what one of these might go for.

I would love to see an f/5 version come in around $5000, light weight and close to the sharpness of the current 400 DO and I would likely replace my 500 f/4. Would be nice to have something I could carry more easily on the long hikes.


----------



## northlarch (Mar 1, 2022)

stochasticmotions said:


> Current prices of diffractive optics lenses - Canon 400 DO II is around $6900USD and the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf is $3600 USD. A Canon 500 at f/4.5 or 5 you would think would come in higher than the Nikon and likely close to the Canon. Although with the prices of new lenses from Canon recently I could be highly underestimating what one of these might go for.
> 
> I would love to see an f/5 version come in around $5000, light weight and close to the sharpness of the current 400 DO and I would likely replace my 500 f/4. Would be nice to have something I could carry more easily on the long hikes.


I agree on pricing. Let’s not let Canon run away with prices here just because they’re setting them there. If Nikon keeps putting out PF glass of the 500 variety at those prices—even slightly higher for inflation—then I’ll be shifting some of my budget to them if Canon continues their hikes. Canon’s DO lenses at higher prices will lose them business. Especially if they play it safe with quality to avoid cannibalizing the larger glass.


----------



## Chig (Mar 1, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> Those are really interesting aperture ranges. Looks like Canon is experimenting a lot in where they can push things on the RF mount.


What would be different about a long telephoto lens design on the RF mount ?
The difference in flange distance is insignificant for long teles , so can't see any design advantages or am I missing something ?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 1, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> 0.4 stops is a useful amount both for reduced shutter times, reduced gain, and increased bokeh.
> 
> You could make this same attack against literally every lens ever made.
> 
> You're certainly ready some lenses won't be optimal for some users, but that's hardly a novelty! What lens IS perfect for everyone?


It’s not an attack, it’s bringing up pros and cons. 0.4 stops is of course a pro for some features but it comes at a cost of size, weight and cost, and so you have to balance that up in what is the best compromise for you.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 1, 2022)

Pixel said:


> Canon has done pro body releases around the Super Bowl too, it's not ALWAYS the Olympics.
> 
> 
> And I'd totally be all over an RF 500 f4.5 DO


also once around Football world cup.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 1, 2022)

Canon has released an advisory about delayed deliveries particularly for the R3 and the new RF 800mm L and 1200mm L. This sums up my earlier point and is often negative publicity for a company after hyping the products at launch. 
Strange times we live in.


----------



## stillviking (Mar 1, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> I was thinking about a NEW 400 f5.6L today... with modern build quality... if it could maybe around 400-500g?!


This would be my dream... can't wait for it!


----------



## lawny13 (Mar 1, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> With delivery issues for the R3 and many of the existing lenses Canon are not really in a position to add another high end camera with yet more back orders and exotic lenses in the same position. The other elephant in the room is what are they going to do about the crop Rebel / xxD / xxxD series cameras that they have generated new customers many of which have moved up as they become more affluent.
> In many ways Canon should have launched the R1 first and then the R3 then they would have had less pressure the same could be said about the R5C. A R7 for instance to replace the EOS 7D MKII which they launched in September 2014 would I’m sure have a huge following if it’s a crop sensor with at least 32MP.


I think that the camera manufacturing and lens manufacturing are separate. Only thing they kind of have in comment would be things like flex prints and the fact that they both use chips. But those chips are no the same. Choosing to not make lenses or not make cameras would not effect the other. 

And what do you mean with “what are they going to do about the crop Rebel / xxD / xxxD series cameras that they have generated new customers many of which have moved up as they become more affluent”? It isn’t clear what your point here is.


----------



## mpmark (Mar 1, 2022)

I don’t agree that an “R1” is coming this year. As you mentioned, for starters, no Olympics. And yes Canon did say the R3 isn’t their flagship, but technically it was and it was suppose to be the R1, but they realized what Sony did and I believe rebranded it to save embarrassment. The R3 clearly replaces the 1Dxiii. That’s very obvious with how canon operates.

So we won’t see an R1 this year, I just don’t believe it.


----------



## djack41 (Mar 1, 2022)

Seems disappointing. I have long hoped for a 600mm F4 DO. Canon had a prototype 600mm F4 DO years ago that they displayed at large Camera shows around the country.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2022)

djack41 said:


> Seems disappointing. I have long hoped for a 600mm F4 DO. Canon had a prototype 600mm F4 DO years ago that they displayed at large Camera shows around the country.


Yeah, but that was an EF prototype. No way they could easily convert that to the new RF mount.


----------



## rbielefeld (Mar 1, 2022)

canonnews said:


> When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.
> 
> A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.
> 
> ...


I agree. There is no way Canon will release a 24mp, or a 30mp R1. Sony and Nikon have drawn the line in the sand with their flagship bodies and the R1 will be relatively high res, able to shoot 8k, and have a fps for stills that will most likely be higher than 30 fps. That is the baseline IMO, but of course I could be wrong as I often am. What other "advancements" will come with the R1 no one knows. Given Sony and Nikon have their flagships out, I believe Canon will bring out the R1, or whatever it is called, sooner rather than later. Heck, by the time Canon has the R1 out Sony will most likely be close to releasing the a1 Mk. II . I just don't see Canon taking their time on getting their flagship body announced to the public.


----------



## northlarch (Mar 1, 2022)

Not sure why some are even considering that it’ll be a lower resolution body. Can you imagine if Canon’s top two cameras were both low resolution while its competitors are doing 50MP and 8K? They just released the low res body; the R1 will be a jack-of-all-trades, high speed, high resolution body to compete with A1 and Z9.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Yep, if they can make it really sharp, it could be a cool lightweight replacement for the EF 500 f/4 L, but it needs to be a cut above the 400 and 600 in sharpness to be a proper replacement for the EF 500.


I give this a slim to none chance of happening.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 1, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Canon has released an advisory about delayed deliveries particularly for the R3 and the new RF 800mm L and 1200mm L. This sums up my earlier point and is often negative publicity for a company after hyping the products at launch.
> Strange times we live in.


It is almost impossible to find a RF 400 and RF 600 in stock and has been this way since release. Do we magically expect Canon to deliver the new 800 and 1200 in the next few months?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 1, 2022)

mpmark said:


> And yes Canon did say the R3 isn’t their flagship, but technically it was and it was suppose to be the R1, but they realized what Sony did and I believe rebranded it to save embarrassment. The R3 clearly replaces the 1Dxiii. That’s very obvious with how canon operates.


[citation needed]


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 1, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> It is almost impossible to find a RF 400 and RF 600 in stock and has been this way since release. Do we magically expect Canon to deliver the new 800 and 1200 in the next few months?


Everyone who preordered the first day (hour) will get theirs the first day. Just like everything, ever. Those who sit on their hands worrying until they see "in-stock" might not get one for a long time - just like everything ever.


----------



## SpaceGhost (Mar 1, 2022)

One lens I still miss is my 70-300 f4-5.6 DO lens. Yes it was soft but it was a great walk around lens. I hope that there will be an RF version and it'd be awesome if the RF benefits would give us a straight f4 lens around the same size. ... Let me dream.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2022)

SpaceGhost said:


> One lens I still miss is my 70-300 f4-5.6 DO lens. Yes it was soft but it was a great walk around lens. I hope that there will be an RF version and it'd be awesome if the RF benefits would give us a straight f4 lens around the same size. ... Let me dream.


I had one for a while (bought used), it was convenient and paired very well with the 24-105/4L. The DO bokeh was bothersome, though, and eventually I sold it for the same price I paid.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 1, 2022)

RF 500mm f/4.5 DO IS USM: funny, that would be a sort of modern, light & compact, presumably optically superior return of the old EF 500 F/4.5 L USM...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 1, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> So what happened to the EF 400 f5.6? My understanding is they still work.....


I still have one, but I have to admit I use it rarely, but it is a very nice, handy lens.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had one for a while (bought used), it was convenient and paired very well with the 24-105/4L. The DO bokeh was bothersome, though, and eventually I sold it for the same price I paid.


It had a reputation for being very soft at 300mm. I tried a used one from my local store and it was unbelievably soft. Maybe you struck lucky. 100-400mm f/8 is the new 70-300mm f/5.6, and that RF is sharp.


----------



## juststeve (Mar 1, 2022)

Canon did not seem to have too much trouble converting the EF 400/2.8 iii and 600/4 iii to RF mount. Does not appear that converting them to 800/5.6 and 1200/4 was too difficult. That DO prototype is not that much older than the current Mark III lenses and may very well have the same electronics or at least hard-wired test bed electron munchers.


neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but that was an EF prototype. No way they could easily convert that to the new RF mount.


----------



## mxwphoto (Mar 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It had a reputation for being very soft at 300mm. I tried a used one from my local store and it was unbelievably soft. Maybe you struck lucky. 100-400mm f/8 is the new 70-300mm f/5.6, and that RF is sharp.


I second that the RF 100-400 is amazingly sharp for the price. It is also light enough (the EF is 2.5x heavier!) for all day carrying without breaking a sweat and 90% of the time I don't need the weather resistance. It has essentially replaced my 100-400 as the go to birding lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2022)

juststeve said:


> Canon did not seem to have too much trouble converting the EF 400/2.8 iii and 600/4 iii to RF mount. Does not appear that converting them to 800/5.6 and 1200/4 was too difficult. That DO prototype is not that much older than the current Mark III lenses and may very well have the same electronics or at least hard-wired test bed electron munchers.


Allow me to replace the part of my reply that you deleted but still somehow managed to ignore. I’ll make it bigger so my intent is not lost on you this time around. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but that was an EF prototype. No way they could easily convert that to the new RF mount.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I can wait - the R5 is doing all I want for now. Maybe I don't want enough at present?


I might be yet tempted to get it. Your positive comments are not helping


----------



## juststeve (Mar 1, 2022)

Happy to to give you the opportunity to be a little prick ly today.


neuroanatomist said:


> Allow me to replace the part of my reply that you deleted but still somehow managed to ignore. I’ll make it bigger so my intent is not lost on you this time around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2022)

juststeve said:


> Happy to to give you the opportunity to be a little prick ly today.


Paying attention to details is not an ability everyone has. On the other hand, name-calling is something that any idiot can do.


----------



## 2 cents (Mar 2, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here. 

I also can't stand the new bloated RF 100mm macro with SA adjustment. Compared to the EF version it is more expensive, larger, I think heavier too, and at closest focusing distance it has the front element closer to the subject, which is not desirable.

It's a shame that Canon doesn't have as much competition as it used to have, as this is reflected in the products and prices. Oh, the 'prices".


----------



## stillviking (Mar 2, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.


As an old 400 mm 5.6 L lover I'm interested to know why you hate the new RF 100-500 f7.1 and 800 f11? I never tried!

My dream is to Canon launch a new RF 400 mm 5.6 L below $2k, that would be so good!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.
> 
> I also can't stand the new bloated RF 100mm macro with SA adjustment. Compared to the EF version it is more expensive, larger, I think heavier too, and at closest focusing distance it has the front element closer to the subject, which is not desirable.
> 
> It's a shame that Canon doesn't have as much competition as it used to have, as this is reflected in the products and prices. Oh, the 'prices".


The 400mm f/5.6 L compact? Manufacturer Spec Size (DxL)3.54" x 10.12” (90mm x 257mm), 1.35 kg
RF 100-500mm is 3.69" x 8.17” (93.8mm x 207.6mm), 1.36 kg. The lens you hate is approx. 2'' shorter, and weighs near enough the same. Whatever its other features, the EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not compact.
If you want something compact, cheap and light the RF 100-40mm is only 3.13"x 6.48” (79.5mm x 164.7mm), nearly 4" (92mm) shorter, less than half the weight, a fraction of the price and just as sharp in the centre as then old EF 400mm f/5.6 L.

Here are Canon's MTF charts for the old 400 L and the the el cheapo RF 100-400 (I've used them both).


----------



## stillviking (Mar 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you want something compact, cheap and light the RF 100-40mm is only 3.13"x 6.48” (79.5mm x 164.7mm), nearly 4" (92mm) shorter, less than half the weight, a fraction of the price and just as sharp in the centre as then old EF 400mm f/5.6 L.


400 f8 non-L with much worse borders? I'm out!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2022)

stillviking said:


> 400 f8 non-L with much worse borders? I'm out!


That's your choice. But, there are are lots of happy people with it. We are fortunate to have two choices the el cheapo RF 100-400mm which is surprisingly good and the superb L series RF 100-500mm, and I am delighted with both in my armoury.


----------



## Kiton (Mar 2, 2022)

a 500 f5 would make me very happy, yes please canon!


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 2, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!



Still got mine sitting in the drawer next to me here. I have the 600 F4L iii now for wildlife, but the 5.6 has great sentimental value. I'll probably never get rid of it. May have to try it on the R5 actually and do some close-up nature shots in my backyard.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 2, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Still got mine sitting in the drawer next to me here. I have the 600 F4L iii now for wildlife, but the 5.6 has great sentimental value. I'll probably never get rid of it. May have to try it on the R5 actually and do some close-up nature shots in my backyard.


I picked one up recently, and Iove it on my R6. Ibis helps a lot. Gives new life to this lens.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 2, 2022)

Pretty good test of the old EF 400mm f/5.6 L on an R5.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I picked one up recently, and Iove it on my R6. Ibis helps a lot. Gives new life to this lens.


It's very interesting to know by how much IBIS stabilises telephotos. If you have time, could you do a series of shots at different shutter speeds with and without IBIS and give a rough idea of how many stops it gives. He avoids saying in that video


----------



## tron (Mar 2, 2022)

So one of the mentioned DO RF lenses will be available ... by 2029    
Although I am tempted to change the second number to make it look like a song!


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 3, 2022)

canonnews said:


> When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.
> 
> A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.
> 
> ...


85MP seems to be the objective at 16 to 20fps in RAW to 120fps at 15MP Jpeg.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 3, 2022)

stillviking said:


> No more Canon official support.. it's "dead" to them, but I still love it!


But, but, but... people say Canon will support for 10 years after production stops. 

I used to have that lens too. I really liked it.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 3, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.
> 
> I also can't stand the new bloated RF 100mm macro with SA adjustment. Compared to the EF version it is more expensive, larger, I think heavier too, and at closest focusing distance it has the front element closer to the subject, which is not desirable.
> 
> It's a shame that Canon doesn't have as much competition as it used to have, as this is reflected in the products and prices. Oh, the 'prices".


I find the new 100-500 f 7.1. to be excellent. Far better than my expectations. My RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L gets worringly little use for the same reason. Of course some may need more light, but the results cannot be faulted.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 3, 2022)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But, but, but... people say Canon will support for 10 years after production stops.


Yeah, that myth dies hard - even if it was never true and history shows it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> 85MP seems to be the objective at 16 to 20fps in RAW to 120fps at 15MP Jpeg.


Who’s objective? Since you have no way to know Canon’s objectives, you must mean yours.


----------



## AEWest (Mar 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> After having used the R3 for a few months, I can see a few things I expect will be in the R1.
> 
> Dual CFExpress (no brainer)
> No mechanical shutter
> ...


How about 16 bit files?


----------



## AEWest (Mar 3, 2022)

Chig said:


> What would be different about a long telephoto lens design on the RF mount ?
> The difference in flange distance is insignificant for long teles , so can't see any design advantages or am I missing something ?


Much slower, smaller lenses are possible due to AF advantages of mirrorless.


----------



## AEWest (Mar 3, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> It is almost impossible to find a RF 400 and RF 600 in stock and has been this way since release. Do we magically expect Canon to deliver the new 800 and 1200 in the next few months?


Given the two new lenses' prices, they should be easier to come by than the 400 and 600.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 3, 2022)

AEWest said:


> Given the two new lenses' prices, they should be easier to come by than the 400 and 600.


Canon's past history the opposite is usually true. The expensive items tend to be delayed.
It is possible that there will not be enough interest so more copies will be in stock.
The estimated ship date is 5/19/22 according to Canon's website.
I doubt there will be a shipping delay, Canon has been shipping the big whites via air.
A few people "might" get a copy.
The RF 400 and RF 600 are both on back order still.


----------



## fogleman (Mar 3, 2022)

Does this mean anything for the long-rumored RF 500mm f/4? Been waiting to hear more about that one.

Rumors around that lens made it seem like diffractive optics are just "standard" now, as if there wouldn't be any lenses specifically marketed as "DO" anymore. What am I missing?


----------



## Chig (Mar 4, 2022)

AEWest said:


> Much slower, smaller lenses are possible due to AF advantages of mirrorless.


Why? 
That makes no sense


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

AEWest said:


> Much slower, smaller lenses are possible due to AF advantages of mirrorless.


I think you may have mixed up a few features of the new Canon mirrorless cameras here. Lens size and AF are two separate matters. Hope I can clarify the issue.

The RF mount sits closer to the sensor than the EF mount, and that only really helps with the design of new wide angle lenses.

RF lenses *generally *aren't really smaller than equivalent EF lenses, the ones that do achieve compact size have telescoping bodies that must be extended before use (RF 600 & 800 f/11) which may lead to durability issues, or now telescope in and out when zooming (Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 IS vs Canon EF 70-200 2.8 IS III), which may compromise environmental sealing. Some also extend when focussing, making them more prone to damage.

The RF lenses are slower because of better sensors on the R5 and R6, not because of mirrorless technology, an advantage not shared by the EOS R and RP bodies which use sensors based on the older 5DIV and 6DII sensors. Yes, the newer sensors can produce better images (less noise) at higher ISOs, I think it's around a two stop advantage., but what have we gained? All Canon has done is some clever marketing to lower customer expectations, make slower lenses that would have been previously less usable, relying on the better sensor to compensate for the inferior optics. No different to a better lens on an inferior sensor, nothing is gained for the customer, but Canon often sells these lenses at the same price or more than the optically better lens. A win for Canon, making more money, selling you less!

Many RF lenses are lighter, and that's because Canon has been using engineering plastics (which may be cheaper to produce and less durable) in place of metal, using PMo (plastic molded) lens elements which are cheaper and lighter in some lenses, such as the RF 100-400 and RF 16mm, or by underbuilding lenses which produce optically unusable images and relying on software to fix the issue afterwards. In a DSLR, when you look through the OVF, you are looking through the lens, and so the lens optics have to produce a fairly reasonable image without crazy distortion, otherwise nobody would buy them. Since MILCs are really just mini video cameras running all the time, sending a video feed to a mini-screen, the EVF, and taking a photo using mechanical or electronic shutter when the button is pressed, it's possible to hide shocking optics by processing the digital signal and modifying it to correct for bad distortion before it reaches the EVF, it's like a 'screw it, lets take a bad photo and fix it in post" type of approach. This way, Canon can underdesign a lens, compromising image quality for size, which is cheaper for them, but they sell the lens at the same price, or more often at a greater price, which is what we've seen with lenses such as the RF 14-35mm. Once again, a win for Canon, making more money, selling you less! Sure, other brands do this too, but the 'bandwagon fallacy', they're doing it so that makes it right to do it too, isn't actually a sound logical argument.

Manufacturers are competeing with each other in a shrinking market and looking for ways to give consumers a few more features to compel them to upgrade while still making a sufficient profit. Some of the lenses they produce on the new RF platform my hit the right balance of image quality, value for money, innovation (new features) and profitability, while others wont, and time will tell which falls into each respective category. 


​


----------



## AEWest (Mar 4, 2022)

Chig said:


> Why?
> That makes no sense


The rf 800 f11 could not be made in ef mount because the focusing wouldn't work in DSLR at f11. Can you think of a more affordable, small 800mm lens?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

AEWest said:


> The rf 800 f11 could not be made in ef mount because the focusing wouldn't work in DSLR at f11. Can you think of a more affordable, small 800mm lens?


Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.


Only on _one_ AF point in the center. On an 800mm it would be not such a problem (but its even f/11), but Canon also build zooms with f/8 on the long end (like the 100-400), which they would never do for EF. On 400mm I want also not-centered AF points, to use rule of thirds or focus on the eye/head of somebody/thing.
And so these lenses can be smaller, because on EF Canon always uses maximum of f/5.6....


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Manufacturers are competeing with each other in a shrinking market and looking for ways to give consumers a few more features to compel them to upgrade while still making a sufficient profit. Some of the lenses they produce on the new RF platform my hit the right balance of image quality, value for money, innovation (new features) and profitability, while others wont, and time will tell which falls into each respective category.


Your logic fails you. In general neewly designed RF lenses have been clearly better than their EF-equivilants mechanically and optically. The 50mm prime is probably the best example. I have full confidence that the new materials will hold just as well or better than the old. Lens Rentals tear down shows impressive Canon engineering, excellent solutions and upgraded mechanics - also belying your sweeping claims that Canon is taking more but giving us less.

Lensrentals verdict on the RF 70-200mm f/2.8:

"a LOT of engineering progress has been made. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is a complex beast, but you get a quick feel for it being organized complexity, and it’s actually a much simpler layout than those other lenses. Some of that is from the improved optical design; there’s less glass floating around. Some of it is the use of linear focusing motors.
Most of it is superior electro-mechanical engineering and a brand-new, ground-up design. It’s clear those other lenses were improvements on existing designs. Over the years, as various versions of the lenses have been released, it’s apparent that they started with the previous design and modified it. Like a lens paleontologist, we could see the bones of the original beast with layers of new complexity and modifications added in the newer version. (Yes, I’m very aware it was Sony’s first FE 70-200mm lens, but, to be polite, it heavily borrowed from other 70-200mm lenses mechanically).
This lens was a new design from the ground up. There’s no ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ holdovers. That’s a lot more work for the designers, but the result is a beautifully engineered, fully modern lens. It’s clean, functional, and straightforward.
It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.
There are a lot of nice touches, like the air filter tape over the openings around the front group. Will it prevent the lens from getting dust inside? Of course not; every lens gets dust inside. But it’s helpful and shows they’re trying. It’s also the first lens in a decade that I can say was obviously designed with ease of repairability in mind, at least as far as they could."


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Only on _one_ AF point in the center. On an 800mm it would be not such a problem (but its even f/11), but Canon also build zooms with f/8 on the long end (like the 100-400), which they would never do for EF. On 400mm I want also not-centered AF points, to use rule of thirds or focus on the eye/head of somebody/thing.
> And so these lenses can be smaller, because on EF Canon always uses maximum of f/5.6....


On the Canon 7D II perhaps, but 27 AF points on 80D and 90D at f/8. 
I've had an 80D for quite a while, awesome camera! 

------------------------------------

From the Canon site, "What's new: EOS 80D - AF at f/8 max. apertures"

Lenses providing this broader 27-point coverage at f/8 effective maximum apertures with the EOS 80D are:

EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II + Extender EF 1.4x III
EF 200–400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4x lens + Extender EF 2x III (built-in extender not used)

Summary
Focus with 27 AF points, at f/8, with newest tele lenses + extenders

For years, photographers have grown used to assuming that if they wanted additional features like the ability to use autofocus with lenses slower than f/5.6, that they needed to turn to advanced, high-end digital SLR cameras. Canon engineers have begun to listen to the growing requests from our customers who want the ability to continue to use AF, without requiring big, heavy and expensive super-telephotos with wide apertures to achieve this if they want to add a tele extender.

The EOS 80D’s new 45-point AF system is a strong testament to this. It provides AF at the center AF point with almost all combinations of compatible Canon EF telephoto lenses and Canon-brand tele extenders with f/8 (effective) maximum apertures. And, it expands this to an outstanding 27 available AF points at f/8, with the two new lenses mentioned immediately above, if combined with the latest Version III tele extenders. Even if you’re using an older lens or extender, though, the EOS 80D will make it possible to get more out of your gear, and at a much lower cost of entry, than the higher-end cameras that would have been required previously.

(source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...tures/Whats-New-EOS-80D-AF-at-f8-max-apetures)

------------------------------------

From DP review:

The Canon 90D, when using apertures of F8 and wider, there are 27 points, nine of which are cross-type. 

(source: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review/2)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.


The apparent narrower aperture with a crop sensor applied only to DoF when you move further from the subject to match framing. In the context of AF, it’s a red herring. 

Also, for telephoto lens designs the diameter of the image circle is not limiting. A 500/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500/7 FF lens.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Your logic fails you. In general neewly designed RF lenses have been clearly better than their EF-equivilants mechanically and optically. The 50mm prime is probably the best example. I have full confidence that the new materials will hold just as well or better than the old. Lens Rentals tear down shows impressive Canon engineering, excellent solutions and upgraded mechanics - also belying your sweeping claims that Canon is taking more but giving us less.
> 
> Lensrentals verdict on the RF 70-200mm f/2.8:
> 
> ...


"_Your logic fails you_."  I hope not!

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the new RF lenses, have a few of them already, most are a bit better than their EF equivalents where they exist, but they're usually a lot more expensive relative to how much of an improvement they are, compared to their older counterparts. 

If, by 50mm prime, you mean the nifty fifty, I have both, and prefer the slightly better but they're charging much more for RF 50mm f/1.8 ($200 vs $125 for the EF, or 60% more). If you're talking about the 50mm 1.2 L, then we're in exorbitant price territory, but they're improved that lens a lot, much sharper, if you value sharpness. But the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM sells for $1349, vs the $2299 price tag of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, that's a huge price hike!

The solid metal big whites have been proven out in the field, those things have been used in warzones and have survived the worst of treatment under the most shocking conditions. In engineering, all things are compromises, and you can't get rid of a solid armored one piece sealed metal shell that weights a heap, replace it with a lightweight telescoping plastic zooming mechanism, and expect the same durability. That's absurd, the fact that you have a sliding, extended piece is a glaring sign that you have a potential point of breakage. How much lateral force duou you imagine that could stand if you swung around and hit it, or it fell at an angle. Where would the force go? The light weight and compact size is chosen over durability in the RF version of the 70-200mm f/2.8. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM (Canon Store: $2099.00) vs RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Canon Store: $2799.00), a 40% price increase, really?

I don't do the brand loyalty thing, each lens has to stand on its merit. Like the EF range, some RF lenses will be awesome, some average, some mediocre, and some, well... You get the picture. What is guaranteed is that you'll be paying much more for any modest improvements, let alone major ones.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The apparent narrower aperture with a crop sensor applied only to DoF when you move further from the subject to match framing. In the context of AF, it’s a red herring.
> 
> Also, for telephoto lens designs the diameter of the image circle is not limiting. A 500/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500/7 FF lens.


Hi Neuro, I don't get your first point, you might need to explain further. I'm talking pixels on bird at same distance, not everyone has an R5 lol, of all the RF camera bodies the next highest MP models are the EOS R and RP respectively if I'm not mistaken.

Precisely, a 500mm f/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500mm f/7 FF lens, but most likely smaller than an 800mm F/11 extended for use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hi Neuro, I don't get your first point, you might need to explain further. I'm talking pixels on bird at same distance, not everyone has an R5 lol, of all the RF camera bodies the next highest MP models are the EOS R and RP respectively if I'm not mistaken.


You replied to the point by @AEWest that, “The rf 800 f11 could not be made in ef mount because the focusing wouldn't work in DSLR at f11,” with a statement that, “Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture.”

I inferred that to mean you were suggesting an f/11 lens could AF on an APS-C DSLR. Probably I misunderstood your intent.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> "_Your logic fails you_."  I hope not!
> 
> In engineering, all things are compromises, and you can't get rid of a solid armored one piece sealed metal shell that weights a heap, replace it with a lightweight telescoping plastic zooming mechanism, and expect the same durability. That's absurd, the fact that you have a sliding, extended piece is a glaring sign that you have a potential point of breakage. How much lateral force duou you imagine that could stand if you swung around and hit it, or it fell at an angle. Where would the force go?


Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer _a lot_ less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 4, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer _a lot_ less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.


The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 4, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer _a lot_ less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.


Hmmm, not really sure that's the case. It's basic engineering/physics, were talking a two-piece unsupported structure vs a solid structure.

Exert a force perpendicular to the lens body, over its centre. In the solid structure the stresses will be exerted over the lower surface, taken up by the material, which will not deform in the case of a metal lens body unless it leads to destructive failure, much like a load bearing beam spanning two points.

With a structure that consists of a weaker material formed as a tube within a tube, the stresses will all be placed on the area of the joint. The bottom edge of the inner tube will cut into the inner surface of the outer tube, and act like a lever. Of course we're talking about an extended lens, which you've steered away from discussing

This is not a point that can validly be argued from an engineering perspective. Without getting into force vector diagrams, ask yourself why bridges are constructed of solid beams and not loose tubes sliding inside each other. Or just extend the RF 70-200mm lens and sit on it! 

Is it so hard to imagine that a company would trade strength and durability for weight and size in a product? It's done all the time with all manner of things.
The simple rule with engineering is that when you add to something, you take away from something else - because there is no such thing as a free lunch! The imaginary perfect material or structure that is the best at everything and fits every need is nonexistent by definition. 

Probably best to be aware of the potential weaknesses of a new design and treat the gear with respect to ensure it doesn't get damaged, rather than assume it's better in every way because it's newer, that would be a logical fallacy.

Practical advice, don't treat an extended telescoping lens made of engineering plastics as it it were a solid, single-piece alloy traditional big white, that would be a sure way to wreck a really good expensive lens.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 5, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I picked one up recently, and Iove it on my R6. Ibis helps a lot. Gives new life to this lens.


I didn't even think of that....IBIS would be HUGE for this thing


----------



## Otara (Mar 5, 2022)

The real correction isnt for distorted optics, it was for low light levels, looking through an optical VF has its own issues.

F8 was noticeably darker, let alone the F11 or F16 as you can now do with the 800F11+TC. I got to take a picture of a bird at 125th at 800mm, 6400 ISO - through an optical VF I suspect I wouldnt have been able to see the branch, let alone the bird.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> The real correction isnt for distorted optics, it was for low light levels, looking through an optical VF has its own issues.
> 
> F8 was noticeably darker, let alone the F11 or F16 as you can now do with the 800F11+TC. I got to take a picture of a bird at 125th at 800mm, 6400 ISO - through an optical VF I suspect I wouldnt have been able to see the branch, let alone the bird.


Um, how do I say this gently...

The optical distortion of the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 14-35 f/4 is absolutely shocking, you're talking about two totally different issues here. Vignetting is also bad, around 2-3 stops I believe, on all RF lenses, much worse than EF mount. Its a flaw of the RF mount design because 'physics and engineering', you can't get something for nothing...

The discussion was whether shooting at f/11 was a mirrorless camera design miracle or no big deal, something that could be done on a DSLR.

There's nothing like straight evidence, here's a video by bird photographer Duade Paton, who does this very test using a Canon 5D IV DSLR and a 500 f/4 turned into a 700 f/11. It can be done! He does it to prove that the RF f/11 lenses are usable at those settings. He also has other videos where he tests the actual lenses.

Unless you're shooting at dawn or dusk or other low light conditions, shooting at f/11 is no big deal in terms of available light. Most macro photographers shoot at that aperture (and manually focus because all AF has its limits when DOF is measured in millimetres) and I believe many landscape photographers do too. Incidentally a lot of macro is shot on APSC, so their f/11 is actually equivalent to f/17.6 on FF.







For perspective, yes, it's exciting to have all those extra focus points on a mirrorless camera, and to be able to use a lot of them with the AF, but once again, there's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to engineering. Anyone who has done any amount of photography using a mirrorless camera has had the experience where once the camera locks onto something in the background, and the foreground subjects are blurred out of focus, the camera refuses to lock back onto them, because it can't see them, and can't lock focus on what it can't see on the sensor, as that's how focussing works on these camera bodies.

Most of us either put our hand in front of the lens, point the camera to a large nearby object, or towards the ground and half-press the shutter butter to re-acquire focus. DSLRs have a separate autofocus system so they don't have this problem, but sometimes this system goes out of alignment with the lens/sensor and microadjustments are needed to get maximum sharpness from the lens. Like I said, different approaches to an engineering problem yield different benefit, but also different shortcomings, that's the way the physical world works, for better of for worse!  

Here's a video of the problem here, by the same photographer.


----------



## Otara (Mar 5, 2022)

"Unless you're shooting at dawn or dusk or other low light conditions, shooting at f/11 is no big deal in terms of available light."

Well yes, except for that.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> "Unless you're shooting at dawn or dusk or other low light conditions, shooting at f/11 is no big deal in terms of available light."
> 
> Well yes, except for that.


I guess we're in agreement then, great!


----------



## Otara (Mar 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I guess we're in agreement then, great!


 
Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light. 

It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.
> 
> It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.


Especially on a lens like the MP-E 65mm, where it behaves like f/16 when used wide open at 5x magnification. This is why the original eos M was such a good fit for that lens, for me.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.
> 
> It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.


Well, I already knew that, and I like that benefit of my mirrorless camera too, so it's all cool!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 5, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Especially on a lens like the MP-E 65mm, where it behaves like f/16 when used wide open at 5x magnification. This is why the original eos M was such a good fit for that lens, for me.


Did that camera do focus stacking? It would be super useful for the razor thin depth of field that you'd get at 5x macro!


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Did that camera do focus stacking? It would be super useful for the razor thin depth of field that you'd get at 5x macro!


No, it didn’t have a helper mode for that. And the Canon helper mode only works with electronic shutter, which turns off the flash. 
But most importantly, the MP-E is fixed focus


----------



## Fischer (Mar 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.


I do not agree. Your claim assumes the inner workings of the newly designed RF-lenses where less robust than the old EF-lenses. LensRentals claims they are better.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hmmm, not really sure that's the case. It's basic engineering/physics, were talking a two-piece unsupported structure vs a solid structure.
> 
> Exert a force perpendicular to the lens body, over its centre. In the solid structure the stresses will be exerted over the lower surface, taken up by the material, which will not deform in the case of a metal lens body unless it leads to destructive failure, much like a load bearing beam spanning two points.
> 
> ...


Think you missed the RF-extended vs RF-retracted vs long EF.lens part.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2022)

Fischer said:


> I do not agree. Your claim assumes the inner workings of the newly designed RF-lenses where less robust than the old EF-lenses. LensRentals claims they are better.


I wrote your car analogy was wrong, and it most certainly is - the car protection works by having a sacrificial crumple zone. I also wrote that the RF 100-500mm has the rubber internal protection so I assumed nothing of the sort.


AlanF said:


> The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. * The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.*


----------



## wyotex43n (Mar 5, 2022)

It will be interesting to see which if any of these lenses make it into production. Any chance any of them will have a built in Teleconverter? Now that Nikon has done that with their new 400 2.8 I wonder if Canon has any in the pipeline. 
An RF version of the EF200-400 F4 TC would be of interest to me or if I am wishing an RF250-500 F4 TC that is somehow lighter. 
Just wishing.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?


I kept my 500 PF even after acquiring the RF 100-500mm. Lol, so glad I did because otherwise I'd have nothing long to shoot with my Nikon Z9. Although it's true that the IQ isn't substantially better than the RF lens; it is, nonetheless, better. Also I have been shooting the PF lens with a 1.4x TC making it an f/8 lens. Shooting the RF with a TC puts you at f/10, which is even further into defraction and its debilitating effects. Thus, I am very happy to have kept my PF lens and would definitely consider a Canon 500 4.5 DO (none of the other options would fill any gaps in my kit).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2022)

Billybob said:


> I kept my 500 PF even after acquiring the RF 100-500mm. Lol, so glad I did because otherwise I'd have nothing long to shoot with my Nikon Z9. Although it's true that the IQ isn't substantially better than the RF lens; it is, nonetheless, better. Also I have been shooting the PF lens with a 1.4x TC making it an f/8 lens. Shooting the RF with a TC puts you at f/10, which is even further into defraction and its debilitating effects. Thus, I am very happy to have kept my PF lens and would definitely consider a Canon 500 4.5 DO (none of the other options would fill any gaps in my kit).


I sold the 500PF and all my Nikon gear when the Z9 was revealed as its 1.3 kg weight, though fine for many, would be too much for me. The Z9 is a good piece of kit, and from birding experts I know who have used both it is roughly equivalent to the R5. I have done dozens of comparisons of the RF 100-500mm with TCs versus the NIkon 500PF with TCs. The Nikon 1.4x is similar to the Canon but how many even bother to use a Nikon 2xTC it's so bad? The Canon RF 2x is really good and what you lose with diffraction with Canon at 1000mm f/14 with the RF 2x you gain far more in resolution, and it resolves better than the 500PF with a 1.4xTC at 700mm f/8 - give it a try if you haven't. At the end of the day, small differences in performance aren't worth worrying about if the results you get are good enough.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sold the 500PF and all my Nikon gear when the Z9 was revealed as its 1.3 kg weight, though fine for many, would be too much for me. The Z9 is a good piece of kit, and from birding experts I know who have used both it is roughly equivalent to the R5. I have done dozens of comparisons of the RF 100-500mm with TCs versus the NIkon 500PF with TCs. The Nikon 1.4x is similar to the Canon but how many even bother to use a Nikon 2xTC it's so bad? The Canon RF 2x is really good and what you lose with diffraction with Canon at 1000mm f/14 with the RF 2x you gain far more in resolution, and it resolves better than the 500PF with a 1.4xTC at 700mm f/8 - give it a try if you haven't. At the end of the day, small differences in performance aren't worth worrying about if the results you get are good enough.


I hear you on the tradeoffs. Nikon let us down with the bulk of the Z9, and while Canon nailed the weight and size of the R3, it blew it--at least for wildlife shooters--on resolution.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty much all in on Nikon for birding. To be precise, I'm shooting two systems. The 100-500 is the best long zoom ever, and it is and will remain my go-to outdoor sports lens, at least until my 400 2.8 TC arrives. I love a big-aperture lens for wild life, but 400mm is too short. The built-in TC that takes me to 560mm at the flick of a switch is a near-perfect solution to my dilemma. I suppose that I will add a 2x TC (the Z version of the Nikon TC, by contrast, is excellent) to it to give me access to 800 and 1120mm. Frankly, I'd rather shoot 1120 at f/8 than 1000 at f/14. And if the 800mm pf is sufficiently compact, light-weight, and affordable (I'm hoping for $8000, but I may still go for it if it's under $10,000), it could be my "lightweight" birding option.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wrote your car analogy was wrong, and it most certainly is - the car protection works by having a sacrificial crumple zone. I also wrote that the RF 100-500mm has the rubber internal protection so I assumed nothing of the sort.


Well, we don't agree then. I still believe that the new composite material used is superior to previous metal casings when it comes to protecting the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Well, we don't agree then. I still believe that the new composite material used is superior to previous metal casings when it comes to protecting the lens.


I haven't said anything about whether the new composite material is any better or worse than metal castings. So what do we not agree about? Are you confusing my posts with someone else's?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2022)

Billybob said:


> I hear you on the tradeoffs. Nikon let us down with the bulk of the Z9, and while Canon nailed the weight and size of the R3, it blew it--at least for wildlife shooters--on resolution.
> 
> Nonetheless, I'm pretty much all in on Nikon for birding. To be precise, I'm shooting two systems. The 100-500 is the best long zoom ever, and it is and will remain my go-to outdoor sports lens, at least until my 400 2.8 TC arrives. I love a big-aperture lens for wild life, but 400mm is too short. The built-in TC that takes me to 560mm at the flick of a switch is a near-perfect solution to my dilemma. I suppose that I will add a 2x TC (the Z version of the Nikon TC, by contrast, is excellent) to it to give me access to 800 and 1120mm. Frankly, I'd rather shoot 1120 at f/8 than 1000 at f/14. And if the 800mm pf is sufficiently compact, light-weight, and affordable (I'm hoping for $8000, but I may still go for it if it's under $10,000), it could be my "lightweight" birding option.


It's all a trade off. I like travelling light when hiking and safari/nature holidays. I also do insects as well as birds and need longer lenses that can focus close. The zooms do this exceptionally well, and the 500PF gets somewhere there. I'm also paranoid about having everything backed up for travel: two sets of chargers, cables, bodies and lenses etc. So, my simple solution for this is for my wife and I to have two Canon bodies, two telephoto zooms, with both sets of chargers, cables, batteries etc. If I was going on a specific activity that would benefit from a prime or going to a rain forest I would take a wider prime.


----------



## masterpix (Mar 7, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!


I got my F1N for 495$... but even with a time machine, I can go back but then there were no RF lenses...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 8, 2022)

Otara said:


> Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.
> 
> It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.


I totally understand that, having shot both OVF and EVF camera bodies. Though the image in an EVF in low light is visible, looks grainy like the picture would, and looks like [email protected], but that's another matter lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 8, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Think you missed the RF-extended vs RF-retracted vs long EF.lens part.


Nope, all factors considered, an extendable lens is at its weakest when extended, otherwise its like talking about the crash safety of a car when it's garaged and never driven, well, almost... That would only be a valid argument if the RF 70-200 was never extended and only used as a 70mm prime, a highly unlikely scenario.


----------



## InVision (Mar 11, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.
> 
> They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.


***
There is the Football World Cup in November which is a major sporting event that Canon may line up the R1's release for. Yes the R3 is being marketed as the Sports/Photojournalists camera but we know the 1 series bodies always do everything that that little bit better so the R1 is likely to be the turbo-charged R3 , and I'm sure Canon will want their flagship on the sidelines. 
***


----------

