# An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 12, 2019)

> We have been told that Canon is working on an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM equivalent for the RF mount, though the lens may not have a matching focal length range.
> We have been told on more than one occasion that Canon is working on an RF 200-500mm L zoom and that we could see it in late 2020.
> The same source says that the long-rumoured EF supertelephoto zoom development was killed off “quite some time ago” as focus on new lens designs moves to the RF mount.



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Aug 12, 2019)

Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2019)

Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 12, 2019)

A RF 200-500 would have me sold as all my wildlife photos from rabbits, foxes to bears and eagles all start at least 200mm and then go into the 300 and 300 cropped by 50%. f/5.6 in the £4000 range would be a good lens I could take everywhere. Or another f/4.0 monster with a teleconverter built in like the 200-400 in the stupid money range is fine too.


----------



## mpmark (Aug 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).



your comment is extremely confusing, the 100-400 is not in the same category as a 70-200. Thats a different lens and purpose all together. Every person that owns the current 100-400 ii is itching for a longer focal length and I highly doubt it will be a push pull like the mk1, not sure why you say that.

If they go to 500 5.6 then many will be happy, including me!


----------



## ozturert (Aug 12, 2019)

100-500mm? Would be excellent.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 12, 2019)

2020? Canon is too slow. A 500mm 5.6 would also sell well. Hopefully, a sports and wildlife mirrorless is coming soon.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 12, 2019)

What will be the dynamic range and megapixel count?.. oh wait...


----------



## ToonD (Aug 12, 2019)

> Hopefully, a sports and wildlife mirrorless is coming soon.



Yes please, but I don't think that is realistic at the moment. First the 1DX mk III im 2020 and then maybe 2 years later a mirrorless version of the 1DX. By that time there should be some long, fast glass available for sportshooters.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 12, 2019)

I care more about getting the RF 100-400 than I do getting a high-res/pro R body. Glad to finally hear it mentioned.



Hector1970 said:


> Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).



100-400 II is not push-pull, that was the first version. But I agree, not having 100-200 would be a big loss for us non-wildlife shooters.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D


Yeah! You're right. We've waited so long for the EF100-400 II. The RF fraction should wait much longer 


Now back on topic:
Will be interesting, what Canon R&D can deliver here...


----------



## DanCarr (Aug 12, 2019)

Yeah I’d be happy with a 100-500 but a 200-500 would be a far more wildlife focussed lens than a 100-400. I use my 100-400 at the short end of the zoom a lot for mountain landscapes and it pairs really well with a 24-70 for a two lens kit. If it was an RF 200-500 I’d feel like I have to carry the 70-200 as well to fill in that gap.

I guess I can still use the Ef 100-400, I know that, but hey if you’re going to pick a side in the mirrorless wars then you want to be able to use the new lenses. After all, the lens designs that are possible with the new mount are the best reason for moving to mirrorless as far as I can see.

Btw, where is the rf 1.4x extender rumour? There must be one in the pipeline for the 70-200, no?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 12, 2019)

ozturert said:


> 100-500mm? Would be excellent.


<Looking for an adjective which means even more than excellent...
What about GAAAHHHH !


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 12, 2019)

I would love a 200-600mm to compete with Sony's.


----------



## degos (Aug 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great



How would they shorten it like the 70-200 when the 100-400 is already ... a collapsing telescopic zoom?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 12, 2019)

Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 12, 2019)

Nikon has a 200-500, a 500 f5.6, and an excellent 300 f4. I bought a Canon 300 f4 last year, it is excellent, but old design and IS could be improved. Nikon is a small company, Canon is large. I am sure there are reasons I am unaware of, but dont understand why Canon let Nikon have the market for advanced amateurs with no response to updated equipment, maybe with the exception of the excellent 100-400. I’ve never had any focus issues and will not buy a third party lens because of all the focus issues I hear about. Canon equipment is very good, but could be so much better. When I got back into photography and wanted digital, Canon was far advanced over Nikon. Canon has the idea “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I better like the idea “if it ain’t broke, improve it”. Rant over.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 12, 2019)

The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.


----------



## slclick (Aug 12, 2019)

djack41 said:


> 2020? Canon is too slow. A 500mm 5.6 would also sell well. Hopefully, a sports and wildlife mirrorless is coming soon.


smh


----------



## flip314 (Aug 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D





djack41 said:


> 2020? Canon is too slow.



People will be using the EF big whites for at least the next decade, the end of next year is fast enough.

Plus, if it was released now people would just complain that the bodies aren't good enough to use it on (Like they have with the 28-70 f2, the 50 f1.2, the 85 f1.2, and nearly every other lens that's come out).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2019)

flip314 said:


> ...people would just complain...


Yes. Yes, they will.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 12, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.



I bet you’re getting some amazing shots! Have you been to North Seymour Island? That place was incredible!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 12, 2019)

200-500/600 would be amazing! Just hope they keep the price down a bit!


----------



## slclick (Aug 12, 2019)

flip314 said:


> People will be using the EF big whites for at least the next decade, the end of next year is fast enough.
> 
> Plus, if it was released now people would just complain that the bodies aren't good enough to use it on (Like they have with the 28-70 f2, the 50 f1.2, the 85 f1.2, and nearly every other lens that's come out).


Guess what slow gets you? It gets you the best AF dslr lens selection with very few competitors in most areas and lens sizes. It gets you fair prices, it gets you great service and in quite a few cases, best in class build quality.


----------



## N-VB (Aug 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Late 2020... why not... 2050? :-D


It's a well known problem, any company have unlimited ressources and unlimited well trained staff ... they are just lazy


----------



## dick ranez (Aug 12, 2019)

This lens has been rumored for at least two years. I'm tired of waiting, so the new Tamron 150-600 is the winner. Haven't ever bought a lens that wasn't Canon before, (for my canon Systems) but that's long enough.


----------



## LensFungus (Aug 12, 2019)

I'm a little bit sad that they killed the long rumored EF 100-600mm or 200-500mm (I guess that was the so called supertelephoto zoom lens from the article).


----------



## masterpix (Aug 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).


I think that they are aiming to have a "quartet RF" 11mm-24mm, 24mm-70mm, 70mm-200mm and 200mm-500mm, which, to me, sound like a good plan when it will come together.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Aug 12, 2019)

degos said:


> How would they shorten it like the 70-200 when the 100-400 is already ... a collapsing telescopic zoom?



The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.

Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.


----------



## PCM-madison (Aug 12, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.
> 
> Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.


I have the RF 24-105 F4 L IS and EF 24-105 F4 L IS v1 and they are almost exactly the same size.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Aug 12, 2019)

PCM-madison said:


> I have the RF 24-105 F4 L IS and EF 24-105 F4 L IS v1 and they are almost exactly the same size.



The RF version is about 1/2" smaller and 1/4 lb lighter than the mk. II EF that I had for comparison. I didn't realize that the mk. II was that much larger than its predecessor. I looked up the specs though, and you're right. Nearly same size, and it turns out the Mk. I was actually an ounce or so lighter than the RF. Was very impressed by the RF lens in service, though. (I had it and an RP for a week on a rental, my only complaint was that I had to send them back.)

Its definitely incorrect for me to say that the size difference is across the board though - the RF 50mm f/1.2 is dang near twice the size and twice the weight of its EF equivalent.


----------



## Tom W (Aug 12, 2019)

200-500 f/5.6 IS and a 1.4X teleconverter would make a very good birding kit.
Especially with a pretty fast sporty body.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 12, 2019)

dick ranez said:


> This lens has been rumored for at least two years. I'm tired of waiting, so the new Tamron 150-600 is the winner. Haven't ever bought a lens that wasn't Canon before, (for my canon Systems) but that's long enough.


 Two years? even before RF was announced? Good rumor!


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Aug 12, 2019)

Completely agree
24-70 and 100-400 is my backpacking 2 lens combo 
I love the idea of a 200-500 as well but the 100-400 announcement will be exciting.

Now please announce a high speed body with autofocus improvements and mirrorless.
I’m not interested in any 5Dsr variant.



DanCarr said:


> Yeah I’d be happy with a 100-500 but a 200-500 would be a far more wildlife focussed lens than a 100-400. I use my 100-400 at the short end of the zoom a lot for mountain landscapes and it pairs really well with a 24-70 for a two lens kit. If it was an RF 200-500 I’d feel like I have to carry the 70-200 as well to fill in that gap.
> 
> I guess I can still use the Ef 100-400, I know that, but hey if you’re going to pick a side in the mirrorless wars then you want to be able to use the new lenses. After all, the lens designs that are possible with the new mount are the best reason for moving to mirrorless as far as I can see.
> 
> Btw, where is the rf 1.4x extender rumour? There must be one in the pipeline for the 70-200, no?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).



At the moment, they have that lens in EF mount and you can use it with an adapter. To my mind, it makes more sense to developer lenses that add to the system first.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 12, 2019)

FWIW, the EF 100-400 mkii works very well with an adapter on my RP. But, it is a bit long and hand-holding is not quit the same experience as it is on my 5D mkiv. If an RF 100-400 were released, I'd need to consider it.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 12, 2019)

JPAZ said:


> FWIW, the EF 100-400 mkii works very well with an adapter on my RP. But, it is a bit long and hand-holding is not quit the same experience as it is on my 5D mkiv. If an RF 100-400 were released, I'd need to consider it.


Yes,

I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.

For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes. Yes, they will.


If they could just get people to quit peeing in their corn flakes every morning, they might have better attitudes. Most of the complainers will never be buyers anyway. Personally, I am praying for a 70-135 f/2... but that may never be a lens made. Until then, I have my sights set on the RF 85mm f/1.2, or a fast 135. It will take me a couple of years to raise the money anyway, so no rush or complaint here. I'll make do with my lowly 28-70 until then.  And my fast vintage manual focus lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes,
> 
> I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.
> 
> For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!


Exactly. Canon done good.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 13, 2019)

masterpix said:


> I think that they are aiming to have a "quartet RF" 11mm-24mm, 24mm-70mm, 70mm-200mm and 200mm-500mm, which, to me, sound like a good plan when it will come together.



Hopefully all at f2.8, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 came out over a decade ago and nothing has replaced it yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.


Sorry, but it’s not reasonable at all. First, the RF 24-105 wasn’t significantly shorter, and the RF 50/1.2 is a helluva lot bigger (both of which were discussed above). 

But for the 70-200 you’re missing a key point — the RF 70-200/2.8 is substantially shorter than the EF version because the RF lens is an extending design, an inner barrel extends as you zoom, just like the RF/EF 24-105 , the EF 70-300L, and many other zoom lenses. The EF 70-200 lenses are all fixed length, non-extending lenses. The reason the RF lens is shorter is that extending design — when zoomed to 200mm, the RF lens is actually a bit longer than the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, such that the sensor-to-front-element distance is about the same for RF and EF. 

The EF 100-400 already has an extending design (that was the point @degos made), so there’s no reason to think an RF version will be shorter (but good reason to think it’ll be 20-25mm longer).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes,
> 
> I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.
> 
> For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!


... And make use of the filter adapter on the 11-24!

Jack


----------



## slclick (Aug 13, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Hopefully all at f2.8, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 came out over a decade ago and nothing has replaced it yet.


What has been replaced? Besides many tripods....Torn ligaments and shoulder ball and sockets. 34.6 pound lens.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What will be the dynamic range and megapixel count?.. oh wait...


It better have two card slots or...wait for it...CANON IS *******!1!!11!1!!


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 13, 2019)

Interesting. Why not a 200-500mm lens, since many of us already have a 70-200mm...


----------



## Saitir (Aug 13, 2019)

There's only one reason to think it's 'too late', and that's missing the huge PR opportunity of a real pro R body and a lens like this for the Tokyo Olympics next summer. Of course they just have to announce it and have test copies in the hands of a few select individuals. But if anyone thinks there's not a PR battle to be won by the Japanese camera companies over the Olympics they've missed the point.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes. Yes, they will.





N-VB said:


> It's a well known problem, any company have unlimited ressources and unlimited well trained staff ... they are just lazy



When a rumor about the 600mm f/5.6 PF was posted on Nikom rumors, someone complained he doesn't understand "why bring out a new telephoto lens when they can't even fill in the orders for the one that came out (500mm)?"


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes,
> 
> I must admit that if I were starting now into FF Canon cameras, that I would be trying to get as little EF glass as possible. R mount glass is the way to go! That said, it is going to take ten years to get where they are now with EF.
> 
> For those of us who were already well equipped with EF glass, making the R compatible through an adapter was an insanely smart way to go. We can transition over to the new system with every single Canon lens (and the vast bulk of 3rd party lenses) working. This is how you keep customers loyal!



Now that I have the CPL adapter I'm a bit more inclined to consider EF lenses before looking at RF lenses.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> At the moment, they have that lens in EF mount and you can use it with an adapter. To my mind, it makes more sense to developer lenses that add to the system first.
> [/QUOTe
> 
> What lenses would you prefer Canon produce that add more value to the system? Your comment about using the adaptor applies to the entire lineup of EF lenses. Or are you suggesting the 200-500 instead of the 100-400? Personally, I would like to see them complete the lineup of zooms for the RF mount that covers 16mm-400mm.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available.


In fact, I do meet a lot of Nikonians with Nikons 200-500 when I go birding. Looks like Nikon has regained some potential Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lens users back with that lens. But I guess that Canon will not come up with a completely new designed wildlife lens for the R system first, an R version of the very good 100-400 is most probable.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.


Interesting to read, since I met this year quite a lot of Nikon 200-500mm users when I go birding. But I know from my wife's Nikon gear that Nikonians generally have to live with a not so brilliant AF system , Nikon's highly acclaimed 3D tracking doesn't really work well with many birds in real life photography (soft feathery contours etc.).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 13, 2019)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Nikon has a 200-500, a 500 f5.6, and an excellent 300 f4.


Did Nikon finally tackle their problem with de-centered lenses in their 300 f/4 VR? See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/

Decentered lenses seemed to be really a problem with Nikon gear in the past years. My wife decided to get a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens and not a Nikon 500mm f/4 VR in 2012, after she read a rare and thorough lab review of long tele lenses in a German photozine. It revealed that most of their tested Nikon lens copies suffered from de-centered lenses. Canon's and Sigma's lenses in that review were all nicely centered. My wife was already unhappy about her latest Nikon gear from the digital age, because of a lot of failures she didn't ever experience with her older analogue Nikon gear, including her faulty Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S lens (needed two AF drive replacements so far). It turned out, that my Canon gear is much more durable and reliable, when used in rugged environments (birding, wildlife).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 13, 2019)

JPAZ said:


> FWIW, the EF 100-400 mkii works very well with an adapter on my RP. But, it is a bit long and hand-holding is not quit the same experience as it is on my 5D mkiv. If an RF 100-400 were released, I'd need to consider it.



My guess is that they will choose an optical design that balances well with the body it is designed for. The mkiii versions of both the 600 f4 mk and 400mm f2.8 have advantages over the mkii in that respect.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 13, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Hopefully all at f2.8, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 came out over a decade ago and nothing has replaced it yet.



That’s because it’s about £20,000 used and rediculous.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but it’s not reasonable at all. First, the RF 24-105 wasn’t significantly shorter, and the RF 50/1.2 is a helluva lot bigger (both of which were discussed above).
> 
> But for the 70-200 you’re missing a key point — the RF 70-200/2.8 is substantially shorter than the EF version because the RF lens is an extending design, an inner barrel extends as you zoom, just like the RF/EF 24-105 , the EF 70-300L, and many other zoom lenses. The EF 70-200 lenses are all fixed length, non-extending lenses. The reason the RF lens is shorter is that extending design — when zoomed to 200mm, the RF lens is actually a bit longer than the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, such that the sensor-to-front-element distance is about the same for RF and EF.
> 
> The EF 100-400 already has an extending design (that was the point @degos made), so there’s no reason to think an RF version will be shorter (but good reason to think it’ll be 20-25mm longer).



From my understanding, the RF 100-400 is likely to be longer than the current ef version. The focal length is measured from the sensor / film plane. The lack of a mirror box flange actually makes telephoto lenses longer than DSLR lenses of the same focal length....ie 35mm longer. Lens designers can mitigate this a bit...but too much and it will effect image quality. 
Mirrorless is great for wide lens designs because there isn't a need for DSLR style retro-focus formulas. But with telephoto designs...DSLR has a mechanical advantage. 

I think there is a market for both the 100-400 and 200-500. The latter being bought by photographers who want a long lens to augment their existing f2.8 zoom trinity. The 100-400 is more useful to the f4 zoom community (16-35 F4 LIS / 24-105 f4 LIS)

I see a lot of 100-400L on wild life workshops...which is a testament to how versatile this lens range is. It's the combination of reach, AF speed, IS and handling weight. Depending on how large the 200-500L would be compared to the existing 100-400L is the deal / no deal question. Add to the fact that Canon have already sold a LOT of 100-400L's...a lot of photographers feel that they already have this focal length covered.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2019)

My guess is an ultra wide zoom first, then a long 200 to something, and finally a 70 to 200


----------



## HankMD (Aug 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.


These look pretty sharp to me: 








Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR


Explore this photo album by O'Summer on Flickr!




www.flickr.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Would be strange if they didn’t produce a 100-400. It’s a very practical focal length. 200-500 is good for birders but I’d prefer the 100-200 range to be available. If they could shorten it up like the 70-200 it would be great but I’d assume it would a push pull like the 100-400 II (which is a great lens - if it were constant F4 would be even handier but would add a lot of weight).



100-400 MII is NOT a pus pull.


----------



## neonlight (Aug 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> That’s because it’s about £20,000 used and rediculous.


... and, from reviews I have read, does not give £20,000 performance.


----------



## 12Broncos (Aug 13, 2019)

Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'


Because what *you* are looking for is not necessarily what others are looking for.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2019)

Personally, I'd love to have a 200-500 f5.6. There are lots of other lenses to cover the 100-200 mm length and if I am shooting something that needs a 500 mm focal length, I'm unlikely to need anything shorter than 200 anyway. I'm also in no hurry because before I commit that kind of money to an RF lens, I want to see what direction the R system is heading, as I could not use it on my DSLRs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'


Because if Canon said it, it would sound even more asinine than you saying it.


----------



## BillB (Aug 13, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> Why doesn't Canon just come out and say, 'What you're looking for is not going to come out for the next eight years. Everything you're not looking for like a 'Handy lens cap for the 70-300mm' will be announced tomorrow, maybe today if we're ambitious.'


Well, a lot of people are going to find a lot to like in what Canon puts out over the new few years, if experience is any guide. Why should Canon say there may be some people who won't like anything we produce for the next eight years?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 13, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> 100-400 MII is NOT a pus pull.


It sort of is if you loosen it. It’s a good design as it’s also twist.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2019)

My 2 cents worth. 500 is not really long enough for smaller birds in many circumstances. My former 300 2.8 2 was super sharp and I miss it a little but it seldom got used at 300. At 420 it has hardly any more useful except perhaps BIF, so the 1.4X was seldom used. 2X lived on the lens and the results overall were very decent but 600 was not really enough in many cases.

Having moved to 400 DO 2, the 1.4X becomes much more useful and is an option for BIF. Still, 2X lives on my lens and other than the F8, that pairing is great in most birding circumstances.

If 500 wasn't bigger and heavier I think that would be even better but I'm confident that 1.4X and 2X would be on the lens a lot because IMHO 500 is not enough. There is an advantage now since sensor resolutions allow more cropping but locking on a birds eye when the subject is _too small in the frame_, or even finding it, can be challenging. Of course there is also the challenge of finding subjects when the FOV is too narrow but this gets rectified to some extent by practice.

For me a super heavy lens is out of the question since it eliminates too many opportunities and turns into a burden hiking. I'm sure there are circumstances where a long lens/fixed tripod setup is fine but it's not for me since I prefer mobility.

Jack


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 13, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> Did Nikon finally tackle their problem with de-centered lenses in their 300 f/4 VR? See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/
> 
> Decentered lenses seemed to be really a problem with Nikon gear in the past years. My wife decided to get a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens and not a Nikon 500mm f/4 VR in 2012, after she read a rare and thorough lab review of long tele lenses in a German photozine. It revealed that most of their tested Nikon lens copies suffered from de-centered lenses. Canon's and Sigma's lenses in that review were all nicely centered. My wife was already unhappy about her latest Nikon gear from the digital age, because of a lot of failures she didn't ever experience with her older analogue Nikon gear, including her faulty Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S lens (needed two AF drive replacements so far). It turned out, that my Canon gear is much more durable and reliable, when used in rugged environments (birding, wildlife).


Wow, didn’t know that. I have had excellent reliability with all my gear and do trust it a bit better than I would with Nikon.


----------



## amorse (Aug 13, 2019)

I'm not surprised there's a rumour of a super zoom. It makes so much more sense on RF than EF for Canon:

Canon doesn't seem to want to make lenses slower than f/5.6 for EF considering focusing limitations (which could be necessary at the long end) - not an issue for RF
There's loads of competition in the space for EF from Sigma and Tamron at very competitive prices - creating a lens in RF before those manufactures can navigate the RF mount protocols gives Canon a closed market where the considerable price may be more palatable 
It may be a budget lens compared to other big white lenses, but I really doubt it will be cheap when compared to comparable lenses from Tamron and Sigma (as is tradition). I guess we'll see what kind of balance Canon can strike between IQ and price when there's no other RF super zooms. I'm sure it will be a killer lens in the end.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It sort of is if you loosen it. It’s a good design as it’s also twist.



All twist do the push pull if you do that. my 24-105 does that.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 13, 2019)

For me, the real question is will it be f5.6 or f6.3 at the long end..?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> For me, the real question is will it be f5.6 or f6.3 at the long end..?


Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...


----------



## Kit. (Aug 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...


For "honest" 400mm, it's 71.4 mm bokeh ball vs 63.5 mm. The difference is not big, but could be noticeable without pixel peeping.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> My 2 cents worth. 500 is not really long enough for smaller birds in many circumstances. My former 300 2.8 2 was super sharp and I miss it a little but it seldom got used at 300. At 420 it has hardly any more useful except perhaps BIF, so the 1.4X was seldom used. 2X lived on the lens and the results overall were very decent but 600 was not really enough in many cases.
> 
> Having moved to 400 DO 2, the 1.4X becomes much more useful and is an option for BIF. Still, 2X lives on my lens and other than the F8, that pairing is great in most birding circumstances.
> 
> ...


To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.


----------



## Cryve (Aug 13, 2019)

HankMD said:


> These look pretty sharp to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You cant really tell from those pictures unless they are uploaded in full size. While most people are happy with a picture that looks good on the web, some people like to print big or just enjoy really sharp fotos. if the canon 200-500 is an L lens you should be able to expect even greater sharpnes than the 200-500. this is my sigma 150-600 sport on a canon 80d crop body. still i could use a little bit more sharpness. canon L 200-500 glass would provide that.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Aug 13, 2019)

I'm sure the RF version of this lens will be fantastic....version II of the 100-400 is a great lens. Since there isn't a camera out yet that I would like to use in the RF mount I can wait and continue using the current one with my 5DS. Best news is my Sony 200-600 arrived last friday and I no longer need to worry if Canon is going to come out with something similar.


----------



## Cryve (Aug 13, 2019)

stochasticmotions said:


> I'm sure the RF version of this lens will be fantastic....version II of the 100-400 is a great lens. Since there isn't a camera out yet that I would like to use in the RF mount I can wait and continue using the current one with my 5DS. Best news is my Sony 200-600 arrived last friday and I no longer need to worry if Canon is going to come out with something similar.


 What camera are you using the 200-600 on? how is the sharpness compared to other tele lenses you own?
im curious about how good sony is at the moment.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Aug 13, 2019)

Cryve said:


> What camera are you using the 200-600 on? how is the sharpness compared to other tele lenses you own?
> im curious about how good sony is at the moment.


I'm using it mostly on the A7III but will also use the A7RII. So far the autofocus on the A7III is excellent, definitely better than using the 100-400 with the teleconverter (and that was still much better than my Canon for tracking). I haven't had much of a chance yet to test the sharpness against the 100-400 (or the canon) but will try to in the next week or so before I head out to Vancouver Island and will hopefully get some real world use of it. First few shots seem better than either canon or sony 100-400 with 1.4 teleconverter which is my main use case. I doubt it will be quit as sharp as either native lens but we shall see if the difference is noticeable.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.


Absolutely

And not just birders. Anyone who wants to cover a decent distance and not carry a boat anchor.

It's like the mysterious light, cheap, stable tripod. Or the elusive jackalope.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...


Yes definitely! What focal lengths are you referring to?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...


A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective. 
Or...

High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.


Which reminds me a tripod may be any 2 out of the following 3:

Sturdy, Light, Cheap


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Yes definitely! What focal lengths are you referring to?



Any of them. 1/3-stop makes about a 10% difference in the DoF, which is essentially imperceptible.



SecureGSM said:


> A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective.
> Or...
> 
> High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).



As above. Obviously there's a quantifiable difference, but a practical one? No.

From the bokeh quality wide open perspective, was this shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4?



Which of the two images below was shot at ISO 4800, and which has the image quality degradation that is evident at ISO 6400? (Note: same camera for the two images.)





When you look at files from the EOS M5 and the EOS M100, can you tell that the M100 has 1/3-stop more DR at ISO 100? The 5DIV has a diffraction-limited aperture of f/8.6, if you take an image at f/9 vs. f/10, will you see the difference in sharpness?

These effects — bokeh, DoF, image noise, diffraction — change gradually, there is no 'cliff' at which the images transition from good to bad. The magnitude of change with 1/3 of a stop is just not that great.

About the only situation where I think 1/3-stop can make a practical difference is shutter speed, for example 1/2000 s may not be fast enough to freeze the wingtip motion of a bird in flight, whereas 1/2500 s may do so.

I'll post quiz answers tomorrow...


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.






AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.



Yeah, but you're talking about actually taking photographs, not spec sheet wars.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.
> 
> Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.



You do realize the RF 70-200 is an extending barrel design that will be just as long as the EF 70-200/2.8 at 200mm?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> Interesting. Why not a 200-500mm lens, since many of us already have a 70-200mm...



Mostly because a lot of 100-400mm users don't see the need for 70-100mm in their bag, nor do they want to spend what 200-500 will cost for the same speed as the 100-400/4.5-5.6. 500/5.6 adds 18mm over 400/5.6 to the diameter of the front lens element. When that is figured into three dimensions for lens elements that require more correction to give the same image quality, that translates into a lot of extra weight and glass and cost.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2019)

HankMD said:


> These look pretty sharp to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really when compared to the best of these:









Flickr Search — “EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II”







www.flickr.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective.
> Or...
> 
> High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).



The differences in bokeh (bokeh is defined as the way the out of focus highlights look, not how much is blurred) between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS are due to the difference in lens design, mostly those related to flat field correction, not the sizes of the respective maximum apertures.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Any of them. 1/3-stop makes about a 10% difference in the DoF, which is essentially imperceptible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow... ok. 

Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference. 
I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 14, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Wow... ok.
> 
> Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference.
> I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
> You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.


It might be worth circling back and remembering that the original comment referenced the difference between an f5.6 and f6.3 500mm zoom lens. The argument you are having has no relevance to this thread or even to the original comment. Two grown men getting into a measurebating contest over the internet is of interest only to the participants. Can we move on please?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It might be worth circling back and remembering that the original comment referenced the difference between an f5.6 and f6.3 500mm zoom lens. The argument you are having has no relevance to this thread or even to the original comment. Two grown men getting into a measurebating contest over the internet is of interest only to the participants. Can we move on please?


Here is the original statement. Complete :

“Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...”

But sure... it never does. Why do they even build those silly f1.2 lenses. Should have stoped at F1.4. Silly people. There is no difference. Right? 


There is no argument. But my comment is strictly on-topic and has clear relevance to the original comment. As per above.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2019)

Without looking back, I suspect that there may be a context to consider in the original comment, but whatever. 

Personally, I'm interested in knowing more about just how much difference there is visibly and if possible, seeing real life illustrations. After all, if I were spending big bucks on, for example, a 50 1.2 vs. a 1.4 I'd like to know what the money was going for other than my ego while in public.

Relative to a 500 lens I'd also be interested although it's more unlikely I'd be in the predicament of making the choice as originally commented on. I like the idea of learning practical stuff on CR. However, I also don't like it when personal conflicts enter the picture so am not pushing in that direction.

Jack


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 14, 2019)

To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.
Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2019)

BroncosFan said:


> To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.


I don't feel forced at all. EF to R compatibility was taken care of nicely as I experienced when my daughter used my 70-200 on my, now her, R. And I get to use the filter adapter for my EF 11-24 by borrowing her camera.  Sure there are always some irritants in any moves such as this but I'm still a Canon fan.

Jack


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Not really when compared to the best of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really? Those Nikon shots don't look sharp to you? Personally I see no difference between the two, certainly not $900 difference.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 14, 2019)

BroncosFan said:


> To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.
> Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.



First, never confuse rumors with fact. A rumor that Canon _might_ release a 200-500 RF mount lens is just a rumor. It's too early for anyone to get their panties in a twist. 

Second, don't believe what a handful of loudmouths on the internet scream. I'd like to see that survey of camera customers who believe Canon is not keeping up with technology. 

Third, Canon is not forcing anyone into mirrorless, nor are they forcing anyone to purchase new lenses. All EF lenses work just fine with R cameras and the future of Canon's DSLR line is in the hands of consumers, not Canon. They are offering an option, and time will tell if the market moves to mirrorless over DSLRs.

Fourth, if a 200-500 RF lens materializes, that does not preclude Canon from offering a 200-500 EF lens in the future if there is a demand for it.

Fifth, size is the least important improvement of the R over DSLRs. The biggest improvement in my own personal experience is the ability to move autofocus points anywhere you want using a simple thumb swipe. There are other improvements, such as silent shutter, but the most significant one and the one that has me most enthusiastic about the R is the intuitive touchscreen focus.


----------



## ozturert (Aug 14, 2019)

BroncosFan said:


> Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.



Here is one substantial improvement in RF bodies: Perfect single AF. Perfect. No back-front focus, the RF cameras just nail the focus every time. I can use 85mm f1.2L II without thinking twice on EOS R. I was trying to take several photos with 5D IV to make sure to get a sharp photo.
Here's another improvement: Much better shutter system (zero shutter shock due to mirror). Even though Canon introduced motorized shutter, the mirror still creates micro shakes. In EOS RF bodies I see no shake (at least Eos R).


----------



## streestandtheatres (Aug 15, 2019)

All I want is a 400 5.6 IS. Ever hopeful.


----------



## tron (Aug 15, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Here is one substantial improvement in RF bodies: Perfect single AF. Perfect. No back-front focus, the RF cameras just nail the focus every time. I can use 85mm f1.2L II without thinking twice on EOS R. I was trying to take several photos with 5D IV to make sure to get a sharp photo.
> Here's another improvement: Much better shutter system (zero shutter shock due to mirror). Even though Canon introduced motorized shutter, the mirror still creates micro shakes. In EOS RF bodies I see no shake (at least Eos R).


I had similar issues with my 85mm 1.2L II so I replaced it with 85mm 1.4L IS. Although I didn't have the chance to use it a lot I did not encounter any focusing issue with my 5DIV and 5DsR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Here is the original statement. Complete :
> 
> “Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...”
> There is no argument. But my comment is strictly on-topic and has clear relevance to the original comment. As per above.


Not complete. You ignored the fact that my response quoted an earlier post stating, “_The real question is will [the rumored 100-400 / 200-500 telezoom] be f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the long end._” That is the context to which @unfocused was referring, and your reply was thus out of context.

Nevertheless, I opted to respond because 1/3-stop is...1/3-stop. It’s just not that significant, generally speaking.




SecureGSM said:


> But sure... it never does. Why do they even build those silly f1.2 lenses. Should have stoped at F1.4. Silly people. There is no difference. Right?



Yes, silly people who made a 50mm f/1.0, but then replaced it with a 50mm f/1.2. It’s such a tremendous difference those silly people who did that were likely summarily fired in disgrace.

It’s reasonably likely that Canon makes f/1.2 lenses because others didn’t. Marketing is powerful, for example it’s likely a big part of the reasons the 5Ds had 50 MP and the a7RIV has 61 MP.




SecureGSM said:


> Wow... ok.
> 
> Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference.
> I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
> You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.


Sorry, I don’t feel any need to share RAW files. By not answering, you’ve quite effectively supported my point – 1/3-stop is not significant from a practical standpoint.



neuroanatomist said:


> I'll post quiz answers tomorrow...


For the curious, the bokehlicious shot was at f/1.4. The image of the squirrel was at ISO 6400, and although it appears to me that image has a bit more apparent noise, the blacksmith was shot at ISO 12,800. (Yes, I cheated. Sosumi. )


----------



## ozturert (Aug 15, 2019)

tron said:


> I had similar issues with my 85mm 1.2L II so I replaced it with 85mm 1.4L IS. Although I didn't have the chance to use it a lot I did not encounter any focusing issue with my 5DIV and 5DsR.


You may have issues if you try different 5D IV and 5Ds. Unfortunately body and lens must match to get perfect AF. I agree that newer bodies and lenses have less issues though.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not complete. You ignored the fact that my response quoted an earlier post stating, “_The real question is will [the rumored 100-400 / 200-500 telezoom] be f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the long end._” That is the context to which @unfocused was referring, and your reply was thus out of context.
> 
> Nevertheless, I opted to respond because 1/3-stop is...1/3-stop. It’s just not that significant, generally speaking.
> 
> ...



That’s fair enough, Neuro. On the other hand Unfocused commented in a pretty direct manner which i thought was quite a bit disappointing to come across. Likely was having one of those days. Never mind.
And thanks for sharing that cute squirrel shot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2019)

BroncosFan said:


> Really? Those Nikon shots don't look sharp to you? Personally I see no difference between the two, certainly not $900 difference.



I see significant differences when viewed on a 23" HD monitor. I probably wouldn't if I were viewing them on a 4-5" phone screen. But if the standard of quality is based on how it looks on a 4" phone screen, then both of these lenses are waaayyyy overkill.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2019)

streestandtheatres said:


> All I want is a 400 5.6 IS. Ever hopeful.



Good luck with that. Canon completely ignored the 400/5.6, along with the 300/4, when it did the wave of Super Telephoto "II" series in around 2012.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I see significant differences when viewed on a 23" HD monitor. I probably wouldn't if I were viewing them on a 4-5" phone screen. But if the standard of quality is based on how it looks on a 4" phone screen, then both of these lenses are waaayyyy overkill.


That's why I just bought a 32 inch 4k monitor so I can fuss and fume about the poor quality of my shots!

Jack


----------



## dcm (Aug 16, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> That's why I just bought a 32 inch 4k monitor so I can fuss and fume about the poor quality of my shots!
> 
> Jack



I'm thinking of upgrading my dual 24's to a 32. Which one did you go for?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2019)

dcm said:


> I'm thinking of upgrading my dual 24's to a 32. Which one did you go for?


BenQ PD3200U since that's about all I could afford. Owned another BenQ and was impressed so that made the decision easier and so far I love it.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2019)

BenQ are due to release an update for the photography orientated SW320, if you aren't in a desperate hurry it might be worth waiting for. I am pretty sure I am going to get one as it will have the USB-C functionality I am looking for as well as being a great photography orientated monitor with plenty of useful features.


----------



## windsorc (Aug 18, 2019)

An updated 400mm f5.6 would be even better.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2019)

windsorc said:


> An updated 400mm f5.6 would be even better.



Good luck with that. Canon completely ignored the 400/5.6, along with the 300/4, when it did the wave of Super Telephoto "II" series in around 2012.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 18, 2019)

I'd like to see a new 400mm f5.6


----------



## motofotog (Aug 18, 2019)

Why not canon make 500 f5.6 prime lens similar to what Nikon has launched.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2019)

I guess the obvious answer is the interplay of various factors - how many will they sell, how many fewer of the more expensive version will they sell, how much of their manufacturing will be tied up etc. I'm sure they have many discussions about such things and know better than us.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What will be the dynamic range and megapixel count?.. oh wait...



DR is from zero photons to whatever the radiant flux that starts melting the lens internals. For lens megapixels we'll have to wait for DxOMark results.


----------



## neonlight (Aug 20, 2019)

How many more 100-400 lenses does Canon want me to buy? I've already helped their business model with the Mk I and Mk II lenses. I probably won't be able to afford replacing all my EF stuff, but if my next body is an R I expect to be using the EF with an adapter for quite a while...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 20, 2019)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Wow, didn’t know that. I have had excellent reliability with all my gear and do trust it a bit better than I would with Nikon.


I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 20, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.


Thank you for that info. I wii check into that blog.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 21, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.


I recall some time back expressing my thoughts about the 300 2.8 II, in particular how I loved the beautiful way the collar rotates. That's an example of something that doesn't show up very often in a lens test but can be very valuable. Overall, Canon lenses are great!

Jack


----------



## gdanmitchell (Sep 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Mostly because a lot of 100-400mm users don't see the need for 70-100mm in their bag, nor do they want to spend what 200-500 will cost for the same speed as the 100-400/4.5-5.6. 500/5.6 adds 18mm over 400/5.6 to the diameter of the front lens element. When that is figured into three dimensions for lens elements that require more correction to give the same image quality, that translates into a lot of extra weight and glass and cost.


I'm sure that SOME photographers would prefer the shorter and lighter 400mm length over a 500mm maximum focal length, but I'm not so sure that MOST feel that way. 

I use and like the 100-400mm v.2 lens. It is a mainstay in my photography. But for a good portion of my use of the lens— particularly my migratory bird photography — I would find the longer range to be quite useful, even at the expense of the 100mm focal length. 

YMMV.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> I'm sure that SOME photographers would prefer the shorter and lighter 400mm length over a 500mm maximum focal length, but I'm not so sure that MOST feel that way.
> 
> I use and like the 100-400mm v.2 lens. It is a mainstay in my photography. But for a good portion of my use of the lens— particularly my migratory bird photography — I would find the longer range to be quite useful, even at the expense of the 100mm focal length.
> 
> YMMV.


The Sony forums are debating their 100-400mm vs 200-600mm, and the bigger lens is gaining traction. My personal view is that the 100-400mm is more versatile and certainly much better suited for carrying around, but in a safari jeep or more sedentary photography I'd like a 200-600mm as well. The Sony 200-600mm is really nice but it is heavy, too much so in the front, and too large. A lighter Canon equivalent would be welcome if it outperforms a Sigma 150-600mm C.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 10, 2019)

G Dan, I tend to agree that for me the short end can be handled by another lens in less critical circumstances, whereas when I need the long end I'm more often scrambling, dealing with a fleeting subject. Maybe this is just my perception. The problem I have with the longer lenses is simply weight that I can't handle when hiking and hand holding shots. While I certainly can appreciate the value of a zoom, my use scenario for the long end - 400 X1.4 but more often 400 X2 generally has me wishing for more FL not less. A second camera for shorter shooting is also and option for me since my wife is accommodating.

In other words I don't imagine I'd be wishing I could zoom out as much as zoom in.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> G Dan, I tend to agree that for me the short end can be handled by another lens in less critical circumstances, whereas when I need the long end I'm more often scrambling, dealing with a fleeting subject. Maybe this is just my perception. The problem I have with the longer lenses is simply weight that I can't handle when hiking and hand holding shots. While I certainly can appreciate the value of a zoom, my use scenario for the long end - 400 X1.4 but more often 400 X2 generally has me wishing for more FL not less. A second camera for shorter shooting is also and option for me since my wife is accommodating.
> 
> In other words I don't imagine I'd be wishing I could zoom out as much as zoom in.
> 
> Jack


Having to use long, heavier lenses is the downside of a 1DXII for bird photography. A high resolution body with shorter, lighter lenses is my solution for reach and portability but YMMV.


----------



## flip314 (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Sony forums are debating their 100-400mm vs 200-600mm, and the bigger lens is gaining traction. My personal view is that the 100-400mm is more versatile and certainly much better suited for carrying around, but in a safari jeep or more sedentary photography I'd like a 200-600mm as well. The Sony 200-600mm is really nice but it is heavy, too much so in the front, and too large. A lighter Canon equivalent would be welcome if it outperforms a Sigma 150-600mm C.



On safari you get close enough to most things that 200mm is probably too long (but even 100mm might be as well). Though, there are definitely some animals that you can't get close to where the 600mm is an advantage over 400mm. I took my 80D with a 70-300 IS II, and the 480mm equivalent wasn't always as much as I would have liked. The ~112mm at the close end was often too much for close up things (especially if you want to catch them in context), so I did a fair number of lens swaps

Next time I'll bring a second body with a normal zoom and get my wife to help out with the photos.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

flip314 said:


> On safari you get close enough to most things that 200mm is probably too long (but even 100mm might be as well). Though, there are definitely some animals that you can't get close to where the 600mm is an advantage over 400mm. I took my 80D with a 70-300 IS II, and the 480mm equivalent wasn't always as much as I would have liked. The ~112mm at the close end was often too much for close up things (especially if you want to catch them in context), so I did a fair number of lens swaps
> 
> Next time I'll bring a second body with a normal zoom and get my wife to help out with the photos.


On our safari, my wife had the 100-400 zoom, I had the 400mm DO II + extenders on our FFs, and I had a 24-600mm equivalent bridge (Sony RX10IV) to cope with the close ups. If you are close or want scenes, the bridge camera is invaluable with no need to change lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 13, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> I'm sure that SOME photographers would prefer the shorter and lighter 400mm length over a 500mm maximum focal length, but I'm not so sure that MOST feel that way.
> 
> I use and like the 100-400mm v.2 lens. It is a mainstay in my photography. But for a good portion of my use of the lens— particularly my migratory bird photography — I would find the longer range to be quite useful, even at the expense of the 100mm focal length.
> 
> YMMV.



You say that you would prefer a 200-400 over the 100-400, but when it comes out priced at about $6-8K or more and weighs twice as much, will you still feel that way?

If it is priced anywhere near the same as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II then the image quality on the long end will be similar to the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron. You can crop an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II image to 600mm equivalent and still have higher resolution than using any of the 150-600mm lenses at 600mm on the same camera body. They all start getting soft past about 350-400mm. That can be overcome, such as with the $11K EF 200-400mm f/4L IS, but it comes with a steep price tag.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You say that you would prefer a 200-400 over the 100-400, but when it comes out priced at about $6-8K or more and weighs twice as much, will you still feel that way?
> 
> If it is priced anywhere near the same as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II then the image quality on the long end will be similar to the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron. You can crop an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II image to 600mm equivalent and still have higher resolution than using any of the 150-600mm lenses at 600mm on the same camera body. They all start getting soft past about 350-400mm. That can be overcome, such as with the $11K EF 200-400mm f/4L IS, but it comes with a steep price tag.



The nonlinearity is a killer with many low-L or non-L to high-L transitions - you might pay maybe 100% more for a 10% improvement in IQ. I learned that with my transition to the 300 2.8 II.  The price of trying to match the highest level photographers.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You say that you would prefer a 200-400 over the 100-400, but when it comes out priced at about $6-8K or more and weighs twice as much, will you still feel that way?
> 
> If it is priced anywhere near the same as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II then the image quality on the long end will be similar to the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron. You can crop an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II image to 600mm equivalent and still have higher resolution than using any of the 150-600mm lenses at 600mm on the same camera body. They all start getting soft past about 350-400mm. That can be overcome, such as with the $11K EF 200-400mm f/4L IS, but it comes with a steep price tag.


I have been following with much interest on FM the Sony 200-600mm, which costs about the same as the Canon 100-400mm II. It looks spectacular at 600mm and even very sharp at 1200mm. It’s been tested elsewhere vs the Sony 100-400mm and seems better where they overlap. As yet, I haven’t found any reports of independent MTF measurements. TDP has tested it and his charts are very sharp. So, it is possible to produce an affordable very high quality 200-600mm https://www.the-digital-picture.com...CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I don't like tests of just one copy of a lens but it is difficult even for TDP to make a lens sharper than it is, and there are now loads of actual images from independent bird photographers showing how good their copies are: eg https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951

By the way, my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C is very sharp and holds up well with my 100-400mm II at the centre. It has similar IQ at 400mm and at 600mm is at least as good as the 100-400mm II at 560mm with my best TC. There is copy variation and so some copies might be not so good. But, lensrentals tested 10 copies and the results are pretty good https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ I am known here to be a great fan of the 100-400mm II because it combines great IQ with great AF. It is the AF and much lighter weight that makes it my choice over the others, not so much the optics.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 14, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have been following with much interest on FM the Sony 200-600mm, which costs about the same as the Canon 100-400mm II. It looks spectacular at 600mm and even very sharp at 1200mm. It’s been tested elsewhere vs the Sony 100-400mm and seems better where they overlap. As yet, I haven’t found any reports of independent MTF measurements. TDP has tested it and his charts are very sharp. So, it is possible to produce an affordable very high quality 200-600mm https://www.the-digital-picture.com...CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> I don't like tests of just one copy of a lens but it is difficult even for TDP to make a lens sharper than it is, and there are now loads of actual images from independent bird photographers showing how good their copies are: eg https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951
> 
> By the way, my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C is very sharp and holds up well with my 100-400mm II at the centre. It has similar IQ at 400mm and at 600mm is at least as good as the 100-400mm II at 560mm with my best TC. There is copy variation and so some copies might be not so good. But, lensrentals tested 10 copies and the results are pretty good https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ I am known here to be a great fan of the 100-400mm II because it combines great IQ with great AF. It is the AF and much lighter weight that makes it my choice over the others, not so much the optics.




The original conversation was about a 500/5.6, not a 500/6.3. While 1/3 stop doesn't seem like much, the difference in entrance pupils of 90mm compared to 80mm extended to three dimensions (because front elements of lenses are three dimensional objects) results in almost 40% more glass for the front element. That's a considerable amount of weight of a fairly expensive material on the front end of the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The original conversation was about a 500/5.6, not a 500/6.3. While 1/3 stop doesn't seem like much, the difference in entrance pupils of 90mm compared to 80mm extended to three dimensions (because front elements of lenses are three dimensional objects) results in almost 40% more glass for the front element. That's a considerable amount of weight of a fairly expensive material on the front end of the lens.


The Sony is a 600/6.3, not a 500/6.3, the same as the Sigma and Tamron you dismissed as being soft, and it has a similar sized entrance pupil to a 500/5.6 with similar amounts of glass.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 14, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Sony is a 600/6.3, not a 500/6.3, the same as the Sigma and Tamron you dismissed as being soft, and it has a similar sized entrance pupil to a 500/5.6 with similar amounts of glass.



The Sigma 150-600 C is f/6.3 at 388mm and above. 
The Sigma 150-600 S is f/6.3 at 321mm and above.
The Tamron 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 428mm and above.
The older non-Global Vision Sigma 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 313mm and above.

The Sony 200-600mm is f/5.6 from 200-299mm and f/6.3 at 300mm and above.

All focal length/aperture ranges are as quoted by The-Digital-Picture.

A 500mm f/5.6 would require a larger front element than these lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The Sigma 150-600 C is f/6.3 at 388mm and above.
> The Sigma 150-600 S is f/6.3 at 321mm and above.
> The Tamron 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 428mm and above.
> The older non-Global Vision Sigma 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 313mm and above.
> ...


A 500mm f/5.6 requires a front element of 500/5.6 mm, that is 89.3mm, or greater.
A 600mm f/6.3 requires a front element of 600/6.3 mm, that is 95.3mm, or greater.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The Sigma 150-600 C is f/6.3 at 388mm and above.
> The Sigma 150-600 S is f/6.3 at 321mm and above.
> The Tamron 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 428mm and above.
> The older non-Global Vision Sigma 150-600mm is f/6.3 at 313mm and above.
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to look up all those numbers, but you needn't have bothered. All of those lenses go to 600mm. The focal length at which they become f/6.3 is irrelevant, they are f/6.3 at 600mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for taking the time to look up all those numbers, but you needn't have bothered. All of those lenses go to 600mm. The focal length at which they become f/6.3 is irrelevant, they are f/6.3 at 600mm.



Yeah, and lens makers have never, ever, not once rounded the rated f-number at the maximum focal length down from what it actually is, have they? 

Or used the two separate data fields in the Canon EF system (apparently placed there way back in 1987 to allow for tilt/shift lenses with manual aperture rings to report both their maximum and current aperture separately) to tell the camera it is an f/5.6 lens set to f/6.3 when the actual maximum entrance pupil at maximum focal length is f/6.3-f/7.  (cough - Tamron - cough, cough - Sigma - cough - Kenko - cough, cough...)


----------

