# Canon will announce the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 100-400mm next



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 31, 2021)

> Two more lenses from our long-standing RF lens roadmap are up next from Canon. There has been further confirmation from Nokishita that Canon will announce an RF 16mm f/2.8 and an RF 100-400mm telephoto zoom lens. Neither lens will be an L lens and should be quite affordable.
> I’m not sure at this time if the 16mm f/2.8 will be a pancake lens, as I continue to receive that question a lot.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2021)

Seriously so excited for the 16mm f/2.8! That along with the RF 35mm have been a dream ultra light travel combo for me for years now.


----------



## fastprime (Aug 31, 2021)

Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?


----------



## Joules (Aug 31, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?


If there is one, it is absolutely tiny.


----------



## freddobonanza (Aug 31, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?


And not from 300mm +


----------



## Andy Westwood (Aug 31, 2021)

An RF full frame 16mm f/2.8 pancake would be a fabulous lens if they can make a wide lens like that so compact, no doubt they can, or it wouldn't have been mentioned by CR


----------



## Besisika (Aug 31, 2021)

Too late, I already ordered the Laowa 15mm F2 last week. 
I hope, the 24 RF will show up soon enough. Otherwise, I will go with Sigma.


----------



## JustUs7 (Aug 31, 2021)

Any price speculation on the 16 f/2.8? Is $500 or less just crazy talk?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Any price speculation on the 16 f/2.8? Is $500 or less just crazy talk?


Yes.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

Besisika said:


> Too late, I already ordered the Laowa 15mm F2 last week.
> I hope, the 24 RF will show up soon enough. Otherwise, I will go with Sigma.


I am looking forward tot he 24mm for doing half-macro work as well!


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Any price speculation on the 16 f/2.8? Is $500 or less just crazy talk?


My guess is that it will be around €600, which matches your $500 guess, hopefully without starting yet another sales tax/VAT/warranty argument


----------



## slclick (Aug 31, 2021)

Give me the IQ of the G2 150-600 or better in the non L 100-400 and I'm in. This should be a slam dunk.


----------



## steven kessel (Aug 31, 2021)

It would be nice if Canon began shipping some of these RF lenses. Most of them are on back order and I've been waiting for weeks to receive my RF 100 f2.8 Macro


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 31, 2021)

The non L 100-400 seems to replace EF-s 55-250mm for RP and the new cheap FF model.


----------



## slclick (Aug 31, 2021)

steven kessel said:


> It would be nice if Canon began shipping some of these RF lenses. Most of them are on back order and I've been waiting for weeks to receive my RF 100 f2.8 Macro


Oh hell, we can't even get whipped cream cheese. The world is short of most everything, camera gear is waaaaaay down on the list.


----------



## fabao (Aug 31, 2021)

steven kessel said:


> It would be nice if Canon began shipping some of these RF lenses. Most of them are on back order and I've been waiting for weeks to receive my RF 100 f2.8 Macro


Weeks? I am waiting for months for my 100-500... )-;


----------



## Kit. (Aug 31, 2021)

I highly doubt that a 16mm f/2.8 FF lens with the flange distance of 20 mm can be a pancake.


----------



## AJ (Aug 31, 2021)

My guess is 900 USD for the 16/2.8


----------



## drhuffman87 (Aug 31, 2021)

I'm pretty excited about the 16mm f/2.8. I'm not holding my breath on the 100-400mm as I'm afraid it may be something silly like f/8 at 400mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

fabao said:


> Weeks? I am waiting for months for my 100-500... )-;


That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25. Lucky timing on Amazon (they show In Stock Soon when Canon notifies them to expect a shipment). Next time you see a stock notice pop up here or on CPW, check Amazon and Best Buy. For the last 100-500 bolus in mid-August, B&H didn’t get enough to fill their preorders, but Best Buy had them in stock for a few days.


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 31, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?



As previously reported, this will not be an "L" lens, so it won't be compatible.


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> The non L 100-400 seems to replace EF-s 55-250mm for RP and the new cheap FF model.


How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25. Lucky timing on Amazon (they show In Stock Soon when Canon notifies them to expect a shipment). Next time you see a stock notice pop up here or on CPW, check Amazon and Best Buy. For the last 100-500 bolus in mid-August, B&H didn’t get enough to fill their preorders, but Best Buy had them in stock for a few days.


ohhh, have you used the lens much? What kind of dog do you have btw? Is he photogenic?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 31, 2021)

steven kessel said:


> It would be nice if Canon began shipping some of these RF lenses. Most of them are on back order and I've been waiting for weeks to receive my RF 100 f2.8 Macro



Once they have to wait for parts from different suppliers, not much they can do. Might as well design new lenses.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 31, 2021)

really curious to find out close focus capabilities of both these new lenses.


----------



## nwardrip (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.


EF-S lens: 55-250mm = 88-400mm equivalent after 1.6x crop
RF lens: 100-400mm

I would imagine a 70-300mm is pretty far down on the RF lens roadmap pecking order.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 31, 2021)

I'll be very interested in how the 100-400 ends up looking and costing. Right now, I'm in need of a lightweight telephoto for walks around the lake with my dog. I'm moving on from the brilliant 55-250 I adapt to my M6 Mark II. Not expecting a miracle here, but I would love to see just how much this ends up costing and how big it is.

The 16mm sounds very interesting - especially if it's a pancake - how cool would that be?!


----------



## Traveler (Aug 31, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> I'm pretty excited about the 16mm f/2.8. I'm not holding my breath on the 100-400mm as I'm afraid it may be something silly like f/8 at 400mm.


f/[email protected] on FF would be still better than (70-)300 mm f/5.6 on APSC. I'm in! Just hope it's not as huge as the patents show :/


----------



## Lenscracker (Aug 31, 2021)

They can't deliver the stuff they promised last year.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 31, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ... I’m not sure at this time if the 16mm f/2.8 will be a pancake lens, as I continue to receive that question a lot.


I've never felt the need for a 16 mm pancake for a FF body. UWA is something I still have to learn to use well.
But if it's really a pancake this would be very interesting on a travel FF R body...


----------



## slclick (Aug 31, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> The non L 100-400 seems to replace EF-s 55-250mm for RP and the new cheap FF model





Lenscracker said:


> They can't deliver the stuff they promised last year.


Well, there's been a few things going on in the world


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.


It replaces when there is no RF APSC camera.
And Rebel cameras users need to move to FF RF camera.

So the guy with a T7i + Ef-s 55-250mm, can move to RP (or the cheap rumored FF) + RF 100-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.


Agree that this 100-400 is likely the RF ‘replacement’ for the EF 70-300 IS non-L.

I have the EF 70-300L, and I like it for the convenience of its compact length. Still, 100-400mm is a good range. From a marketing standpoint, this will sit nicely in between the 70-200 and 100-500 L-series offerings, and thus could be seen as an ‘affordable’ version of those aimed at EOS RP owners or those who want a telezoom for infrequent use.

Although I use my 70-200/2.8 throughout its range, with longer telezooms like the 70-300L or 100-400L, I usually find myself at the long end of the range (which is why I replaced the latter with a 600/4 II).


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree that this 100-400 is likely the RF ‘replacement’ for the EF 70-300 IS non-L.
> 
> I have the EF 70-300L, and I like it for the convenience of its compact length. Still, 100-400mm is a good range. From a marketing standpoint, this will sit nicely in between the 70-200 and 100-500 L-series offerings, and thus could be seen as an ‘affordable’ version of those aimed at EOS RP owners or those who want a telezoom for infrequent use.
> 
> Although I use my 70-200/2.8 throughout its range, with longer telezooms like the 70-300L or 100-400L, I usually find myself at the long end of the range (which is why I replaced the latter with a 600/4 II).


That make sense. I use my 100-500 mostly at 500 until a bird flies directly at me, or I get very close to a perched bird. Unfortunately, the 600mm lens is just a touch out of reach (pun intended) for me. When I can, I much prefer the 70-200 (a 2.8 lens is hard to beat), so the new 100-400 is not for me. However, if the 70-200 is too dear for someone looking for a compact telezoom, I definitely see the RF 100-400 substituting for both the old 70-300 and 100-400 lenses. Canon will sell bucketloads of the lens (my opinion).


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25. Lucky timing on Amazon (they show In Stock Soon when Canon notifies them to expect a shipment). Next time you see a stock notice pop up here or on CPW, check Amazon and Best Buy. For the last 100-500 bolus in mid-August, B&H didn’t get enough to fill their preorders, but Best Buy had them in stock for a few days.



+1 to Best Buy. They pop into stock every month or so, and sell out in about a day. But because Best Buy doesn't do preorders, there's no months-long backlog. I literally had a tab open for 3 weeks and just refreshed twice a day.


----------



## gbc (Aug 31, 2021)

Really hope the non-L status of the 16mm 2.8 will make it somewhat affordable. Still using my EF-S mount Tokina 11-16 2.8, which I do quite like, but I can only use it at 16mm on the R5 so if there's an RF at 16 and somewhere near $500 I will be all over that.


----------



## riker (Aug 31, 2021)

The 100-500 pretty much has a 100-400 bulit in 
Could it be a 100-400/4 or what's the point?
A 100-400 with a builtin 2X would be seriously awesome


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

riker said:


> The 100-500 pretty much has a 100-400 bulit in
> Could it be a 100-400/4 or what's the point?


The 100-500 is a $2700 L-series lens. The RF 100-400 will be a non-L lens – that's the point. The analogy is the RF 600/4L at $13K vs. the RF 600/11 non-L at $700. The differential between the 100-500L and the 100-400 won't be that large, but the idea holds – possibly a slower aperture, definitely lower build quality, optically good instead of great, and much cheaper.


----------



## Schumey (Aug 31, 2021)

fabao said:


> Weeks? I am waiting for months for my 100-500... )-;


It took 108 days to get my 100-500mm.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 31, 2021)

RF 16mm F2.8mm is an instant buy, if… 
- same size, built quality as 35mm F1.8 
- control ring (a must) 
- IS 

I’ll preorder it seconds after the annoucement


I sold my EF 16-35mm F4 in order to get the RF 14-35mm F4. After canon revealed the price for the RF Lense I cancelled this plan immediately… 
Now, a RF 16mm F2.8 sounds like an intriguing option to replace my UWA. It’ll be lighter than a zoom and therefore it’ll be great for traveling  I just crop for the missing 17-23mm (I do own the 24-105mm so I’m covered from there on)


----------



## fastprime (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> and thus could be seen as an ‘affordable’ version of those aimed at EOS RP owners or those who want a telezoom for infrequent use.


This. I want a telezoom, but don't really _need_ one


----------



## JustUs7 (Aug 31, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> RF 16mm F2.8mm is an instant buy, if…
> - same size, built quality as 35mm F1.8
> - control ring (a must)
> - IS
> ...


The direction I’m heading is the 24-240 for a catch all. Then a stack of affordable primes (at least affordable in the RF full frame world). I have the 35 and 85 as well as the 32 for the M6 MK ii (so not compelled to get the RF 50). Round that out with an RF 600 f/11 and the RF 16 f/2.8 and I’ll be pretty happy.

Maybe if I win Fro’s contest I’ll add an L zoom.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 31, 2021)

Schumey said:


> ]It took 108 days to get my 100-500mm.


I‘m way past 108 days and still counting…


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> ohhh, have you used the lens much? What kind of dog do you have btw? Is he photogenic?


You'd better go to a spa and relax....


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 31, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> The direction I’m heading is the 24-240 for a catch all. Then a stack of affordable primes (at least affordable in the RF full frame world). I have the 35 and 85 as well as the 32 for the M6 MK ii (so not compelled to get the RF 50). Round that out with an RF 600 f/11 and the RF 16 f/2.8 and I’ll be pretty happy.
> 
> Maybe if I win Fro’s contest I’ll add an L zoom.


Sounds good to me  
I actually wanted the RF100-500mm and didn’t get it… 

so I bought a used RF600mm F11 for my vacation (along side an RF 70-200mm) and I was pleasantly surprised by the 600mm. It is lightweight and the IQ is way better than expected. Very happy with this lense and canons approach here.

Since the RF70-200mm is absolutely amazing (and perfect for traveling) I might keep this combination and cancel my order for the RF100-500mm


----------



## JustUs7 (Aug 31, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sounds good to me
> I actually wanted the RF100-500mm and didn’t get it…
> 
> so I bought a used RF600mm F11 for my vacation (along side an RF 70-200mm) and I was pleasantly surprised by the 600mm. It is lightweight and the IQ is way better than expected. Very happy with this lense and canons approach here.
> ...


I rented the 600 for a Florida vacation for less than $100 for a couple weeks. Rented the RF 15-35 for a Utah/Colorado road trip for less than $250 for three weeks. Rentals worked really well for travel until some affordable options come around. 

Thanks for the used / refurbished reminder. I’ll have to keep an eye out.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 31, 2021)

riker said:


> The 100-500 pretty much has a 100-400 bulit in
> Could it be a 100-400/4 or what's the point?
> A 100-400 with a builtin 2X would be seriously awesome


"Could it be a 100-400/4 or what's the point?" My guess is the point is it will be more affordable than the 100-500.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 31, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I‘m way past 108 days and still counting…


Yes and while you keep waiting, Canon offers this lens up on their online store, every couple of weeks, instead of filling pre-orders from their merchants on orders like yours......


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25





canonmike said:


> Yes and while you keep waiting, Canon offers this lens up on their online store, every couple of weeks, instead of filling pre-orders from their merchants on orders like yours......


Well, I recently travelled to the states and I checked the online store and Amazon.com every other day. I didn’t have any luck… 
Since I’m now back in Europe I’ll have to wait till next summer anyway because there’s now way I’m paying the extra crazy prices in Europe… us retail listings for canon are already overpriced, but nothing compared to Europe… with the RF100-500mm it’s nearly 800 €/ Lense saved. If I buy two L lenses in the states I basically save the money for the plane tickets of my girlfriend and me… 

therefore, I’m in no rush right now, just hope the pre order will be delivered till next june or august…


----------



## canonmike (Aug 31, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Well, I recently travelled to the states and I checked the online store and Amazon.com every other day. I didn’t have any luck…
> Since I’m now back in Europe I’ll have to wait till next summer anyway because there’s now way I’m paying the extra crazy prices in Europe… us retail listings for canon are already overpriced, but nothing compared to Europe… with the RF100-500mm it’s nearly 800 €/ Lense saved. If I buy two L lenses in the states I basically save the money for the plane tickets of my girlfriend and me…
> 
> therefore, I’m in no rush right now, just hope the pre order will be delivered till next june or august…


I had placed this lens on my on line merchant's wish list, where it stayed for four months, while every two weeks, I kept being notified it still wasn't in stock. Finally tiring of this, I got a CPW notice the lens was available at Canon's direct store. As luck would have it, I was on my computer when CPW's stock notice came through. I immed went to the Canon store, ordered it, at full price + shipping and tax, of course, receiving it four days later. It's a nice lens and I've enjoyed using it as I roam the local Audubon Sanctuary. Hopefully, you'll find it will be worth the wait. Good luck and do hope you end up finding it was everything you hoped for. I like your flying to the states strategy.


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2021)

Nice lenses , but I hope Canon makes a RF200-600mm DO f/5.6 with built in 1.4x extender and / or a RF600mm DO f/5.6 also with built in T.C
Both would be expensive but not as expensive as the RF600mm f/4 and much lighter and more compact
Edit: hopefully if Canon do make these (with or without built-in 1.4x extenders) then they will also make them fully compatible with the 1.4x and 2x RF extenders rather than repeat the RF100-500 restricted range fiasco .


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 31, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I had placed this lens on my on line merchant's wish list, where it stayed for four months, while every two weeks, I kept being notified it still wasn't in stock. Finally tiring of this, I got a CPW notice the lens was available at Canon's direct store. As luck would have it, I was on my computer when CPW's stock notice came through. I immed went to the Canon store, ordered it, at full price + shipping and tax, of course, receiving it four days later. It's a nice lens and I've enjoyed using it as I roam the local Audubon Sanctuary. Hopefully, you'll find it will be worth the wait. Good luck and do hope you end up finding it was everything you hoped for. I like your flying to the states strategy.


That sounds great! Glad you got the lense and that you enjoy it so much  I’m sure, I love it as well because I think the EF100-400mm is great, too.
And it seems like I buy my lenses in the same state you’re located, at least of my googling of the sanctuary was correct  lots, and lots of friendly people in this state


----------



## jeanluc (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree that this 100-400 is likely the RF ‘replacement’ for the EF 70-300 IS non-L.
> 
> I have the EF 70-300L, and I like it for the convenience of its compact length. Still, 100-400mm is a good range. From a marketing standpoint, this will sit nicely in between the 70-200 and 100-500 L-series offerings, and thus could be seen as an ‘affordable’ version of those aimed at EOS RP owners or those who want a telezoom for infrequent use.
> 
> Although I use my 70-200/2.8 throughout its range, with longer telezooms like the 70-300L or 100-400L, I usually find myself at the long end of the range (which is why I replaced the latter with a 600/4 II).


I had the 70-300L as well it was a great travel zoom due its size and very sharp. It was my last EF lens, and I reluctantly sold it. It’s temporary replacement in my bag is is the RF 70-200, but I hope they someday make a direct replacement. Hard decision to sell it , but In the end, It just didn’t make sense to pack an adapter for just one EF lens. I am finding that with the added resolution of the R5 the 200L gets me about the same performance as the 5D4/R/EF 70-300L combo did.


----------



## hawe2020 (Aug 31, 2021)

So boring.
Waiting for the 1.0/24mm...
Why dont you make any lenses like the 2.0 / 28-70mm..


----------



## RyanGauper (Aug 31, 2021)

Come on 135!!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> Hard decision to sell it , but In the end, It just didn’t make sense to pack an adapter for just one EF lens. I am finding that with the added resolution of the R5 the 200L gets me about the same performance as the 5D4/R/EF 70-300L combo did.


I will typically be bringing a mount adapter – much of my travel shooting is architecture, and I use a TS-E 17 and 24, and the 11-24. For the TS-E 17 and 11-24, the adapter with the drop-in filters is a huge advantage compared to having a front-filter setup (even if there were RF equivalents, which there aren’t).


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

Chig said:


> Nice lenses , but I hope Canon makes a RF200-600mm DO f/5.6 with built in 1.4x extender and / or a RF600mm DO f/5.6 also with built in T.C
> Both would be expensive but not as expensive as the RF600mm f/4 and much lighter and more compact


These would be awesome lenses for birds and wildlife!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Well, I recently travelled to the states and I checked the online store and Amazon.com every other day. I didn’t have any luck…
> Since I’m now back in Europe I’ll have to wait till next summer anyway because there’s now way I’m paying the extra crazy prices in Europe… us retail listings for canon are already overpriced, but nothing compared to Europe… with the RF100-500mm it’s nearly 800 €/ Lense saved. If I buy two L lenses in the states I basically save the money for the plane tickets of my girlfriend and me…
> 
> therefore, I’m in no rush right now, just hope the pre order will be delivered till next june or august…


Just remember to visit a no tax or low tax state! Local sales tax can be around 10% and eat into your "savings" quite a bit. If you are planning on purchasing the lens in advance, you could order from a local store ahead of time to ensure it's reserved and available when you arrive.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

For those waiting for the 100-500 RF, don't give up hope. I ordered two in May from B&H (my wife also shoots) and they arrived a week ago. Best Buy had some in stock recently, but is now sold out. Canon seems to finally be starting to ship. And yes, I agree with those who are annoyed that Canon is giving preference to their own online store over other dealers. I'm sure dealers who represent far more sales for Canon find it very frustrating.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

Regarding the 16mm f2.8 lens. I would not expect any bargains. As someone else said, I doubt it would be a pancake lens. I could see it as a non-IS lens since for an extreme wide angle, IBIS should be more than sufficient in most cases. For me personally, if the price is significantly below the 14-35 f4, I might consider this as an alternative, because when I want a wide zoom, I'm usually using it at the widest setting anyway.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

rick1 said:


> This is the last time I am going to comment on this thread...





rick1 said:


> ohhh, have you used the lens much? What kind of dog do you have btw? Is he photogenic?


How can we miss you if you won't go away?


----------



## rqiang (Sep 1, 2021)

Useless! What we need is 14mm F1.8 and 12-24 f2.8!!!


----------



## shire_guy (Sep 1, 2021)

I was initially interested in the 14-35mm f4, but the distortion in that lens makes it hard to be a replacement for my EF 16-35mm f4. But a decent lightweight RF16mm 2.8 would cover off the wide end when I have to travel light. Hopefully not too expensive in Australia, or is that asking too much (pun intended).


----------



## kaihp (Sep 1, 2021)

Chig said:


> Nice lenses , but I hope Canon makes a RF200-600mm DO f/5.6 with built in 1.4x extender and / or a RF600mm DO f/5.6 also with built in T.C
> Both would be expensive but not as expensive as the RF600mm f/4 and much lighter and more compact


The EF 200-400 f/4L 1.4ext is not _much _cheaper than the 600 f/4L (91K vs 109K here in DK), so I would expect an RF-200-600 f/5.6L 1.4ext to follow that trend.
Considering that the 600 f/5.6 would require +15% larger front element than a 400 f/4, the selling price could ballon further up.

Sorry.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 1, 2021)

Just seen this

”"EOS R3 Body" and accessories (ST-E10, AD-E1, DM-E1D, ER-L1, ER-HE, ER-H) have been added to Canon's latest product list. According to the corresponding accessories table, RF16mm has a hood of EW-65C, a cap of E-43, and a lens pouch of LP1014. RF100-400mm seems to have a cap of E-67II and a pouch of LP1224.”

43mm front filters thread would be tiny.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Just remember to visit a no tax or low tax state! Local sales tax can be around 10% and eat into your "savings" quite a bit. If you are planning on purchasing the lens in advance, you could order from a local store ahead of time to ensure it's reserved and available when you arrive.


That’s true with the sales tax. But with the RF100-500mm pricing in Europe the savings are enormous even with a 8,25% sales tax!
I ordered my RF100-500mm at the beginning of March, hoping it would be there at the end of August (at the latest). As you know, didn’t work out but it’ll be there next year


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> The EF 200-400 f/4L 1.4ext is not _much _cheaper than the 600 f/4L (91K vs 109K here in DK), so I would expect an RF-200-600 f/5.6L 1.4ext to follow that trend.
> Considering that the 600 f/5.6 would require +15% larger front element than a 400 f/4, the selling price could ballon further up.
> 
> Sorry.


A 600 f/5.6 would have an entrance pupil of 107mm which is only 7% larger than that of a 400 f/4


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

Chig said:


> A 600 f/5.6 would have an entrance pupil of 107mm which is only 7% larger than that of a 400 f/4


Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.

You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).


----------



## adigoks (Sep 1, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> Just seen this
> 
> ”"EOS R3 Body" and accessories (ST-E10, AD-E1, DM-E1D, ER-L1, ER-HE, ER-H) have been added to Canon's latest product list. According to the corresponding accessories table, RF16mm has a hood of EW-65C, a cap of E-43, and a lens pouch of LP1014. RF100-400mm seems to have a cap of E-67II and a pouch of LP1224.”
> 
> 43mm front filters thread would be tiny.


67mm cap is also pretty small for 400mm FL .

about accesories let me guess DM for digital microphone?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

I am in on the 16mm if the IQ is acceptable for astro. It is the one i am waiting for. Dont need IS. TBH I don't even need AF really although I am sure that wont be the case. Will need to see reviews of IQ first though


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

adigoks said:


> 67mm cap is also pretty small for 400mm FL .
> 
> about accesories let me guess DM for digital microphone?


That’s consistent with an f/6.3 max aperture.









Directional Microphone DM-E1


Microphones




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2021)

rick1 said:


> ohhh, have you used the lens much? What kind of dog do you have btw? Is he photogenic?


You poor guy.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> You'd better go to a spa and relax....


Never thought I'd see the dog fetish guys show up. People are so bold these days.


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 1, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> I am in on the 16mm if the IQ is acceptable for astro. It is the one i am waiting for. Dont need IS. TBH I don't even need AF really although I am sure that wont be the case. Will need to see reviews of IQ first though


Better go with Samyang......


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 1, 2021)

adigoks said:


> 67mm cap is also pretty small for 400mm FL .
> 
> about accesories let me guess DM for digital microphone?





neuroanatomist said:


> That’s consistent with an f/6.3 max aperture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My Tamron 100-400mm has a 67mm filter thread and a aperture of f/6.3 on the long end so we could see something of a similar size/weight. Might need to list mine for sale if this Canon isn't too pricey.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 1, 2021)

Is there anything in the pipeline for EF mount (Camera or lenses) ?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 1, 2021)

bitm2007 said:


> Is there anything in the pipeline for EF mount (Camera or lenses) ?


I believe they have a well developed roadmap of retirement dates for all of them.  

Sorry to say it, but EF and DSLR is a thing of the past. Luckily the glass you have will still work for decades on a new RF body with an adapter (which will eventually be easier to get). 

-Brian


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I sold my EF 16-35mm F4 in order to get the RF 14-35mm F4. After canon revealed the price for the RF Lense I cancelled this plan immediately…


I would have also bought the RF 14-35 f/4 as a replacement for my EF 17-40 f/4 but on seeing the hefty price tag and waiting time I bought a used, but mint Sigma DG 14-24mm f/2.8 HSM ART for just under £600. A chunk of a lens and needs adapted but I thought a better option for me for the little ultra-wide photography I do.

Canons lens prices are through the roof! And will cost them in new camera body sales, talk of this new RF 16mm f/2.8 being 600, 700 800 £$ is ridiculous


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 1, 2021)

If it's reasonably sharp, that 100-400 would be nice for hiking. My current options are either the 55-250 in crop mode on the R5 or the 100-400 II.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 1, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> I am in on the 16mm if the IQ is acceptable for astro. It is the one i am waiting for. Dont need IS. TBH I don't even need AF really although I am sure that wont be the case. Will need to see reviews of IQ first though


The coma on the RF 35mm f/1.8 is pretty bad. I do hope that’s not an issue on the 16.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.
> 
> You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).


It's all those dang 5s: 3.14159265358...

Well, we've had irrational posters, why not irrational numbers?


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 1, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?


Not a chance they will worsen weight, size, cost, and performance to appeal to the minuscule populations that wants to put a $600 converter on a cheap consumer lens, making it less sellable to the 99% of actual potential customers.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> RF 16mm F2.8mm is an instant buy, if…
> - same size, built quality as 35mm F1.8
> - control ring (a must)
> - IS
> ...


Hi Exploreshootshare,

I'm curious what you use the control ring for since you wrote that it is a must. I had considered it a must when I bought my RP and EF to RF adaptor, to have direct control over another variable since the RP doesn't have much direct control, but I've struggled finding a use for it that I'm happy with. I tried ISO first, but I find that it does not behave the same as setting ISO other ways. Using the controls on the camera, ISO always has the options of Auto and 100 - 1200, but if I'm on Auto ISO and I turn the Control Ring it seems to act just as a temporary adjustment if I've half-pressed the shutter recently. It doesn't seem to work well to take ISO on or off Auto. Then I thought about using it for aperture, but for Manual mode the camera makes you choose one of the control dials on the body for aperture, so then the control ring would be redundant. I'd really like to find a use that I'm happy with.

Thanks,
Glenn


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.


Glad I bought my 100-500 a couple of weeks ago! I had planned on holding off until after I get the R3 to decide if I want the 24-70/2.8 or the 28-70/2.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 1, 2021)

Lenscracker said:


> They can't deliver the stuff they promised last year.


They delivered everything everyone ordered on the first day. The big boys make decisions without waiting for things to be “in stock”.


Exploreshootshare said:


> I‘m way past 108 days and still counting…


Took 1 day after release for mine to arrive. I order on announcement day.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 1, 2021)

This 16mm is appealing as a lightweight adjunct to a 24-XX(X) zoom.

But I spent a day at the park with my little kids and lovely wife and the RF 15-35 was great to capture wide shots in the climbing structure, under the swings, and ground level tricycle shots, while also capturing plenty of normal images with the 35mm length. A fixed 16 means 2 lenses instead of one heavier one.

Still, I’m likely to get the 10-24 when it arrives.


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.
> 
> You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).


Yes , obviously in terms of area it is 14.8% larger (and of course this is what determines the light gathering) , but I thought he was talking about the diameter which is what I mostly think about in terms of entrance pupils (107mm vs 100mm) and front elements and the overall size of a lens (i.e. length x diameter) .
Also the weight would be very roughly proportional to this area times the length the lens.
Comparing a 600mm f/4 vs 600mm f/5.6 their entrances pupils are 150mm vs 107mm and the area of the f/4 is twice the f/5.6 which makes sense as this is one stop of aperture and the weight of the f/4 would be very approximately double too.
For the EF400mm L f/2.8 ii vs the EF400mm DO f/4 ii the weights are 3.85kg vs 2.1kg which is nearly double so potentially for an RF600mm DO f/5.6 the weight may be a little over half the weight of the RF600 L f/4 (which weighs 3.1kg) so probably around 1.7kg is achievable which would be fantastically light (and shorter due to the DO freznell elements), even around 2kg would be really great and the loss of one stop of light would be worth it I think especially with the low light capabilities of the latest sensors.
Bit surprising no company (that I'm aware of) has made a 600mm f/5.6 lens yet as it would be a great compromise.
Edit : Nikon made a manual focus one : the 600mm f/5.6 ED from 1976-1986 (and a second version from 1986-1999) the first version weighed 2.7kg but a modern one might well be 2kg or less.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 1, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Hi Exploreshootshare,
> 
> I'm curious what you use the control ring for since you wrote that it is a must. I had considered it a must when I bought my RP and EF to RF adaptor, to have direct control over another variable since the RP doesn't have much direct control, but I've struggled finding a use for it that I'm happy with. I tried ISO first, but I find that it does not behave the same as setting ISO other ways. Using the controls on the camera, ISO always has the options of Auto and 100 - 1200, but if I'm on Auto ISO and I turn the Control Ring it seems to act just as a temporary adjustment if I've half-pressed the shutter recently. It doesn't seem to work well to take ISO on or off Auto. Then I thought about using it for aperture, but for Manual mode the camera makes you choose one of the control dials on the body for aperture, so then the control ring would be redundant. I'd really like to find a use that I'm happy with.
> 
> ...


I have the EOS R and after trying several configurations I finally selected putting the aperture on the control ring. My R let’s me put shutter speed and ISO (which iniatially I put in the Touch Bar) on the other two dials.

The reason why I stated „control ring is a must for me“ is because I like to take night shots of city’s or the nightsky. I often change the aperture to find the right lighting and using the touchscreen I somehow give the camera a strong shake or whatever (I used to think my motorskills were pretty decent…I don’t anymore). With aperture set on the control ring I nearly eliminated any issues I had with a shaky camera and therefore blurry images. And since the 16mm would be my no 1 go-to lense for night shots, I’d absolutely love a control ring on it. And it’d pair perfectly with the 35mm


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 1, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> EF 17-40 f/4 hefty price tag


Totally agree


Andy Westwood said:


> Sigma DG 14-24mm f/2.8 HSM ART


I keep thinking about UWA zooms and keep coming back to this lense. I owned the Sigma 20mm F1.4 for a while, but I sold it because it is extremely heavy, needs an adapter and has no IS. These aapects keep me from getting the Sigma 14-24mm


Andy Westwood said:


> Canons lens prices are through the roof! And will cost them in new camera body sales, talk of this new RF 16mm f/2.8 being 600, 700 800 £$ is ridiculous


Absolutely, it should be cheaper than that! Especially with the distortion everybody in this forum is expecting.


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.



Where did you see this announcement?
EDIT: nvm, found it. That sucks.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 2, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I have the EOS R and after trying several configurations I finally selected putting the aperture on the control ring. My R let’s me put shutter speed and ISO (which iniatially I put in the Touch Bar) on the other two dials.
> 
> The reason why I stated „control ring is a must for me“ is because I like to take night shots of city’s or the nightsky. I often change the aperture to find the right lighting and using the touchscreen I somehow give the camera a strong shake or whatever (I used to think my motorskills were pretty decent…I don’t anymore). With aperture set on the control ring I nearly eliminated any issues I had with a shaky camera and therefore blurry images. And since the 16mm would be my no 1 go-to lense for night shots, I’d absolutely love a control ring on it. And it’d pair perfectly with the 35mm


Thanks for the reply. I think the RP lets me set one of the dials to ISO for other modes but not manual (in case a lens without control ring is used?) but I’ll take another look. If the R allows I don’t see why they wouldn’t allow it on the RP also, but Canon sometimes does things like that.


----------



## sanj (Sep 3, 2021)

It would be a bummer if the 100-400 is the old lens with a built-in adaptor.


----------



## Joules (Sep 3, 2021)

sanj said:


> It would be a bummer if the 100-400 is the old lens with a built-in adaptor.


In case you missed the hint in this OP and from all the patents previously published: The upcoming 100-400 mm will be an affordable lens, likely with a 7.1 aperture on the long end. Essentially applying the same reach upgrade that the EF 100-400mm 5.6 L IS II got with the RF 100-500 7.1 L IS to the much more budget oriented EF 70-300 mm 5.6 IS Nano USM.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> In case you missed the hint in this OP and from all the patents previously published: The upcoming 100-400 mm will be an affordable lens, likely with a 7.1 aperture on the long end. Essentially applying the same reach upgrade that the EF 100-400mm 5.6 L IS II got with the RF 100-500 7.1 L IS to the much more budget oriented EF 70-300 mm 5.6 IS Nano USM.



Early rumors, in fact, had this listed as a 70-400 rather than a 100-400.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 3, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Early rumors, in fact, had this listed as a 70-400 rather than a 100-400.


The 70-400mm rumors were about an “L” lense, this lense never had a “L” in its name while going through the rumor mill.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 7, 2021)

Perhaps someone posted, but I didn't see this.... Amazon shows the RF 16mm f/2.8 for $299.99 and a release date of Sept 14th, Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM. Focusing distance of 5.11 inches.

Product Dimensions2.7 x 2.7 x 1.6 inchesItem Weight9.4 ounces


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 7, 2021)

ThatCW said:


> Perhaps someone posted, but I didn't see this.... Amazon shows the RF 16mm f/2.8 for $299.99 and a release date of Sept 14th, Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM. Focusing distance of 5.11 inches.
> 
> Product Dimensions2.7 x 2.7 x 1.6 inchesItem Weight9.4 ounces


Should have screen grabbed it. I saw it too. Gone again. Must have accidentally showed it early. Hard to tell though if that was a fake of the 50mm. Awfully well done if it was fake.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Should have screen grabbed it. I saw it too. Gone again. Must have accidentally showed it early. Hard to tell though if that was a fake of the 50mm. Awfully well done if it was fake.


I saw it as well. $299 is quite reasonable. Lends credence to the sub-$1K FF MILC rumor.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I saw it as well. $299 is quite reasonable. Lends credence to the sub-$1K FF MILC rumor.


Well, $299 definitely lands this on my Christmas or Birthday list. Hopefully the reviews are good and the coma isn’t bad.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

It was linked to Amazon’s Canon Store, so hopefully what I saw is correct. $299 would be a great price for this lens.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

It was linked to Amazon’s Canon Store (though I didn’t click the link), so hopefully what several of us saw is correct. $299 would be a great price for this lens.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

Folks, I pre-ordered the RF 16mm f/2.8 when I stumbled onto the Amazon listing (now gone). Here's a screenshot of the order which gives a glimpse of the lens. The only information on the page, which I've already shared, dimensions, weight, and focusing distance. It did not contain the full specs that you'd typically find with a lens.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

And here's a larger screen grab from the "order details" page with a clearer picture of the lens and the $299.99 price. I saw nothing about this being a macro lens. Perhaps someone inferred that from the the close focusing distance. Again, details were scare.


----------



## Karl Guttag (Sep 8, 2021)

Attached is a side by side with the Amazon picture of the RF16 next to the RF50 both scaled to the same size based on the mount ring diameter. They look similar but the lens is smaller in diameter on the RF16 and the bottom of the lens protrudes where it does not on the RF50f1.8.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

Thanks!
It does not look like the word "MACRO" is printed on the front of the lens, unfortunately.


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 8, 2021)

According to the new post, the 100-400 takes TCs and has a nice MFD. Even though the long end is f/8, if it's sharp, it'd be a nice hiking telephoto.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 8, 2021)

DJL329 said:


> As previously reported, this will not be an "L" lens, so it won't be compatible.



Based on recent updates, it apparently will be compatible! I should have remembered that the RF 600 and 800 mm f/11 lenses are not "L" and do take the TCs.


----------



## Johnw (Apr 14, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Thanks for the reply. I think the RP let’s me set one of the dials to ISO for other modes but not manual (in case a lens without control ring isn’t used?) but I’ll take another look. If the R allows I don’t see why they wouldn’t allow it on the RP also, but Canon sometimes does things like that.



This is easily my biggest gripe with the RP. I shot with the Ra (astro version of the R) for several years and always set the control ring to aperture since I could use the other two camera dials for ISO and shutter. On the RP for some reason Canon restricted the camera dials to only allow aperture and shutter, not ISO. This is really annoying and probably the reason I'm going to switch to the R6 soon.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 18, 2022)

Johnw said:


> This is easily my biggest gripe with the RP. I shot with the Ra (astro version of the R) for several years and always set the control ring to aperture since I could use the other two camera dials for ISO and shutter. On the RP for some reason Canon restricted the camera dials to only allow aperture and shutter, not ISO. This is really annoying and probably the reason I'm going to switch to the R6 soon.


Interesting to know that the Ra and R6 allow this but the RP does not. Very annoying when Canon unnecessarily removes functionality in software in less expensive cameras. This may speed up my upgrading from the RP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Interesting to know that the Ra and R6 allow this but the RP does not. Very annoying when Canon unnecessarily removes functionality in software in less expensive cameras.


That's not what happened. The Ra and the R6 both came out after the RP. It's common for Canon to add functionality to newer cameras that they don't go back and add to older cameras. For example, your EOS RP has focus bracketing. The EOS R does not, even though it is a more expensive camera it came out before the feature was introduced. The Ra (as stated, a newer camera than the RP) has focus bracketing, too, as do the even more recent R5, R6 and R3.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's not what happened. The Ra and the R6 both came out after the RP. It's common for Canon to add functionality to newer cameras that they don't go back and add to older cameras. For example, your EOS RP has focus bracketing. The EOS R does not, even though it is a more expensive camera it came out before the feature was introduced. The Ra (as stated, a newer camera than the RP) has focus bracketing, too, as do the even more recent R5, R6 and R3.


I was assuming that if the Ra had it then the earlier R had it also (I thought the only differences between the two were the IR filter, magnification, and perhaps one other thing that I'm not remembering at the moment), but that may not have been the case.


----------



## Johnw (Apr 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's not what happened. The Ra and the R6 both came out after the RP. It's common for Canon to add functionality to newer cameras that they don't go back and add to older cameras. For example, your EOS RP has focus bracketing. The EOS R does not, even though it is a more expensive camera it came out before the feature was introduced. The Ra (as stated, a newer camera than the RP) has focus bracketing, too, as do the even more recent R5, R6 and R3.



This is not correct. While that point may be valid in general, that's not the case with this feature. As gruhl28 noted, the feature is present on the R which was the first camera released. This is a screengrab of the R's menu for the quick dial showing the ISO option, this is the option that is missing on the RP. The reality is that the RP, as the lowest end camera is simply forced to accept the blows of the Canon cripple hammer even when they fall in arbitrary and strange ways. Still, can't really fault Canon with this strategy if it works for them I guess. Multiple people in this thread have stated their intention to upgrade to an R6 knowing how unnecessarily crippled the RP is. When I got the RP, I wasn't expecting top of the line AF, or IBIS, or any of the other headline features Canon has now, but I didn't expect it to be so limited that I would be unable even to take a manual exposure in the same way that the R/Ra allows.


----------

