# 5 unreleased RF lenses show up again for certification



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 9, 2020)

> There’s nothing really new here, but once again we see 5 unreleased lenses show up for certification according to Nokishita. We suspect at least one of them is the RF 100-500 f/4-7.1L IS USM. None of these lens SKUs are for the new RF teleconverters either.
> *Unreleased Canon Lens SKUs* (One of these SKUs is the RF 100-500)*:*
> 
> 3986C005
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## biznatch (May 9, 2020)

Any guesses on price for the RF 100-500?


----------



## dslrdummy (May 9, 2020)

As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 should be a good prosumer lens for birding, wildlife, outdoor sports, distant landscapes etc. I wonder how short it is when it's stored away (does this telescope out?), and how light they can get it without tripod foot & collar for possible handheld use? Max. magnification at both ends & price would be nice to know. Will really be nice to get actual reviews of the quality of the images.


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

biznatch said:


> Any guesses on price for the RF 100-500?


I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.


----------



## 3serious (May 9, 2020)

I mainly shoot wildlife (birds) on my EOS R (and future R5), and I have honestly never been less excited for an L lens than the 100-500 f*7.1*. It's honestly one of the more disappointing Canon lenses in recent memory, when you can go pick up a sigma 150-600 f6.3 contemporary for $900. There is no way that the IQ will make up for almost a full stop slower and very likely 3x the price of the sigma. To quote Gordon Ramsay - "Damn. What a shame."


----------



## Doug7131 (May 9, 2020)

3serious said:


> I mainly shoot wildlife (birds) on my EOS R (and future R5), and I have honestly never been less excited for an L lens than the 100-500 f*7.1*. It's honestly one of the more disappointing Canon lenses in recent memory, when you can go pick up a sigma 150-600 f6.3 contemporary for $900. There is no way that the IQ will make up for almost a full stop slower and very likely 3x the price of the sigma. To quote Gordon Ramsay - "Damn. What a shame."


Compared to the Canon 100-400mm(on which the 100-500mm will almost certainly be based) the Sigma is heavier, longer, less durable, doesn't go nearly as wide and most importantly has a minimum focusing distance of 2.8m compared to 0.9m for the Canon. This makes it completely useless for any macro/close up work. I really dont get why people are so upset about this being 7.1 at 500mm. Limiting everything to f5.6 made sense in 2006 but sensors and AF systems have moved on since then.


----------



## carlosalberto (May 9, 2020)

I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

Doug7131 said:


> Compared to the Canon 100-400mm(on which the 100-500mm will almost certainly be based) the Sigma is heavier, longer, less durable, doesn't go nearly as wide and most importantly has a minimum focusing distance of 2.8m compared to 0.9m for the Canon. This makes it completely useless for any macro/close up work. I really dont get why people are so upset about this being 7.1 at 500mm. Limiting everything to f5.6 made sense in 2006 but sensors and AF systems have moved on since then.


To the same tune:
Canon 100-400 is no near as long as Sigma 600
Are you saying that Canon 100-500 will be F5.6 @400mm ? I highly doubt it. My estimation is: F6.3 @400mm, it is going to be a relatively slow focusing lens.
let’s see who was right.


----------



## navastronia (May 9, 2020)

Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:

RF 70-135/2
RF 35/1.2
+
2 slow, cheap primes that I don't care about


----------



## Danglin52 (May 9, 2020)

carlosalberto said:


> I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
> An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today


How would you feel If the following is true:

Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
f5.6 @ 400mm
500mm @ f7.1 vs 560mm @ f8 using 100-400 II + TC 
I have the 200-400 f4 L IS w/ integrated 1.4x. I love the quality & versatility of this lens, but it is heavy and expensive. Even though it gives me 560mm @ f5.6, I love the idea of a lightweight lens that provides 500mm. with a 45mp sensor to crop, I should be able to get a high quality crop equal to 600mm. Naturally, I would have preferred 5.6 or 6.3, but that would have been a heavier, more expensive lens.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 9, 2020)

3serious said:


> almost a full stop slower



If you are comparing f/6.3 with f/7.1 here, it is more like 1/3rd stop slower.
But I don't know what the Sigma is on 500mm if that is what you are comparing with?


----------



## padam (May 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 should be a good prosumer lens for birding, wildlife, outdoor sports, distant landscapes etc. I wonder how short it is when it's stored away (does this telescope out?), and how light they can get it without tripod foot & collar for possible handheld use? Max. magnification at both ends & price would be nice to know. Will really be nice to get actual reviews of the quality of the images.













Yes it is external zooming, it is probably a little lighter than the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 II and about the same size if you add the EF mount converter to the latter.


----------



## edoorn (May 9, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> How would you feel If the following is true:
> 
> Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
> Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
> ...



this is a good one. I shoot a 500 II, and although that lens is superior in terms of sharpness and 'look', I never ever go on a trip without the 100-400, due to the lightweight nature of the lens. It can be swung around very quickly, whereas bigger, heavier lenses take more time to react to action (and wildlife can be very unpredictable). 

I know for low light it's certainly not the best, but with focal lengths of 500mm, I usually shoot stopped down anyway. Sometimes even f/11, also on the 500mm prime. 

If this 100-500 can deliver more sharpness, improved AF (although the 100-400 is already very good) and maybe even a tad bit lighter, I'd consider it a very acceptable upgrade. For the real low light stuff and IQ, I''ll keep my 500 for now and see what super tele primes in RF will come.


----------



## Joules (May 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> To the same tune:
> Canon 100-400 is no near as long as Sigma 600
> Are you saying that Canon 100-500 will be F5.6 @400mm ? I highly doubt it. My estimation is: F6.3 @400mm, it is going to be a relatively slow focusing lens.
> let’s see who was right.


I highly doubt focus speed will be slow. Aperture is not the limiting factor for AF on Canon's new Mirrorless cameras. And as it doesn't have a particularly bright aperture, the amount of glass to move shouldn't be a problem either.

Once this lens is out, we will hopefully see some comparisons with the 100-400 mm II and Sigma 150-600 mm and 60-600 mm. I would not be surprised if it turns out that it strikes a good balance between these. Not strictly an upgrade to the 100-400 mm but with additional reach and likewise better AF at alower cost and weight that is more competitive with the third party alternatives.

But they need to get this into the hands of lots of people to take pictures and comparisons, because the numbers sure don't look enticing.


----------



## edoorn (May 9, 2020)

I'd definitely rent it for a trip to give it a go, mind you . 

Still hoping we might see a 500 F/4 DO or something similar as well.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

Joules said:


> I highly doubt focus speed will be slow. Aperture is not the limiting factor for AF on Canon's new Mirrorless cameras. And as it doesn't have a particularly bright aperture, the amount of glass to move shouldn't be a problem either.
> 
> Once this lens is out, we will hopefully see some comparisons with the 100-400 mm II and Sigma 150-600 mm and 60-600 mm. I would not be surprised if it turns out that it strikes a good balance between these. Not strictly an upgrade to the 100-400 mm but with additional reach and likewise better AF at alower cost and weight that is more competitive with the third party alternatives.
> 
> But they need to get this into the hands of lots of people to take pictures and comparisons, because the numbers sure don't look enticing.


All good thoughts. I have an observation:
At least on EF Mount, with 1.4x attached, 100-400 AF slows down. Not by much but still. Thats what, F5.6 vs F8.0? Will see how we go anyway.


----------



## Etienne (May 9, 2020)

My lens hope:

1. A small, lightweight 50mm f/1.4 IS
2. A lightweight 16-35 f/4L IS or a 20 to 24 f/2.8 IS prime

But I doubt these will be included in this round. And Canon has had a hate on against producing a new 50 f/1.4 for decades now.


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> If you are comparing f/6.3 with f/7.1 here, it is more like 1/3rd stop slower.
> But I don't know what the Sigma is on 500mm if that is what you are comparing with?


f/7.1 is 1/2.899th of a stop slower than f/6.3, so "1/3rd" is indeed correct enough, while "1 stop slower" needs to use a calculator again.


----------



## BeenThere (May 9, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> How would you feel If the following is true:
> 
> Same or better IQ as the 100-400 II
> Lighter, faster, better IS & AF than the 100-400 II
> ...


Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.


----------



## Danglin52 (May 9, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.



Pipe dream? Actually, I have shot and like the 400 DO IS II. Not bad, but the zooms are much more versatile for what I shoot. It is a great lens for airshows, easy to handhold and pan. If they come out with an RF 400 or 500 DO, that will probably be my next lens. That said, I will always have something like the 100-400 II in my bag. I would even be happy if they would release a RF 200-400 w/1.4x as long as they could shave off 2-3 lbs similar to what they did with the 400 & 600 III.


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

padam said:


> Yes it is external zooming, it is probably a little lighter than the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 II and about the same size if you add the EF mount converter to the latter.


Thanks for the info and picture for size comparison. For those that complain about f/7.1 being "slow", I remind them that the aperture at 500mm is 70.4mm (500/7.1) which is ideal as about the biggest value you can get in a consumer/handheld size, weight and cost.

Maybe Canon can also develop a 100-500 f/4 version for professionals and well-to-do prosumers. I wonder which of the two would be bought by those complaining about f/7.1 after they saw the cost of a 100-500 f/4 lens and tried to carry the weight of it around?


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the info and picture for size comparison. For those that complain about f/7.1 being "slow", I remind them that the aperture at 500mm is 70.4mm (500/7.1) which is ideal and about the biggest value you can get in a consumer/handheld size and cost.
> 
> Maybe Canon can also develop a 100-500 f/4 version for professionals and well-to-do prosumers. I wonder which of the two would be bought by those complaining about f/7.1 after they saw the cost of a 100-500 f/4 lens and tried to carry the weight of it around?


uhm, so that we both understand. regardless of aperture size in mm or inches F number affects AF performance. more or less. full stop.
yes, canon mirrorless will still focus at F7,1. but not as snappy as at F4 or F5.6

I am not a mirrorless guru. not yet. but here is the quizz:

According to Canon (!!!!), I repeat according to Canon:

Notably, the focus on R is said to work down to -6 EV when used with a f/1.2 lens and -3 EV with a f/2.8 lens .

so.. would be AF ability with F7.1 lens attached be limited to -1EV at F5.6 and down to 0EV at F8?

if so, there is a nearly full stop between lighting condition where a F5.6 lens would still focus and F7.1 lens would not..

aha! here comes the reality: in good light: yes you are correct, it may not have taht much of a difference. however in poor light you going to have an uphill battle with your lens hunting or what ever. so.. thank you. stuff that..

can I have a F5.6 lens in poor light please? 500/5.6 would be a reasonably compact and inexpensive lens.. relatively inexpensive and compact. likely the size of 100-400/ 4.0 - 5.6 (extended)?


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> uhm, so that we both understand. regardless of aperture size in mm or inches F number affects AF performance. more or less. full stop.
> yes, canon mirrorless will still focus at F7,1. but not as snappy as at F4 or F5.6
> 
> I am not a mirrorless guru. not yet. but here is the quizz:
> ...


I don't have an R and can't comment about AF vs f# with it. But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and [edit] I assume that they intend for this lens to AF on their newly released R5 or R5s because(IMHO): it is inferred by their USM designation and it would be an unexpected and major embarrassment otherwise.

If Canon could make a RF 100-500/f5.6 lens (with 89mm aperture) which is reasonably compact/not-too-heavy/affordable then I'd be ecstatic and join you in buying it. In fact, I previously sent in a suggestion to their customer service to make a 200-500/f6 lens in a compact & surprisingly lightweight size like they did with their 70-200 f2.8. That would be a 83mm aperture which would be much more of a challenge than 71.4m but much easier than 89mm in a 100-500 f5.6 zoom.

If your comment at the end was for a prime 500mm/f5.6 then that's now comparing apples to oranges as it's a prime vs. a zoom. I'm sure a 500mm f5.6 prime could be made better/shorter/lighter/cheaper than a 100-500mm f5.6 zoom, and maybe that would make it a reasonable lens for them to make, and I'd hope they could indeed make it. In fact, if they also gave it a surprisingly close focus so the max. magnification was 0.5x then I'd want it just for the stunning flower/insect pictures it could take which would blur the background so smooth it's a joyful wonder to behold. The more lenses they make, the better!


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:
> 
> RF 70-135/2
> RF 35/1.2
> ...


You're probably pretty close to what they'll do. But I think "cheap primes" are very much in-need for Canon to develop, as it's probably the weakest link in their otherwise stunning lens lineup.

The one lens I can think of that many would like is something like a RF 16-60mm f4 L IS USM. It'd be ideal for wide landscape(which very often wants stopped down apertures anyway) to "normal" range in a lighter weight, high quality affordable zoom lens. If you could then pair that with something like a RF 70-250 f4 L IS USM then you'd have an affordable, high quality two-lens f4 solution for those that would be happy enough with it. Or you could pair it with the RF 70-200 f2.8 or 70-135 f2 zooms for those (like me) wanting big portrait bokeh blur.


----------



## IcyBergs (May 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.


$2700 would make this lens DOA. It needs to priced similarly to the EF 70-300L (which launched at $1599) imo for this to be desirable to the market.

Canon has launched lenses at prices way above what the market was willing to pay only to drop the price quickly, example being the ef 24-70 F4L IS which went from launch of $1499 to $1099 (27% drop) in a mater of 7-8 months.

If you're right and it does launch that high, I would wait it out and see what the market thinks of the price before you jump in.


----------



## IcyBergs (May 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:
> 
> RF 70-135/2
> RF 35/1.2
> ...



I agree with you on the F2 "wow" lens to go with the 28-70
pro 35 makes sense
I think there has to be a 70-200 F4 in the mix - low cost gateway "L" lens for RP owners etc
and maybe a pancake?


----------



## Danglin52 (May 9, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I agree with you on the F2 "wow" lens to go with the 28-70
> pro 35 makes sense
> I think there has to be a 70-200 F4 in the mix - low cost gateway "L" lens for RP owners etc
> and maybe a pancake?



I hope you are right on the RF 70-200 f4 L IS. I replaced my EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II with the f4 L IS II to cut weight and have never looked back. Lens is light, sharp and has good AF / IS. It is actually a very nice fit with FF DSLR and the M6 II if you want a high quality, walk around zoom for the M cameras. Balance on the M is not bad.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 9, 2020)

kraats said:


> Regarding the rf 100-500mm. Why not 150-500 f4 - f5.6? Or even 200-500? I tend to use lenses like this in the range from 250mm to 500mm.


you mean something along these lines? 









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


Buy Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens featuring F-Mount Lens/FX Format, Aperture Range: f/5.6 to f/32, Three Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, Super Integrated Coating, Silent Wave Motor AF System, Vibration Reduction with Sport Mode, Electromagnetic Diaphragm Mechanism, Detachable...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## usern4cr (May 9, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> $2700 would make this lens DOA. It needs to priced similarly to the EF 70-300L (which launched at $1599) imo for this to be desirable to the market.
> 
> Canon has launched lenses at prices way above what the market was willing to pay only to drop the price quickly, example being the ef 24-70 F4L IS which went from launch of $1499 to $1099 (27% drop) in a mater of 7-8 months.
> 
> If you're right and it does launch that high, I would wait it out and see what the market thinks of the price before you jump in.


Thanks for the advice. I really have no accurate idea of what it should be priced, and won't be buying it as soon as it's offered anyway, so I'll see what price it comes out at and the reviews of it's quality. That alone should give me more of an idea of it's worth. I do think that some zoom lens to 500mm is needed, and hoped it would be more like f6, but f7.1 will allow it to be lighter and cheaper. The quality and price that it can justify remain to be seen.


----------



## navastronia (May 9, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I agree with you on the F2 "wow" lens to go with the 28-70
> pro 35 makes sense
> I think there has to be a 70-200 F4 in the mix - low cost gateway "L" lens for RP owners etc
> and maybe a pancake?



I'd be super into that combination! I'm dying for a pancake (40/2.8?) and a 70-200/4 would make a lot of sense, though it needs to be said that besides the 15-35/2.8, wide angle lenses haven't gotten much love on the RF system.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 9, 2020)

carlosalberto said:


> I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
> An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today



So how is a 100-500 7.1 worse than a 100-400 5.6 if at 400mm is still 5.6 and weight stays about the same too? 
This won't be a Sigma 150-600 equivalent, that lens is likely twice as heavy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 9, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.



The 400 DO is 4 times the price of a 100-400 type of lens like this 100-500. It's like a comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari.


----------



## 6degrees (May 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Bets on the 4 lenses yet to be revealed? My money's on:
> 
> RF 70-135/2
> RF 35/1.2
> ...



Support RF 35mm F1.2


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 9, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?


Same. Non L sure.. but L!?


----------



## fox40phil (May 10, 2020)

Lets hope for some nice never-Canon-had-yet lens like:
120-300 2.8
200-500 5.6 or maybe we will get a 300-700/800 6.3or 7.1? 

Something like this for sports and wildlife! Just some more options to go! can't be that hard....


----------



## dslrdummy (May 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> So how is a 100-500 7.1 worse than a 100-400 5.6 if at 400mm is still 5.6 and weight stays about the same too?
> This won't be a Sigma 150-600 equivalent, that lens is likely twice as heavy.


Probably around half a stop slower at 400mm one would think.


----------



## Ozarker (May 10, 2020)

biznatch said:


> Any guesses on price for the RF 100-500?


$1,699.00 USD


----------



## BeenThere (May 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 400 DO is 4 times the price of a 100-400 type of lens like this 100-500. It's like a comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari.


If you want better than f7.1 at 500mm+, then you will need the Farrari


----------



## SecureGSM (May 10, 2020)

kraats said:


> That is not an andere to my question. I really wonder why canon designs such a lens.


It is a question to your question if you missed “?” at the end of my post. 
Canon designed such a lens In order to ensure affordability for a broader audience. A F7.1 zoom could be a really inexpensive lens. Relatively of course.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 10, 2020)

Etienne said:


> My lens hope:
> 
> 1. A small, lightweight 50mm f/1.4 IS
> 2. A lightweight 16-35 f/4L IS or a 20 to 24 f/2.8 IS prime
> ...


I gave up on waiting for a new 50mm 1.4... hopefully I'm wrong and Canon decide to finally make one.. well overdue!

The next lens I'm really hoping for is the RF 35mm f1.2!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> If you want better than f7.1 at 500mm+, then you will need the Farrari


Or a Sigma.. Or Tamron.. Or Nikon.. Or even a Sony.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> If you want better than f7.1 at 500mm+, then you will need the Farrari



Not really. There is a HUGE price gap between a $2000 telephoto zoom and a $7000 prime. 
Sony has a 200-600 6.3. That seems to be a very good lens. Nikon also is coming out with a similar one, it's in the roadmap.

If this Canon 100-500 stays 5.6 at 400mm then it's great, otherwise it will be a disappointment for me. The extra 100mm can ve bery useful even at 7.1, IF it's not darker at 400mm.


----------



## brad-man (May 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Not really. There is a HUGE price gap between a $2000 telephoto zoom and a $7000 prime.
> Sony has a 200-600 6.3. That seems to be a very good lens. Nikon also is coming out with a similar one, it's in the roadmap.
> 
> If this Canon 100-500 stays 5.6 at 400mm then it's great, otherwise it will be a disappointment for me. The extra 100mm can ve bery useful even at 7.1, IF it's not darker at 400mm.


Absolutely. If the 100-500 is as sharp as the EF100-400 II and is 5.6 @ 400, then it's all good. If it's not as sharp as the EF or has a longer MFD or is 6.3 at 400, then the penalty for the 100mm is too much for me as well.


----------



## usern4cr (May 10, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Absolutely. If the 100-500 is as sharp as the EF100-400 II and is 5.6 @ 400, then it's all good. If it's not as sharp as the EF or has a longer MFD or is 6.3 at 400, then the penalty for the 100mm is too much for me as well.


Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.

Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).

In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# at 400mm is in the upper 6's or even 7.1.
> 
> Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).
> 
> In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.


It all sounded reasonable until you mentioned 135-500 F4..... look at the 200-400/4 then add about 25% in girth and another 25% in length and about 50% in weight. Oh, price. ... of course.. about 25-40% price as well.
now... thats not going to fly.
zooming with 200-400/4 handheld is a challenge Already.


----------



## usern4cr (May 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> It all sounded reasonable until you mentioned 135-500 F4..... look at the 200-400/4 then add about 25% in girth and another 25% in length and about 50% in weight. Oh, price. ... of course.. about 25-40% price as well.
> now... thats not going to fly.
> zooming with 200-400/4 handheld is a challenge Already.


Well, I did mention "or f4.5 or f5" (so that could be 135-500 f5) and I never mentioned handholding it. So in all fairness you should take that into account. Zooming with a beautiful big zoom lens is something that a well-off prosumer or working professional could gladly do on a monopod or tripod. While it may not be affordable to many on this site, that's never stopped Canon from coming out with such lenses before.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.
> 
> Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).
> 
> In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.



I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.


----------



## usern4cr (May 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.


I agree on both points! Well, 200-600 f5.6 would be too big & heavy for me, and 200-600 f6.3 would have a 95mm aperture so we'd better have some massive biceps or a mono/tripod. I'd prefer 200-500 f6 or a 200-600 f7 myself to trim off some of the weight and would accept either a telescoping or non-telescoping design (each has it's benefits). But in principle, I hope Canon is listening and comes out with one.

I also absolutely love the fully articulating screen, which Canon has & Sony doesn't. That, plus a lot of other things brings me to wanting a Canon body. R6 I'd enjoy, but R5 or R5s is what I'll get.


----------



## BillB (May 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I wish they would just come out with a 200-600 similar to Sony's with 6.3 at the long end (or maybe 5.6), weather sealed and internal zoom for the same price range. The Sony is an amazing lens but i prefer Canon cameras.


Well, Canon has sold a lot of 100-400 zooms, with an extender or two to go along with it. They seem to think a lower cost, more flexible, package is the way quite a few people want to go.


----------



## usern4cr (May 10, 2020)

BillB said:


> Well, Canon has sold a lot of 100-400 zooms, with an extender or two to go along with it. They seem to think a lower cost, more flexible, package is the way quite a few people want to go.


Why can't they come out with both?
One (like they are) with a modest aperture (70mm) and another with a bigger one (83-100+mm)?
Choice is always good, so each of us gets to choose what works for us.


----------



## BillB (May 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Why can't they come out with both?
> One (like they are) with a modest aperture (70mm) and another with a bigger one (83-100+mm)?
> Choice is always good, so each of us gets to choose what works for us.


The devil is in the details on whether it makes sense to Canon to make both. How many people will buy the bigger lens? At what price? How much will it cost Canon to make it? EF or RF or both? Choice is good for the consumer, but it has to make sense to Canon too.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2020)

Everyone hoping for 5.6 at 400, won’t happen. That’s a larger physical opening than 500 at 7.1. At best, one can hope for 6.3. 

Precedent suggests it might hit 7.1 at 400. The RF 24-240 hits max aperture of 6.3 by 110. I know that one isn’t L glass. But it doesn’t make sense to hold it between 4.5 and 5.6 from 100-400, then physically narrow the aperture to 7.1 at 500. 

400/5.6 = 71.4
400/6.3 = 63.5
500/7.1 = 70.4

Although it’s entirely possible I have zero idea what I’m talking about.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 11, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Everyone hoping for 5.6 at 400, won’t happen. That’s a larger physical opening than 500 at 7.1. At best, one can hope for 6.3.
> 
> Precedent suggests it might hit 7.1 at 400. The RF 24-240 hits max aperture of 6.3 by 110. I know that one isn’t L glass. But it doesn’t make sense to hold it between 4.5 and 5.6 from 100-400, then physically narrow the aperture to 7.1 at 500.
> 
> ...


Try 395/5.6. See what happens.


----------



## usern4cr (May 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> The devil is in the details on whether it makes sense to Canon to make both. How many people will buy the bigger lens? At what price? How much will it cost Canon to make it? EF or RF or both? Choice is good for the consumer, but it has to make sense to Canon too.


I agree that it has to make business sense. I'd assume an RF development would be appropriate since they're trying to leverage people to buy into a new R system with R bodies. But I could see the logic in coming out with one in an EF, too, as that's still a big market and it could also be adapted to the R bodies. 

As far as making sense to develop both medium & big long zooms, Sony apparently thought it made sense and are selling a lot of their big long zooms now. It's interesting to see Sony catch up to Canon there, while we've been talking about Canon catching up to Sony here.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Try 395/5.6. See what happens.



Have to admit, it’d Be tough to choose between an adapted 70-200 2.8 and this if I could get consensus on new equipment or feeding five kids. Priorities.


----------



## brad-man (May 11, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Have to admit, it’d Be tough to choose between an adapted 70-200 2.8 and this if I could get consensus on new equipment or feeding five kids. Priorities.


Kids are a lot tougher than they look...


----------



## pj1974 (May 11, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.
> 
> Even with that said, I see a very strong value in this lens coming out. It will a be more affordable, shorter & lighter weight lens for those who can just afford it and want to handhold it (probably people like me).
> 
> In the future, I look forward to Canon coming out with yet another long telephoto zoom that is more like a 135-500 f4(or f4.5 or f5) for those with deep pockets and a willingness to buy such a beautiful, yet big & heavy lens. - Why 135 at the wide end? I'm just guessing that this could be part of the wide f2 trinity of zooms.



1) It's relatively interesting discussing where the RF 100-500mm will change apertures through its zoom range. For example:
- Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM changes from f/5 to f/5.6 at 312mm.
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM changes from f/5 to f/5.6 at 229mm
- Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens changes from f/5.6 to f/6.3 at 313mm
Hence with this data and the design aspects of this lens we know, I guess the RF 100-500mm will change from f/6.3 to f/7.1 at ~320-400mm.

2) What's much more important to me, is how well the R5 (and other/future Canon mirrorless cameras) will AF at various light levels. My experience bears out that AF ability of focusing on subjects is not always entirely linear (on light level, max available aperture). Some of my DSLRs with live view and/or DPAF, as well as my M5 and my use of the EOS R have indicated differing AF characteristics (e.g. also more dependent on contrast / colour, type of lens, etc).

I know that the R5 is not primarily designed to be a 'sports or wildlife camera'... However, I still do 'wish' that the RF 100-500mm would focus "fairly well" (consistently, reasonably fast, and without too much hunting) on the R5 in relatively low light. I would love to use the R5 for some twilight birding, event photography where lighting can often be tricky, as well as the occasional sports. Ideally, my hope for decent AF in this manner, would apply to all of its AF modes (one shot, tracking, face/eye/animal, etc).

Then in additional, I also would like the R5 will focus very well at extremely low EV light levels with brighter lenses (f/2.8 and below), and especially so with primes f/2 and below. That's where it's at for me. Hopefully we'll know the answer to that when thorough reviews and early adopter experiences come through.

PJ


----------



## derpderp (May 11, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I gave up on waiting for a new 50mm 1.4... hopefully I'm wrong and Canon decide to finally make one.. well overdue!
> 
> The next lens I'm really hoping for is the RF 35mm f1.2!



The 50mm 1.4 will never happen. there just isn't a market for it


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 11, 2020)

derpderp said:


> The 50mm 1.4 will never happen. there just isn't a market for it


I now have the RF 50mm f1.2 and an EOS R... gave up on waiting!


----------



## derpderp (May 11, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I now have the RF 50mm f1.2 and an EOS R... gave up on waiting!



the 50mm F1.2 is an excellent lens in every way but one.... focusing speed.


----------



## degos (May 11, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and I strongly assume it will AF just fine with a f7.1 lens with 70.4mm aperture.



Your assumption proceeds from an invalid premise. The AF sensor doesn't care about the physical aperture, just the f-ratio. The image size on the sensor is the same size regardless of the diameter of the objective.

By your reasoning a 2250mm f/32 lens would AF just fine because it has a 70mm aperture...


----------



## usern4cr (May 11, 2020)

degos said:


> Your assumption proceeds from an invalid premise. The AF sensor doesn't care about the physical aperture, just the f-ratio. The image size on the sensor is the same size regardless of the diameter of the objective.
> 
> By your reasoning a 2250mm f/32 lens would AF just fine because it has a 70mm aperture...


Yes, I did say "But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and I strongly assume it will AF just fine with a f7.1 lens with 70.4mm aperture." But you *assume* that my *premise* is that it will AF just fine with any f7.1 lens. That was not my premise.

My *premise* is that Canon is releasing a next generation camera, sensor and AF technology and it is releasing a new RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 IS *USM* lens. The USM means it's electronically focusing with probably their latest USM motors and technology, and almost always (if not always) infers that this lens will AF with their bodies. So I assume that they intend for this lens to AF on their newly released R5 or R5s because(IMHO): it is inferred by their USM designation and it would be an unexpected and major embarrassment otherwise.

I will revise my post to reflect my premise. I may be right or not, and that's why I mention "assume" and (IMHO). Hope that clears that up.


----------



## Aregal (May 11, 2020)

I love focus range of the 100-400mmISii. I use that lens way more than my 70-200/2.8L. My camera bag has consists of the the 24/1.4, 50/102, and the 100-400mmISii most of the time. All my other Canon-Ls sit on the shelf at home.


----------



## Ozarker (May 11, 2020)

A lot of people will be happy with the 100-500. Eventually, if the IQ checks out, I will probably be one of them.


----------



## koenkooi (May 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A lot of people will be happy with the 100-500. Eventually, if the IQ checks out, I will probably be one of them.



I wish I knew when it will be in stock at retailers, I'd really like a longer lens critters outside by back yard. In my back yards the 100mm L is enough for most things and the Sigma 150 OS for very skittish things. 
But past Sunday I was hiking in actual nature and noticed that I either need waders or a longer lens to capture the dragonflies and frogs in a pond. And since that spot is marked as 'fragile ecosystem', the cheap route of getting waders is a no-go 

So, it's the 100-400 II or the 100-500 as this years budget item for camera toys. Or neither and just get the RF85


----------



## Del Paso (May 11, 2020)

carlosalberto said:


> I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
> An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today


That's why Canon has, for sports photographers and birders, some beautiful 300, 400 ,600 and 800 mm L lenses in the program.
Different (professional) use, different lenses !


----------



## jolyonralph (May 12, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.



The lens certainly *could* be capable of f/5.6 at 400 based on the design. 400/500 * 7.1 = 5.68 Now, that equation doesn't hold true for all lens designs of course, but it does show that at least it's possible it's f/5.6 at 400mm.

I can't see why Canon would release this class of lens if it DIDN'T do f/5.6 at 400mm - people would buy the EF lens instead.


----------



## koenkooi (May 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The lens certainly *could* be capable of f/5.6 at 400 based on the design. 400/500 * 7.1 = 5.68 Now, that equation doesn't hold true for all lens designs of course, but it does show that at least it's possible it's f/5.6 at 400mm.
> 
> I can't see why Canon would release this class of lens if it DIDN'T do f/5.6 at 400mm - people would buy the EF lens instead.



I was thinking that as well, but I'm slowly coming around to the other side:

With more and more f/7.1 lenses Canon is signalling that small apertures are OK now
With 100mm extra reach, people might forgive 400mm being f/6.3
But there's a counterpoint: there's the actual effective aperture and then there's the aperture that shows up in your EVF. Is anyone really going to notice it being f/6.0 when it reports f/5.6 in the EVF and EXIF?


----------



## BillB (May 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I was thinking that as well, but I'm slowly coming around to the other side:
> 
> With more and more f/7.1 lenses Canon is signalling that small apertures are OK now
> With 100mm extra reach, people might forgive 400mm being f/6.3
> But there's a counterpoint: there's the actual effective aperture and then there's the aperture that shows up in your EVF. Is anyone really going to notice it being f/6.0 when it reports f/5.6 in the EVF and EXIF?


So, it would seem possible that the RF 100-500 may be f5.6 at 400mm and quite likely that it is within 1/3 stop of f5.6 at 400mm?


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The lens certainly *could* be capable of f/5.6 at 400 based on the design. 400/500 * 7.1 = 5.68 Now, that equation doesn't hold true for all lens designs of course, but it does show that at least it's possible it's f/5.6 at 400mm.
> 
> I can't see why Canon would release this class of lens if it DIDN'T do f/5.6 at 400mm - people would buy the EF lens instead.


I'm sorry, but you need to rethink your math. By your own assumption, the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 100mm should be "able" to have a f# of 100/500 * 7.1 = 1.4. So, do you really think it could be f1.4 at 100mm? That'd be one heck of a lens there! 

Now, I know you're trying to get a reasonable estimate of what it could be, so I will mention the math you should have used, which assumes a linear relationship - which it's not, but we'll proceed as if it is. This is the general way to solve simultaneous equations with 2 unknowns (c0 and c1):
f# = c0 + c1 * mm (this will allow a linear relationship if you know (f#1, mm1) and (f#2, mm2) )
f# = 4.5 when mm = 100 and f# = 7.1 when mm = 500
Substitute these to get two equations:
4.5 = c0 + c1 * 100 and 7.1 = c0 + c1 * 500
Solve the first for c0: c0 = 4.5 - c1 * 100
Substitute that c0 into the 2nd equation and solve for c1:
7.1 = 4.5 - c1 * 100 + c1 * 500
7.1 - 4.5 = c1 * (500 - 100)
2.6 / 400 = c1 = .0065
Substitute that c1 into the above c0 equation
c0 = 4.5 - .0065 * 100 = 3.85
Now, find what f# would be at 400mm:
f# = 3.85 + .0065 * 400 = 6.45
So, you could hope that the f# at 400mm could be 6.45. That's fine. But when you look at the data of all the zooms you can find, you will find it's nowhere near linear and that almost all of the change happens quickly at the low mm end, and if I had to guess based on what I've seen I would guess that the f# at 400mm would actually be 7.1 as well since that is what previous zooms have shown to be probable.

If this helps you, great. Either way, it's obvious that I have *way* too much time on my hands to have written it all out.


----------



## BillB (May 12, 2020)

The difference between f5.6 and f7.1 is 2/3 of an f stop. If f5.6 at 400mm and F7.1 at 500mm are ok, how unacceptable can f6.3 or F7.1 at 400mm be?


----------



## Pape (May 13, 2020)

F7,1 lense could be directed for consumers too ,big white quality but like 2k price.
Dropping 1 stop isnt problem when consumers dont have super computer to remove noise so they use jpg ,what recently got 1 stop gain


----------



## navastronia (May 13, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A lot of people will be happy with the 100-500. Eventually, if the IQ checks out, I will probably be one of them.



Unless the lens is just unusable, I plan to get one. I have hope that with high ISO (on a great body, like an R5 or R1) and careful use of shutter speed, I could get away with it for outdoor events and daytime outdoor sports.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Unless the lens is just unusable, I plan to get one. I have hope that with high ISO (on a great body, like an R5 or R1) and careful use of shutter speed, I could get away with it for outdoor events and daytime outdoor sports.


The good news here though is that a F7.1 lens will allow for a metering at 0EV light levels. Here is an example of such an exposure:
ISO100, 1 second, F1.0
So it’s pretty dim lighting.
however , that’s metering. AF and tracking is a different story though.
Canon should have introduced a new naming convention for F7.1 lenses: DLO
Stands for : Daylight Only


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?


I agree. Canon obviously must be very bold about the low light performance of their new R series sensors, otherwise such a zoom wouldn't make much sense. On the other hand, many people love the Sigma 150-600mm sports despite the fact that it closes to f = 6.3 already @ about 320mm (maybe the main reason why it is sharper than Sigma's cheaper C zoom).


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon should have introduced a new naming convention for F7.1 lenses: DLO
> Stands for : Daylight Only


or HNO for "High Noon Only"


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.


In fact, this is one of the most interesting Canon tele lenses for me, too. With the Mk II version they really tackled the softer contrast of the Mk I lens compared with non-DO lenses back then. With that DO optic's tech Canon proves that they were really innovative with lens designs. Nikon tried to follow-up with their smaller 300mm f/4 five years ago, but like so often they struggled with off-centered lenses when they introduced it to the market, they really have issues with production precision: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/


----------



## usern4cr (May 14, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> In fact, this is one of the most interesting Canon tele lenses for me, too. With the Mk II version they really tackled the softer contrast of the Mk I lens compared with non-DO lenses back then. With that DO optic's tech Canon proves that they were really innovative with lens designs. Nikon tried to follow-up with their smaller 300mm f/4 five years ago, but like so often they struggled with off-centered lenses when they introduced it to the market, they really have issues with production precision: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/


Thanks for the link to the PF (phase fresnel) Nikon lens. I haven't considered fresnel lenses before since they weren't so good long ago (as I remember at least) so I assumed they wouldn't be now. I am very surprised to see that they can be as good. I guess we will see if Canon decides to come out with any RF DO(diffractive optic) lenses. As lens designs get big & heavy it could really make a drastic difference in reducing weight & size.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 15, 2020)

Saw a couple mallard ducks out back and some deer. Getting close to twilight last night, but not dark by any stretch. I have an RP and an RF 24-240. At 240, I had to be at 6.3 and 1/100th for decent exposure. Pushed the ISO right to 6,400 for the brightness I wanted (just a couple JPEG snaps). 

Long way of saying that 7.1 during the so-called “golden hour” could be problematic for people on the 100-500. I’m happy with my pictures, but wouldn’t be if I had paid a couple grand for the lens by itself.


----------



## usern4cr (May 15, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Saw a couple mallard ducks out back and some deer. Getting close to twilight last night, but not dark by any stretch. I have an RP and an RF 24-240. At 240, I had to be at 6.3 and 1/100th for decent exposure. Pushed the ISO right to 6,400 for the brightness I wanted (just a couple JPEG snaps).
> 
> Long way of saying that 7.1 during the so-called “golden hour” could be problematic for people on the 100-500. I’m happy with my pictures, but wouldn’t be if I had paid a couple grand for the lens by itself.


Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved). 

Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved).
> 
> Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case.



The 200 2.8 I imagine would be awesome. Kind of my dream lens if the kids didn’t have to eat anymore.

These are just backyard shots. In good light I have zero complaints. I’m just understanding why the proposed lens might not be “good enough” for the wildlife enthusiast.


----------



## usern4cr (May 15, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> The 200 2.8 I imagine would be awesome. Kind of my dream lens if the kids didn’t have to eat anymore.
> 
> These are just backyard shots. In good light I have zero complaints. I’m just understanding why the proposed lens might not be “good enough” for the wildlife enthusiast.


Yeah, it's hard to say what "good enough" is at the long end, as it's all about trade-offs.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 got voted (by many) as the best tele-zoom lens of 2019. But I wonder what people would think of a similarly designed RF 100-300 f2.8-4 if they pulled that off? It'd match well with their 24-105 f4 zoom. Or if they pulled off a RF 135-420 f4-5.6, which would match well with the 70-135 f2? And the 200-600 f5.6-8 would match well with the 70-200 f2.8? That'd be a whole lot of nice choices for people to pick from.


----------



## Ozarker (May 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Yeah, it's hard to say what "good enough" is at the long end, as it's all about trade-offs.
> 
> The RF 70-200 f2.8 got voted (by many) as the best tele-zoom lens of 2019. But I wonder what people would think of a similarly designed RF 100-300 f2.8-4 if they pulled that off? It'd match well with their 24-105 f4 zoom. Or if they pulled off a RF 135-420 f4-5.6, which would match well with the 70-135 f2? And the 200-600 f5.6-8 would match well with the 70-200 f2.8? That'd be a whole lot of nice choices for people to pick from.


I’ve shot both soccer and American football with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and found it to be too short from the sidelines on FF. While f/7.1 would be woefully dark at a night football game, for daytime sports it would be great. F/6.3, that people keep mentioning, would not fair much better at a night game. Were I the father or grandfather of a kid playing sports at night, I think I would just have to bite the bullet and get something fast for that. Painful, yes. But those years come and go quickly and photos help keep memories alive as we age.

Other than sports, I can think of numerous ways the 100-500mm could be very useful on a budget to someone, including portraits.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Well, if you're taking pictures at 240mm, why don't you compare your pictures with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom instead, as that's a much closer focal range? I get it that f7.1 is slower than you want, but it's only 7.1 because it's at a 500mm reach. * If you want faster than f7.1 at 500mm with non-cropped FF then you'll have to pay big bucks for a huge & heavy lens (well, unless they get DO optics of sufficient quality involved)*.
> 
> Maybe Canon/Sigma should start thinking about having a set of 75mm aperture tele zooms which would be something like a 100-300mm f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8. Then you could get a 100-300 f2.8-4 to compare with your 240mm f6.3, or a 135-420 f4-5.6 for a f5.6 worst case.











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


Buy Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens featuring F-Mount Lens/FX Format, Aperture Range: f/5.6 to f/32, Three Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, Super Integrated Coating, Silent Wave Motor AF System, Vibration Reduction with Sport Mode, Electromagnetic Diaphragm Mechanism, Detachable...




www.bhphotovideo.com





uhm.. $1,250.00 brand new.. not so heavy not so huge. just FYI: anything zoom with 95mm front filter isn't going to be prohibitively heavy or huge.
I totally understand what Canon is trying to achieve here. look at the size/ cost of Sigma 100-400 C and Tamron 100-400.. small, slow and cheap.
commercially translates to a broader audience, higher GP levels and wider revenue stream.


----------



## Joules (May 16, 2020)

Even though this topic isn't about the 100-500 mm 7.1 it seems to be a subject of much controvery. But just because it goes to 7.1 on the long end I bet this tele will have very little in common with the 24-240 mm 6.3 and 24-105 mm 7.1 in terms of quality and pricing. It probably is not a direct upgrade over the 100-400 mm 5.6 II (unless it somehow is 5.6 at 400 mm), but it should be very much in the same league.

Unless your subject is so close that you can't use 500 mm, the lens should match or beat the 100-400 mm 5.6 II since it gathers basically the same amount of light on the long end as you would get if you crop an image at 400 mm 5.6. I most frequently use my 150-600 mm C at 600 mm ... on a crop sensor. So I would guess the 100-500 mm 7.1 will also see the most action at 500 mm. Shooting 400 mm 5.6 and cropping and shooting 500 mm 7.1 and not cropping is essentially equivalent. You can verify that yourself if you have a zoom lens, see attachements. Those images are shot with wildy different apertures, but since the wider shot has to be cropped drastically to match the tighter one, all that advantage in light is lost. In this example, it is the same as comparing a 600 mm shot on FF with a 150 mm shot from a 4X crop factor sensor. f22 is 1/16 the light per area compared to f5.6, but a 4X crop factor results in 1/16 the sensor area and so they cancel out. It's a purposefully drastic example to show that you can't just look at the aperture without considering the magnification if you want to compare aspects like noise and detail. This is from the Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 C on an 80D and just an example, not a perfect comparison since the 600 mm shot is far into diffration limited territory. And they are both cropped slightly to make the differences (Or lack therof) more apparent.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> Even though this topic isn't about the 100-500 mm 7.1 it seems to be a subject of much controvery. But just because it goes to 7.1 on the long end I bet this tele will have very little in common with the 24-240 mm 6.3 and 24-105 mm 7.1 in terms of quality and pricing. It probably is not a direct upgrade over the 100-400 mm 5.6 II (unless it somehow is 5.6 at 400 mm), but it should be very much in the same league.
> 
> Unless your subject is so close that you can't use 500 mm, the lens should match or beat the 100-400 mm 5.6 II since it gathers basically the same amount of light on the long end as you would get if you crop an image at 400 mm 5.6. I most frequently use my 150-600 mm C at 600 mm ... on a crop sensor. So I would guess the 100-500 mm 7.1 will also see the most action at 500 mm. Shooting 400 mm 5.6 and cropping and shooting 500 mm 7.1 and not cropping is essentially equivalent. You can verify that yourself if you have a zoom lens, see attachements. Those images are shot with wildy different apertures, but since the wider shot has to be cropped drastically to match the tighter one, all that advantage in light is lost. In this example, it is the same as comparing a 600 mm shot on FF with a 150 mm shot from a 4X crop factor sensor. f22 is 1/16 the light per area compared to f5.6, but a 4X crop factor results in 1/16 the sensor area and so they cancel out. It's a purposefully drastic example to show that you can't just look at the aperture without considering the magnification if you want to compare aspects like noise and detail. This is from the Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 C on an 80D and just an example, not a perfect comparison since the 600 mm shot is far into diffration limited territory. And they are both cropped slightly to make the differences (Or lack therof) more apparent.
> View attachment 190442
> View attachment 190443


That’s if one have enough light though . ISO 12800 is still perfectly usable.
Nikon 200-500/5.6 does exist and is an inexpensive, reasonably sized zoom There is no reason why Canon couldn’t design a similarly sized / priced lens with a variable aperture F6.3 at the long end.


----------



## Joules (May 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> This lens will be useful in a good light only unless ISO 12800 is a consideration


Well, my point is exactly that. This lens will be usable under the same circumstances as the 100-400mm 5.6 II, unless in addition to moody light your wildlife is too close to you. In that case it depends on how the aperture changes as you go down in focal length. We don't know that yet. And even the if it stayed that dark at 400 mm, 5.6 is just 60 % more light than 7.1. Not a make or break difference. 

I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had. But if it struggles with the light one is using it in, the 100-400mm II won't necessarily be a better choice.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, my point is exactly that. This lens will be usable under the same circumstances as the 100-400mm 5.6 II, unless in addition to moody light your wildlife is too close to you. In that case it depends on how the aperture changes as you go down in focal length. We don't know that yet. And even the if it stayed that dark at 400 mm, 5.6 is just 60 % more light than 7.1. Not a make or break difference.
> 
> I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had. But if it struggles with the light one is using it in, the 100-400mm II won't necessarily be a better choice.


++++ I'm not saying this lens is the greatest Idea Canon ever had.
AM.: no, not the greatest idea indeed. Not for a Canon L lens anyway


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2020)

I set up a thread about the similar situation (to which Joules contributed) of 500mm f/5.6 vs 600mm f/6.3 https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...g-and-600mm-f-6-3-vs-500mm-f-5-6-zooms.38178/
Basically, the entrance diameter of the 500mm f/7.1 is the same as that of the 400mm f/5.6 and so both let in the same amount of light. If you are going to crop the 400mm f/5.6 to the same view as the 500mm f/7.1, you can up the iso to give the same shutter speed with the f/7.1 as the f/5.6, and the S/N will be the same for both after cropping. I'd take a 500mm f/7.1 over a 400mm f/5.6 any day if they were optically as good as each other and the same weight, which they should be.
I shoot Nikon as well as Canon now for birds and I wouldn't use their 200-500mm f/5.6 if you gave me one -it's too heavy like the Sony 200-600mm for hiking with for me. The Canon 100-400mm II is one of my favourite lenses because of its optical quality, great AF and light weight. The 500/7.1 is likely to be the same, and a nice weight.


----------



## usern4cr (May 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> http://[URL][URL][URL][URL]https://...4-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_200_500mm_f_5_6e.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> uhm.. $1,250.00 brand new.. not so heavy not so huge. just FYI: anything zoom with 95mm front filter isn't going to be prohibitively heavy or huge.
> I totally understand what Canon is trying to achieve here. look at the size/ cost of Sigma 100-400 C and Tamron 100-400.. small, slow and cheap.
> commercially translates to a broader audience, higher GP levels and wider revenue stream.


Thanks for the link to this lens so I could check it out. It weights 2,300g, or 5 lbs. That's pretty heavy to me (too heavy, really) but I'm guessing that might be about what one would expect for a 89mm max aperture. That's also a DSLR lens which might be getting pretty discounted as it's not a new Z mount lens, so the lower price would probably not reflect what the cost might be for a new RF 200-500 f5.6 lens now.

I really like the range of zooms I suggested (100-300, 135-420, and 200-600), and a max aperture of 75mm in them (if possible: 100-300 f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8) would probably be ideal for me. Maybe they could also make a version of these at a smaller aperture for a much cheaper & lighter set, as well as a version at an appropriately larger aperture for a more expensive & heaver set. But that sure would be a lot of lenses and I don't know if that would make economic sense.

By the way, if they did make these kind of zooms, would you prefer a telescoping version or a fixed length one? They both have advantages, so I'm just curious?


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the link to this lens so I could check it out. It weights 2,300g, or 5 lbs. That's pretty heavy to me (too heavy, really) but I'm guessing that might be about what one would expect for a 89mm max aperture. That's also a DSLR lens which might be getting pretty discounted as it's not a new Z mount lens, so the lower price would probably not reflect what the cost might be for a new RF 200-500 f5.6 lens now.
> 
> I really like the range of zooms I suggested (100-300, 135-420, and 200-600), and a max aperture of 75mm in them (if possible: 100-300 f2.8-4, 135-420 f4-5.6, 200-600 f5.6-8) would probably be ideal for me. Maybe they could also make a version of these at a smaller aperture for a much cheaper & lighter set, as well as a version at an appropriately larger aperture for a more expensive & heaver set. But that sure would be a lot of lenses and I don't know if that would make economic sense.
> 
> By the way, if they did make these kind of zooms, would you prefer a telescoping version or a fixed length one? They both have advantages, so I'm just curious?


The Sony 200-600mm is the best of the longer zooms, with excellent optics and fast AF. Users like its rapid internal zoon with its fixed length. However, there are complaints about its weight and it is more difficult to stow. I prefer telescoping versions as they are easier to pack and easier to carry on a black rapid. I used to be happy with the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs which was heavier, but shorter, than the Nikon 200-500mm but it is so much easier to carry and hand hold a lens 800g less.


----------



## usern4cr (May 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is the best of the longer zooms, with excellent optics and fast AF. Users like its rapid internal zoon with its fixed length. However, there are complaints about its weight and it is more difficult to stow. I prefer telescoping versions as they are easier to pack and easier to carry on a black rapid. I used to be happy with the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs which was heavier, but shorter, than the Nikon 200-500mm but it is so much easier to carry and hand hold a lens 800g less.


Thanks - I also would be happier with a telescoping version to get the stowable length as short as possible. I'd also prefer a lighter weight, but I don't know if a telescoping version would be any lighter than a fixed length one or not (I'd probably prefer whichever is lightest). I also hope that they can get the weight down enough so I can hand hold it (at least for short durations) and then stow it in a backpack. I'd prefer not to have to deal with a tripod while I walk/hike with it. I don't know the point where the weight is ok for that vs too heavy. I do have a 1,270g lens (600mm f8 FF EQ) which I'm happy handholding, but I don't know how much heavier I could take (maybe 1,400g or so???)


----------



## biznatch (Jul 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'll take a wild guess of $2,700, but I could be way off either way.



Wow.









Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens


Buy Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens featuring RF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4.5-7.1 to f/32-54, One Super UD Element, Six UD Elements, Dual Nano USM AF System, Optical Image Stabilizer, Weather-Sealed Design, Fluorine Coating, Customizable Control Ring, Rotating...




www.bhphotovideo.com




$2,699.00


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 19, 2020)

biznatch said:


> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for reminding me! 
Apparently my guess wasn't that far off ($1), after all.
Now, what do I win? 

I do remember so many thinking it would be more like half that!


----------

