# Canon officially announced the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 14, 2021)

> Canon has officially announced the first professional super-telephoto lenses with the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. Both of these lenses are pretty much identical to to their EF mount brothers.
> Press Release:
> The Canon RF400mm F2.8L IS USM and Canon RF600mm F4L IS USM are both designed to be optically identical to their EF counterparts. The RF400mm and RF600mm weigh in at 6.37 and 6.81 pounds with a minimum focusing distance of 8.2 and 13.8 feet, respectively. Both lenses share many of the same critical features that help professional high-end super-telephoto lenses stand out from the crowd. Those features include:
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Interesting. _"Optically identical"_ to the EF 400 and 600 and actually weigh just a fraction more, despite Canon stating, _"weight on these RF-series super-telephotos has been significantly reduced vs. previous-generation Canon super tele designs." _Same price as EF too.


----------



## sanj (Apr 14, 2021)

This is not nice.


----------



## antolalto (Apr 14, 2021)

Despite being a fan of this decision, it seems absurd to me that Canon decided to produce two lenses that are identical to the versions released in 2018, with no substantial difference.

It would have had more sense to develop a much needed updated version of the 500 f/4, IMHO. 

I will wait to see, for the time being I'll keep my 300 II.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2021)

Wonder if they did this and a later time will offer mount conversion to get more of the pro crew over to RF bodies...


----------



## ChrisBainbridge1 (Apr 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Interesting. _"Optically identical"_ to the EF 400 and 600 and actually weigh just a fraction more, despite Canon stating, _"weight on these RF-series super-telephotos has been significantly reduced vs. previous-generation Canon super tele designs." _Same price as EF too.


The pictures do more or less look like the 600 F4 III with an RF mount attached. This is a relief - can stick with my 600 F4 II - which has the same if not slightly better resolution / optical quality than the newer lens. Can save my pennies for the R3 instead.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 14, 2021)

Big disappointment for me:

same weight,
same far minimum focus distance

but yeah... same price is "ok" ...I was thinking about 15k for complete NEW lenses  - but they aren't new at all.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 14, 2021)

Rough dimenson comparison leads to same than EF lenses + RF adapter.
Internally they might differ, of course...

Canon RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM
163 x 367 mm
2.890 g
MFD 2,5 m

EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM
163 x 343 mm
2840 g
MFD 2,5 m


Canon RF 600mm F4L IS USM
168 x 472 mm
3.090 g
MFD 4,2 m

EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM
Ca. 168 x 448
3.050 g
MFD 4,2 m


----------



## Master-H (Apr 14, 2021)

One of the advantages of the RF mount is improved communication between camera and lens. I would think that will improve AF speed ?


----------



## sanj (Apr 14, 2021)

Fail


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

They aren't bad lenses, it is just disappointing there wasn't something more to them. The cynic in me says that they are holding back/banking tech for a bigger upgrade for the next Olympics with the R1.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 14, 2021)

antolalto said:


> Despite being a fan of this decision, it seems absurd to me that Canon decided to produce two lenses that are identical to the versions released in 2018, with no substantial difference.
> 
> It would have had more sense to develop a much needed updated version of the 500 f/4, IMHO.


Look at it another way: considering it makes no financial sense to redesign the optics, making an RF 400mm f/2.8 with the same optical design as the EF is a low hanging fruit, why wait until the 500mm f/4 is redesigned?


----------



## bichex (Apr 14, 2021)

It seems logical to me what canon does. On the one hand they are discontinuing the EF lenses so it is logical that they replace them with the same or better lenses with an R mount. On the other hand Canon seems to be behind Sony. Sony already has 600 F4 and 400 2.8 and already has alpha 1, so Canon wants to avoid bleeding and says we will now have the same lenses and camera as the R3, equivalent or better to alpha 1.
Finally, there are always new buyers of a lens, who will want it with the new frame.
It is clear that it was Sony who promoted the change in technology


----------



## JordanCS13 (Apr 14, 2021)

I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2021)

bichex said:


> ...It is clear that it was Sony who promoted the change in technology


They get a trophy. Canon gets the money.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> ...why wait until the 500mm f/4 is redesigned?


When the EF 600 III and 400 III came out, there were expectations that the 500 III would follow shortly. Never happened. I suspect that Canon had the lens already designed and then held back to concentrate on RF lenses. I also suspect that the RF 500 will simply be that EF 500 III in an RF mount just like these lenses.


----------



## sanj (Apr 14, 2021)

I do not see any reason why owners of these EF lenses should buy this.


----------



## sanj (Apr 14, 2021)

BUMMER


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2021)

Spot the RF place holder lenses....


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Apr 14, 2021)

I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.


A 500mm f/4.0 makes more sense to me as it is still hand holdable for a few shots like the 400mm and has the added extra 100mm to make it a real "long" and fast lens. With the improved low light camera bodies the f/4.0 is not that bad and the bokeh is still excellent. I may well be buying an RF 500mm if they make it.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 14, 2021)

Now if Canon does the same with the 300mm F/2.8 L IS II - I will regret selling mine early... a lot.


----------



## xps (Apr 14, 2021)

ChrisBainbridge1 said:


> The pictures do more or less look like the 600 F4 III with an RF mount attached. This is a relief - can stick with my 600 F4 II - which has the same if not slightly better resolution / optical quality than the newer lens. Can save my pennies for the R3 instead.


Yesssss, Sir, same experience. My EF 600 III feels a lot lighter, but sharpnes is not the same as on my older MK II lens. You can see it especially on fine details on feathers of the birds. 
So, I will definitively wait for the next RF version.
BTW the lens looks like my EF III version, just with an grey adapter on. Maybe Canon mounted an fixed adapter on the MK III version....


----------



## xps (Apr 14, 2021)

Canon, still missing 300mm, 500mm,.... (I hope they do not just put an fixed adapter on ist....)
and an competitor for the 200-600mm from sony. You would sell a lot of them.
Almost every Sony shooter I know, owns this light lens.
And the 100-500 is not equal to it. Sorry, but the missing aperture is visible.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Apr 14, 2021)

If I look at the photos, it really seems they only put that fixed adapter on the old versions. They say autofocus s better with the RF versions because of a new motor or so, but even if I would by one today, would prefer the EF version that still works on EF cameras. It seems for very long focal length the RF mount does dot really make any new optical formulas possible, as there s no advantage in putting the first lens element even closer to the sensor.


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2021)

antolalto said:


> Despite being a fan of this decision, it seems absurd to me that Canon decided to produce two lenses that are identical to the versions released in 2018, with no substantial difference.
> 
> It would have had more sense to develop a much needed updated version of the 500 f/4, IMHO.
> 
> I will wait to see, for the time being I'll keep my 300 II.


It’s a retrofit in response to the sony equivalents.

500 and 300 are not volume sellers so can stand to wait until next year


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> When the EF 600 III and 400 III came out, there were expectations that the 500 III would follow shortly. Never happened. I suspect that Canon had the lens already designed and then held back to concentrate on RF lenses. I also suspect that the RF 500 will simply be that EF 500 III in an RF mount just like these lenses.


And why would Canon proceed with the 400 & 600 mkIII, and hold back the 500 mkIII?

Say Canon had a designed and ready for RF manufacturing 500 mkIII, why not make it and let photographers mount the 400 & 600 mkIII with adapters, rather than make new 400 & 600 mkIII for RF, and leave money on the table with the unmanufactured 500 mkIII?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2021)

After reviewing the Sony 600mm f/4.0 vs the RF 600mm f/4.0, they are near identical in weight and very little difference in length. Perhaps redesigning a huge lens to save a inch isn't important when it is already lighter than the Sony and I believe much lighter than the Nikon (though that is getting a full Z redesign.)

I also don't think we'll see a new 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4.0 as these where always just 'cheeper' and less popular 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0 lenses. I think they'll go the Nikon route with a 120-300mm f/2.8 that is way more useful in sports settings and for the 500mm they'll go their own way with a 200-500mm f/4.0 which can have value added stuff like a built in TC and equal IQ. These changes put them up to that £10,000 range.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 14, 2021)

My lens fantasy is a 120-300 f/2-2.8 and 200-500 f/2.8-4 where the lens holds the f/2 or f/2.8 respectively until the lens reaches 200mm or 350mm. I don't know if such a lens is even possible. Add a 1.4X and 2X TC and I might even buy one.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.


The 500mm f4 was popular because it was significantly cheaper than the 600mm f4, the 400mm f2.8 and the 200-400 f4. It was also lighter than the same generation versions of the other lenses. Given that the RF versions of the 400 and 600 are priced comparably to their EF versions, I would expect that the 500mm f4 would offer a similar price differential from the other three lenses, as well as being much lighter than the EF500 II. The 600 III can be hand held, although I wouldn't want to do it for long periods. The prospect of 500mm that is lighter and cheaper than the other three lenses would make it appealing to many people.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 15, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.


I think this is a great encapsulation of how I feel. No control ring? That really will keep me from getting the RF 600. I love the control ring and right now I can use my 600 MkII EF with the control ring adapter and I love it. No incentive for me to buy this "new" RF 600.


----------



## rbr (Apr 15, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> I think this is a great encapsulation of how I feel. No control ring? That really will keep me from getting the RF 600. I love the control ring and right now I can use my 600 MkII EF with the control ring adapter and I love it. No incentive for me to buy this "new" RF 600.


I agree. I find the control ring extremely useful. I use mine to change the focus points (e.g. between spot, eye tracking, etc.) For me that is most important with big telephotos where I do that regularly on the R5. I would find it a step down to lose that at this point and would really miss it.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2021)

xps said:


> Canon, still missing 300mm, 500mm,.... (I hope they do not just put an fixed adapter on ist....)
> and an competitor for the 200-600mm from sony. You would sell a lot of them.
> Almost every Sony shooter I know, owns this light lens.
> And the 100-500 is not equal to it. Sorry, but the missing aperture is visible.


The 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is 0.8kg heavier and much longer than the RF 100-500mm, which puts it above the comfortable weight for a walk-around - hiking nature lens for me. Although if you follow forums, the 200-600mm looks very popular, and all your Sony friends own one, I never see one on my regular bird watching trips. The 100-500mm at f/7.1 is more than good enough for me.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 15, 2021)

All these do is add an ef/rf converter that has a hole big enough for an rf TC and maybe a bit of tweaking to the IS algorithm to take advantage of the IBIS in the R5 and R6. The optics haven't changed from the EF III versions and they were the lowest IQ in the series in a while, particularly with TCs. Hopefully the performance with the RF TCs will be a little better.


----------



## padam (Apr 16, 2021)

All those theories about the mark III EF / RF versions being a step back seem to be unfounded (at least in the case of the 400mm).
Sharpness seems to be about the same as the previous version, but when an EF III extender is mounted, performance seems noticeably better and of course it will improve further with the RF extenders.


----------



## swkitt (Apr 16, 2021)

You have to remember that all those lenses in EF version are just perfect in terms of fast AF, IQ and design, and just as good as Sony or Nikon versions. All those big lenses are optimized and I don't think that anything can be improved a lot on them, apart from cutting size and weight by using DO technology. 
So I don't really understand why people complain that the RF version look like the EF... if the EF is already perfect. 
If you already have a EF, then perfect, just use the adapter. If you don't then just buy the RF directly. But asking for a new model - that will not be any better because that's where the technology stands for now -is just stupid, or a geek idea. 
By the way the first 2,8/400 IS that is 30 years old still have the same image quality than the latest versions. Of course it's 1.5 kgs heavier but most people use it on a tripod anyway. Honestly nobody needs a better lens than the latest EF 400 and 600 to make better photos. 
The only acceptable demand would be to have lenses smaller and lighter but for that we will all have to wait for the DO versions.


----------



## Ahmed Hindawi (Apr 16, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.


I cannot agree more!


----------



## Alan B (Apr 16, 2021)




----------



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.


While it is a strange decision, I can only imagine that Canon surveyed the target professional audience for these lenses and found that the Control Ring was not necessarily a positive or at least that there was little interest in it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If I look at the photos, it really seems they only put that fixed adapter on the old versions. They say autofocus s better with the RF versions because of a new motor or so, but even if I would by one today, would prefer the EF version that still works on EF cameras. It seems for very long focal length the RF mount does dot really make any new optical formulas possible, as there s no advantage in putting the first lens element even closer to the sensor.



Mirrorless shorter flange distance has little benefit in long focal length. So unlikely they could have made these lenses any smaller or lighter. There are new designs anyway with significant weight savings over the Mark II versions.

I'm more curious about what happened with the 600 F4 DO lens exhibited a few years ago.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 17, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> I think it's a bad look to not even bother incorporating a control ring into it. I'm fine with the decision to re-use the optics, as they really didn't need updating, but it basically being a mount swap (and then making the whole extension silver looks awful) is a bad look. At least offer some mild exterior redesign, with the consistent mount end like every other RF lens, and add a control ring. Right now, this is less functional than the EF version with the control ring adapter.



I totally agree! That silver "glued on" extension tube looks cheap and ugly. And these lenses are the only RF lenses without a control ring, even the $100 50mm STM has one. 
Canon probably considered these lenses too cheap to have a control ring.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 18, 2021)

I just had a short look at the German Canon homepage and noticed this description of the AF:


> Der duale Fokusantrieb sorgt mit kompatiblen Kameras für einen schnelleren Autofokus.


"The dual focus drive delivers a faster AF with *compatible *cameras"

What could this mean? I compared the homepage of Canon USA and didn't find a similar term.

Speculation mode on:
*the control ring is missing because the connection of the RF mount is used to power the AF motor*

*the R3 will deliver more power to the lens and improve the AF speed*

It is just a thought and I'm not shure this is right.


----------



## Joules (Apr 18, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> I just had a short look at the German Canon homepage and noticed this description of the AF:
> 
> "The dual focus drive delivers a faster AF with *compatible *cameras"
> 
> ...


It is an odd way of writing that. The dual focus drive just sounds like the type of AF motor already in use in the RF 100 2.8 and I believe also in the RF 70-200mm, we're they have two independently moving focus groups. They have it described in more detail further down:

"Der Fokusantrieb mit zwei Ring-USM-Motoren wird von einer Hochgeschwindigkeits-CPU und optimierten AF-Algorithmen unterstützt und sorgt damit für eine schnelle und leise Fokussierung" 

"The dual focus drive with two ring-usm motors is supported by a high speed CPU and optimized AF algorithms allowing fast and silent focusing."

That could of course imply that the compatibility in question is concerned with the bodies CPU speed. But that seems odd to me, as I would have thought how exactly AF is executed is a function implemented in the lens.

Perhaps compatible just referred to the RF bodies in general, in contrast to EF bodies which are incompatible with these.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 18, 2021)

Joules said:


> Perhaps compatible just referred to the RF bodies in general, in contrast to EF bodies which are incompatible with these.


Is there a similar term at any of the other RF lenses? I looked at the RF100 and RF100-500 and found nothing.

At the R3 thread the same topic is discussed by a member from Sweden:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...orless-camera-is-on-its-way.40344/post-890220


----------



## Canfan (Apr 21, 2021)

Would be nice to have a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm 5.6 as well for comparision of nikons version.


----------



## applecider (Jun 24, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I wonder if they will produce a 500mm lens again. Are there really enough people who want 500mm, because 400mm are too wide and 600mm are too narrow for them. 500mm would only be interestng for more people if there was a f/2.8 version, but that one would be very heavy. I expect the 200-500mm f/4 to be a good alternative to a 500mm prime.


The 500mm is a noticeably lighter lens which is shootable luggable more than the 400 or 600. My question is where is the 600 DO lens f4.


----------

