# Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 3, 2022)

> It was inevitable that Canon would be bringing at least one big super telephoto zoom lens like the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x to the RF mount lineup, and this patent unearthed by Keith at Northlight Images shows Canon is working away at such lenses.
> USPTO Patent US20220035144 shows the following optical formulas.
> 
> Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 3, 2022)

yes please!
and give them an included TC!

"Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L" or give it f5.6 like the old fat Sigma  - but in new and lightweight .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

The 150-600mm f/5-6.3 sounds an awful lot like the Tam/Sig lenses. The Tam g2 has 21 elements. So I suggest the 150-600 is a consumer lens, though the others are most likely L-series.


----------



## imagesandbirds.com (Feb 3, 2022)

An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.

A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Feb 3, 2022)

Interested in seeing what the Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L can do. I have the sigma version but its so horribly built that it broke easily after one trip. I'd love it if Canon finally made one but faster at focusing and with much better quality... Terrified about that price though


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Feb 3, 2022)

I'd love the Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L but I have the much older, and probably HEAVER sigma version, and it's served me well. The canon at f/8 will probably focus just as fast as the sigma at f/5.6, but Canon will probably be lighter.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 3, 2022)

The 200-500 f/4 has been a long held dream lens, preferably but not necessarily with a 1.4x TC. I always wondered why Sigma made a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 300-800 f/5.6 but not the lens in the middle. (The 200-500 f/2.8 is in another class of lenses. It apparently was an obsession of the current Sigma CEO's father.)


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Feb 3, 2022)

How about just a competitor with the Nikkor 500 pf in size, price and performance?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 3, 2022)

I will probably trade in my Sigma 150-600 the day the Canon one comes out.
It will be interesting to see the price since the 100-500 costs so much.
I do not want to imagine how much the other lenses will cost.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 3, 2022)

I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L. A lot more speed (nearly two stops), and a decently wide zoom range. But the 100-500 is still appealing to carry along and handhold.
Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L. Like with a TC plus some speed.

The real answer for one with a 100-500 seeling real differentiations: a 400 f2.8 for serious speed (or 600 f4 if length is preferred).


----------



## imagesandbirds.com (Feb 3, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?
> 
> Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
> Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
> ...


- Problem no. 1: 500/7.1 + 1.4 TC = 700/10. So you might as well grab the 800/11 for a quarter of the price instead.
- Problem no. 2: The 100-500 needs to be extended past 300 mm to accept the teleconverter. Below this, the rear element of the lens collides with the tc itself. That makes the process more faff than you could bear in the field.
- Problem no 3: Attaching a teleconverter in the field is slow and sometimes difficult. Try it with heavy gloves in a snowstorm or while it is raining giraffes and elephants. Either you manage to get serious amounts of grime into your camera/lens or whatever you wanted to photograph is gone by the time you finally attached the tc.

This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea. An inbuilt tc is a different beast of course, but besides wishful thinking (including my own), only three lenses sport one as of today and all three are far north of 10,000 USD in price.

A 150-600 would be seriously helpful and more practical for wildlife photography than the 100-500 (and a tc). Because "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never. Same goes of course for a 200-500/4 with an inbuilt tc, but such a lens is gonna cost around 13 to 15k, where I deem an 150-600 L somewhere around 3 grand. The 100-500 on the other hand is by all practical means more like a 100-400 on steroids than a real supertelephoto zoom.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 3, 2022)

And my 14mm TSE ????


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> - Problem no. 1: 500/7.1 + 1.4 TC = 700/10. So you might as well grab the 800/11 for a quarter of the price instead.


I have both, and only use the 800/11 for shaking the dust off it. The 100-500 is nx better for BIF, focussing at less than 6m, and outresolves it with the 2xTC, as well as zooming.



imagesandbirds.com said:


> - Problem no. 2: The 100-500 needs to be extended past 300 mm to accept the teleconverter. Below this, the rear element of the lens collides with the tc itself. That makes the process more faff than you could bear in the field.


A minor over-exaggerated defect.


imagesandbirds.com said:


> - Problem no 3: Attaching a teleconverter in the field is slow and sometimes difficult. Try it with heavy gloves in a snowstorm or while it is raining giraffes


It's fast for me and I don't go out with heavy gloves in a snow storm as I find the snowflakes get in between me and whatever wild-life is mad enough to be out.


imagesandbirds.com said:


> and elephants. Either you manage to get serious amounts of grime into your camera/lens or whatever you wanted to photograph is gone by the time you finally attached the tc.


I have never got dust on my sensor in 10 years of using extenders.


imagesandbirds.com said:


> This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea. An inbuilt tc is a different beast of course, but besides wishful thinking (including my own), only three lenses sport one as of today and all three are far north of 10,000 USD in price.
> 
> A 150-600 would be seriously helpful and more practical for wildlife photography than the 100-500 (and a tc). Because "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never. Same goes of course for a 200-500/4 with an inbuilt tc, but such a lens is gonna cost around 13 to 15k, where I deem an 150-600 L somewhere around 3 grand. The 100-500 on the other hand is by all practical means more like a 100-400 on steroids than a real supertelephoto zoom.


It would not be seriously helpful etc for everyone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea.
> 
> "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never.


My usual means of 'adding a teleconverter' to a great white is to put the 1.4x behind my 600/4 so I have an 800/5.6, attach the camera and then go out shooting. I 'subtract the teleconverter' when I get home.

Ok, sometimes I do bring the 2x along and swap them but generally that's when I'm shooting winter raptors with the lens on a tripod/gimbal. When I'm out walking around and shooting shorebirds or passerines, I don't want to juggle a $13K lens and a $6K camera to swap out a TC.

However, now having the R3, RF 100-500 and both RF TCs, I can easily manage the 'juggling' and I expect I'll be swapping TCs with reasonable frequency when using that lens+body combo.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 3, 2022)

I'd be more willing to buy an internal zooming RF 200-500mm f4 L than I would be buying a 200-400mm. Once I got my 100-500mm, getting to 560 at f5.6 with an 8lbs lens didn't become as impressive. I briefly considered selling all my Canon gear for the Z9 and their 400mm f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC because I am just so jealous of that lens. I'm still waiting to see what the RF 500mm f4 is going to weigh before I make my final decision on investing on a big white though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have both, and only use the 800/11 for shaking the dust off it. The 100-500 is nx better for BIF, focussing at less than 6m, and outresolves it with the 2xTC, as well as zooming.


Most other people who I know that have both use both.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 3, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> I briefly considered selling all my Canon gear for the Z9 and their 400mm f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC because I am just so jealous of that lens


I hope Canon makes a similar lens.
It is not like they can't.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 3, 2022)

I'd be very interested in a 300-800 F8L lens. I can imagine the beautiful images they could get at a long distance. I assume it'd be TC compatible, but you never know till it's out.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 3, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'd be very interested in a 300-800 F8L lens. I can imagine the beautiful images they could get at a long distance. I assume it'd be TC compatible, but you never know till it's out.


That is a safe assumption.
I would never do it but I do not like the fact that the RF teleconverters can't be stacked.
Hopefully, a third party will make versions that can be.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 3, 2022)

RF 200-500 f/4L with a built in 1.4 TC and take my money.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 3, 2022)

I am eager to see Canon fill out the telephoto end of the RF mount. I've only had the 100-500 for three races and love it...but I would like to see more and faster apertures! Nikon's new 400 with the built in 1.4TC has me very jealous!


----------



## StandardLumen (Feb 3, 2022)

200-500 f/4? Yes please!


----------



## ISO64 (Feb 3, 2022)

R7 + 150-600 + 1.4x =


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 3, 2022)

There was a previous rumor about an RF 200 - 500 with a built in Tele converter, I imagine we would see that one sooner than later.

The 300 - 800 really intrigues me.

I’m mostly looking forward to the rumored RF 400 f/4 IS DO USM. Need something sharp, long, and portable.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> There was a previous rumor about an RF 200 - 500 with a built in Tele converter, I imagine we would see that one sooner than later.
> 
> The 300 - 800 really intrigues me.
> 
> I’m mostly looking forward to the rumored RF 400 f/4 IS DO USM. Need something sharp, long, and portable.


I miss my EF 400mm DO II, and I think Canon could make an even lighter version that would also work better with a 2x extender.


----------



## SonicStudios (Feb 3, 2022)

Sooooo, I guess this means the RF 300 IS 2.8 is not ready for prime-time players :-(


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.
> 
> A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.


What is the TC issue you speak of?

while I understand the reach thing, there is very little between 500 and 600. In most cases we just have to work harder to get closer and endure the wrath of the local grumpy birder police.


----------



## WildlifeCan-on (Feb 3, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I hope Canon makes a similar lens.
> It is not like they can't.


I do think a 400/2,8 with built in TC would be a brilliant lens for Canon to bring out! 
Congratulations to all Nikon shooters upon already having this lens!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> A minor over-exaggerated defect.



The min @300 w/TC is pretty much the one thing I really dislike about the 100-500 as well. Carrying the lens almost fully extended (which at 300 it almost is) is not the best situation and packing it w/ the TC attached is not really an option. Getting 600-1000 (compared to 200-1000) or 420-700 (compared to 140-700) isn't optimal either. I love the lens... but it is the one thing I wish was different.


----------



## snapshot (Feb 3, 2022)

i wonder what a 100-400 f/2.8 would be like


----------



## neurorx (Feb 3, 2022)

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L Priced comparable to the Sony 200-600mm would be awesome. I would like the f4 glass but I suspect that will be significantly more expensive.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

snapshot said:


> i wonder what a 100-400 f/2.8 would be like


Big, white and blooming expensive


----------



## MiJax (Feb 3, 2022)

I can't see the 150-600 6.3 selling very well. They mentioned a 100-500 5.6 was mocked up and created but would have cost $3700, so it was mothballed in favor of the 7.1. A 600 6.3 isn't going to be much smaller, so I could easily see a 150-600 6.3 from Canon at the budget busting $3500-$4000 range. That's 4x the cost of the Contemporary Sigma. I'm sure it will be better but I just think that would be a hard sell.

Personally, I want a RF 500 F4 with a built in TC. I commonly find myself screwed changing the TC's out. There's never a good time to do it, either you are lucky or you're not. I wish all of the super tele's had a built in TC, but something tells me Canon may not like the idea of throwing away the TC revenue (especially after creating two new TCs). But I do think it is necessary, there just isn't enough improvement of these lenses' optical performance to ask people to pay $10,000-$14,000. I understand the slight improvements, or in the case of recent RF super teles, slight steps back with a reasonable weight loss is fine, but the reason to dump $10,000+ dollars is getting thinner and thinner.


----------



## degos (Feb 3, 2022)

The 300-800 would be an astonishing airshow lens. No need to have two bodies with close and far lenses...

f8 shouldn't be too much of a problem given the usual season for airshows coincides with decent weather.


----------



## StephenShreds (Feb 3, 2022)

*Sigh*, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

StephenShreds said:


> *Sigh*, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.


These are patents, it could be months, years, or an eternity before these become actual products. The 100-500 is an excellent lens.


----------



## Kiton (Feb 3, 2022)

docsmith said:


> RF 200-500 f/4L with a built in 1.4 TC and take my money.



Ha! Different strokes for different folks!

I am saying...please, no 1.4 in the 200-500!
i would never need a 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 again. 
It would be my dream lens. 
I don't need a 500 + 1.4 to shoot NHL, F1, football, soccer etc. not even golf!


----------



## Alam (Feb 3, 2022)

imagesandbirds.com said:


> An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.
> 
> A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.


Huh? really? You want to go hiking, wigh 150-600? I own tamron 150-600 G2 and 
Trust me, going from 500 to 600 is not that huge, miniscule compared to weight and extra siR you need to carry from 100-500

I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare


----------



## Tom W (Feb 3, 2022)

I'd gladly save up for a 200-500 f/4.


----------



## Bishop80 (Feb 4, 2022)

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L
Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L

Much as I would love these in EF mount, might as well start setting aside (more) money.


----------



## shire_guy (Feb 4, 2022)

The 200mm-500mm f/4L and 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L both sound real interesting. Able to take TC's would be a must.
But if they came out with a lighter 500mm f/4L able to take TC's that would be perfect.


----------



## risto0 (Feb 4, 2022)

I would like to see a zoom of 400-600 f4 or 500-600 f4, with built-in 1.4x.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?
> 
> Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
> Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
> ...


For me, the minimum focus distance and magnification were the main reasons to like the EF100-400II L and RF100-500L, I bet the lenses in this patent are all worse in that regard.


----------



## degos (Feb 4, 2022)

Alam said:


> I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare



Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...

Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 4, 2022)

degos said:


> Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...
> 
> Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.


Doesn’t that depend on the air show? Bournemouth vs Farnborough springs to mind.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2022)

degos said:


> Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...
> 
> Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.


Yes, I wince every time some wise guy tells you to get closer as a), it's not always possible and b) you get a larger image if you get just as close with a longer lens as a shorter one.


----------



## Alam (Feb 4, 2022)

Well, it's your money

Just imagine, does going from 35mm to 28mm really matter? Especially with today's dense sensor

That's how much you get going 500 to 600, practically nothing




degos said:


> Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...
> 
> Sometimes there's no substitute for reach


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 4, 2022)

I'm really curious to know what's going on with that 150-600. How could they sell that for $4-5k USD, vs a smaller and lighter 100-500 that people like, but which they are already worried about the price point over? You also have the Sigma sport and Tamron lenses there in the $1500-2k range. I know the rumor and patent implies L series, but I wonder if they are possibly going to go mid-scale with this? Probably not, but one can hope. 

I always lusted after the EF 200-400 f4. But none of the $10k plus lenses are realistic for me. If money were no object, that 200-500 would look pretty sweet on the sidelines of my daughter's soccer games! 

Brian


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm really curious to know what's going on with that 150-600. How could they sell that for $4-5k USD, vs a smaller and lighter 100-500 that people like, but which they are already worried about the price point over? [..]


Canon marketing: "Hey, a lot of internet commenters are very upset about f/7.1, I wonder how much they'll pay extra for f/6.3, $2000?"


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 4, 2022)

Both Tamron and Sigma make 150mm-600mm lenses, I bet Canon wants a piece of the cake.

An RF 300-800mm f/8L? That would be an impressive lens, but it would be about as expensive as the EF 800mm f/5.6


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2022)

Alam said:


> Huh? really? You want to go hiking, wigh 150-600? I own tamron 150-600 G2 and
> Trust me, going from 500 to 600 is not that huge, miniscule compared to weight and extra siR you need to carry from 100-500
> 
> I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare


 600/500 does not work. 

The magnification is (600/500)^2 = 1.2^2 = 1.44 Which means 44% more. It may or may not be significant depending on distance and bird size.

Sometimes for static birds when I use a car I bring my 500mm and put 2X to make a 1000mm f/8 lens. Fortunately 500mm 4L IS II behaves very well with the EF2XIII. It works well with 5DsR and R5 with adapter.


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2022)

A would rather have a DO 600mm f/6.3 lens but no luck  

Fortunately there is Nikon's 500mm 5.6 PF 

Canon's 100-500 seems to me a more general purpose versatile lens for birds, flowers, small mammals, bees, etc...


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 4, 2022)

I would love to see Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L at a price somewhere around $2500 USD mark but given Canon' price history lately they will abuse their market leader position and charge well north of $3000 USD.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 4, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> I would love to see Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L at a price somewhere around $2500 USD mark but given Canon' price history lately they will abuse their market leader position and charge well north of $3000 USD.


With the 100-500 already at $2900 US, and this lens being longer and faster, I think the floor is $4k if it is an L series lens. 

Here's a nice conspiracy theory for everyone - what if that lens is a collaboration lens with Sigma? Maybe we haven't seen anything from Sigma on the RF mount yet because they are going to release them under Canon's name, like some of the recent Tamron designs that are Nikon or Sony badged....

Brian


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 4, 2022)

Looks like some good options. Probably from expensive to eye-watering expensive.
Personally I'd like a 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 L Lens.
100-400 is a little short at times and I don't use it too often at the 100mm end.
I'd prefer a longer option. 
I have 600mm F4 II and while its a wonderful lens it's difficult to move around and not very flexible. 
It's hard to get a single solution for all needs.
While I love the 600mm F4 II I don't think I'd recommend it. The weight, the solid tripod it requires, Wimberly Gimbal.
The weight all adds up. By the time you can afford one you are too old to use it.
200-600mm would be a sweet point for me.
I'm sure some day it will appear. Sigma will do it if Canon don't.

​


----------



## Chig (Feb 4, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> How about just a competitor with the Nikkor 500 pf in size, price and performance?


Yep , RF 500mm DO f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x T.C


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 4, 2022)

Just give me a 500mm f5.6 prime please, Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> How about just a competitor with the Nikkor 500 pf in size, price and performance?


I used to think that until I got the RF 100-500mm and found it was hardly less sharp than my 500PF, and had all the advantage of a zoom with much closer focussing at the cost of only 2/3rds stop.


----------



## Copland (Feb 4, 2022)

I have the EF 200-400/4, nice lens. 
But the lens of my dreams would be a RF 400/2.8 with 1.4x or better a 300-400/2.8 with 1.4x


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 5, 2022)

StephenShreds said:


> *Sigh*, I literally just bought the RF 100 - 500. I wonder how it will perform.


It performs great and you will have it now/soon. These are just patents... they may never come out.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 5, 2022)

Copland said:


> I have the EF 200-400/4, nice lens.
> But the lens of my dreams would be a RF 400/2.8 with 1.4x or better a 300-400/2.8 with 1.4x


If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.


Sought after like fairies and unicorns. Because physics.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 5, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.


The front element would have to be 41% larger in diameter to get to f/2.8, so that won't be a possibility. 

In short, it'd be a lot larger, heavier, vastly more expensive. At least 2x, more likely 3-4x the price of the current f/4L. And even that is prohibitively expensive for most people.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 5, 2022)

kaihp said:


> The front element would have to be 41% larger in diameter to get to f/2.8, so that won't be a possibility.
> 
> In short, it'd be a lot larger, heavier, vastly more expensive. At least 2x, more likely 3-4x the price of the current f/4L. And even that is prohibitively expensive for most people.


Wouldn't the front element be the same size as the EF 400mm f/2.8 and EF 800mm f/5.6?

Agree it would be much larger, heavier, and pricier, which would have a big influence on sales and profits. Canon cares about the last two.


----------



## masterpix (Feb 5, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I only wish that they be in the 1500-2000$ range and not 10,000-20,000$ range, cause the 300-800 is very appealing for birds while the others are by no means less interesting..


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 5, 2022)

Going from 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in magnification, not 25% or 44%.

Try putting a shot at 500mm and one at 600mm in your computer software. Zoom in until they are the same size on your screen. You will find that the 500mm shot needs to magnified 1.2x (or 20% more) to be the same size as the 600mm shot. Here is a comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Going from 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in magnification, not 25% or 44%.
> 
> Try putting a shot at 500mm and one at 600mm in your computer software. Zoom in until they are the same size on your screen. You will find that the 500mm shot needs to magnified 1.2x (or 20% more) to be the same size as the 600mm shot. Here is a comparison.


You are correct, and 500 to 600mm gives a 20% increase in resolution, not 44%. However, as I have learned several times in the past, there are those who have their own definitions and won't accept the standard. An 8x Magnification pair of binoculars, increases 8x larger in height and width, resolutions are given in line pairs per mm etc. Years ago, there used to be ads for 25x magnification binoculars that were in fact 5x but they covered themselves by claiming they were quoting area.


----------



## entoman (Feb 5, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?
> 
> Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
> Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
> ...


A 400mm F2.8 with a built-in 2x converter (making it a 800mm F5.6) would be absolutely amazing.

But so would the price


----------



## dcm (Feb 5, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.


Ah, to dream! That's similar to wishing that the RF 70-200 f/2.8 plus a built-in extender could be made into something the same size as the RF 70-200 f/4. Yes, it would be sought after - if it was technically possible. It isn't without bending the current laws of physics. But you might have already known that....


----------



## entoman (Feb 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You are correct, and 500 to 600mm gives a 20% increase in resolution, not 44%. However, as I have learned several times in the past, there are those who have their own definitions and won't accept the standard. An 8x Magnification pair of binoculars, increases 8x larger in height and width, resolutions are given in line pairs per mm etc. Years ago, there used to be ads for 25x magnification binoculars that were in fact 5x but they covered themselves by claiming they were quoting area.


Same problem with megapixels. Many seem to wrongly assume that the image from a 50MP sensor will be twice as wide as an image from a 25MP sensor. Likewise many are under the illusion that there's a huge difference between a 20MP and a 24MP sensor, when it's highly unlikely that even a hypercritical viewer would notice any difference.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same problem with megapixels. Many seem to wrongly assume that the image from a 50MP sensor will be twice as wide as and image from a 25MP sensor. Likewise many are under the illusion that there is a huge difference between a 20MP and a 24MP sensor, when it's highy unlikey that even a hypercritical viewer would notice any difference.


That's right. Resolution (pixel density) changes with the square root of the number of pixels. A 24 MP sensor gives just 10% more linear resolution, all things being equal), and a 50 MP sensor 40% more resolution than a 25 PM.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 5, 2022)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> I'd love the Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L but I have the much older, and probably HEAVER sigma version, and it's served me well. The canon at f/8 will probably focus just as fast as the sigma at f/5.6, but Canon will probably be lighter.


Yes, that one is very interesting. At f/8, the objective only needs to be 100mm, so it could be just a bit larger and longer than a Tamron 150-600.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 5, 2022)

Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that. 

The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that.
> 
> The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.


The Sony 200-600mm is a much better lens than the Tammy 150-600mm G2 and sells for $2000 so Canon should be able to do it.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is a much better lens than the Tammy 150-600mm G2 and sells for $2000 so Canon should be able to do it.


Very true and I guess I left out the words "...could best a Tammy G2 _without it being in the price range of the super whites"_

Because of course they can!


----------



## Dragon (Feb 6, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that.
> 
> The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.


The EF 100-400L II with a 1.4 TC outperforms the Tammy in just about every way in spite of being a little slower. I have both and have made many comparisons. AF accuracy and speed of the 100-400 are both better on the R5 and it is sharper.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 6, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The EF 100-400L II with a 1.4 TC outperforms the Tammy in just about every way in spite of being a little slower. I have both and have made many comparisons. AF accuracy and speed of the 100-400 are both better on the R5 and it is sharper.


Thank you! I have owned that lens previously but I am only purchasing native RF glass from now on, no more adapting (that's why these patents are interesting to me) That lens + adapter + TC is an arthritic nightmare for me.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 6, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Thank you! I have owned that lens previously but I am only purchasing native RF glass from now on, no more adapting (that's why these patents are interesting to me) That lens + adapter + TC is an arthritic nightmare for me.


No doubt these patents are interesting. The RF 100-500 is a little slower at the long end than the EF 100-400, but by all accounts, it is at least as sharp and a little lighter. Again, you need a TC to equal the Tammy for reach, so if you are looking for 600, then one of the new ones would be nice. I have the EF 800L and just ordered the RF 800 f/11 because it is so much more portable and from the samples I have seen, it is sharper than the 100-400 with a 2x TC (but still not as sharp as the 800L by a fair bit). As the saying goes "horses for courses".


----------



## mxwphoto (Feb 6, 2022)

I get that a constant aperture is easy to roll off the tongue and simpler to market, but something like the 300-800 f8 really should have a variable aperture. So much wasted light at shorter focal lengths, should be more like 300-800 f4-f8 L.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 6, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> I get that a constant aperture is easy to roll off the tongue and simpler to market, but something like the 300-800 f8 really should have a variable aperture. So much wasted light at shorter focal lengths, should be more like 300-800 f4-f8 L.


Unless maybe, just maybe you are trying to make it very small


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 6, 2022)

Dragon said:


> No doubt these patents are interesting. The RF 100-500 is a little slower at the long end than the EF 100-400, but by all accounts, it is at least as sharp and a little lighter. Again, you need a TC to equal the Tammy for reach, so if you are looking for 600, then one of the new ones would be nice. I have the EF 800L and just ordered the RF 800 f/11 because it is so much more portable and from the samples I have seen, it is sharper than the 100-400 with a 2x TC (but still not as sharp as the 800L by a fair bit). As the saying goes "horses for courses".


I dipped into the fixed aperture pool and picked up a 600 STM and got a bad copy, turned me off but made me realize after I returned it how specialized it is and the use cases I might use it for are very infrequent so I turned my resources towards patience and vaporware, lol.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 6, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I dipped into the fixed aperture pool and picked up a 600 STM and got a bad copy, turned me off but made me realize after I returned it how specialized it is and the use cases I might use it for are very infrequent so I turned my resources towards patents and vaporware, lol.


Patience is a virtue, but impatience often captures opportunity .


----------



## kaihp (Feb 6, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Unless maybe, just maybe you are trying to make it very small


As someone who has never studied optics, @mxwphoto's question is something I've pondered as well. Why would a 300-800 f/4-f/8 design become larger than a fixed aperture design? 

Surely there are plenty of non-L zooms that are variable aperture zooms, and they are all relatively small?


----------



## PhilA (Feb 6, 2022)

Canon has history with the 150-600mm - making the NFD15-600f5.6L. A very good lens, if somewhat unconventional in its focusing system. I used it (hand held) at the Reno Air Races many moons ago. Often used by surfing photographers. The focus gearbox was a bugger to repair/set up though. https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/nfd258.html


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 6, 2022)

For those interested (in Germany):
Mediamarkt in Reutlingen-Pfullingen sells (Febr. 6) the EF 2,8/70-200 II for Euro 1500, which is Euro 750 less than Calumet Stuttgart.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

kaihp said:


> As someone who has never studied optics, @mxwphoto's question is something I've pondered as well. Why would a 300-800 f/4-f/8 design become larger than a fixed aperture design?
> 
> Surely there are plenty of non-L zooms that are variable aperture zooms, and they are all relatively small?


I think you may have misunderstood him in translation. He meant that the fixed aperture lens loses light (= photons) at short focal lens, not gains weight (light ≠ lightweight).


----------



## Dragon (Feb 6, 2022)

kaihp said:


> As someone who has never studied optics, @mxwphoto's question is something I've pondered as well. Why would a 300-800 f/4-f/8 design become larger than a fixed aperture design?
> 
> Surely there are plenty of non-L zooms that are variable aperture zooms, and they are all relatively small?


Very true, but Canon has been thinking out of the box lately. The 600 and 800 F/11 lenses are good examples. Very light weight, inexpensive, and very decent IQ. The reason I said "maybe, just maybe" was to give credit to that out-of-box thinking. Size and weight reduction seems to have become a high priority with Canon since they adventured into mirrorless. This started with the M line (which is universally small and light), not with R, but it has propagated to a portion of the R line that is focused on portability.


----------



## Pixel (Feb 6, 2022)

Why is there no 300 2.8 in neither Canon nor Nikon's mirrorless lens road map? The most current version was introduced 11 years ago!




__





EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM - Canon Camera Museum


Here, you can find out about Canon's EF Lenses > TELEPHOTO Lens > EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM.



global.canon


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2022)

Pixel said:


> Why is there no 300 2.8 in neither Canon nor Nikon's mirrorless lens road map? The most current version was introduced 11 years ago!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would have to ask Canon and Nikon. Since it isn't on either one's roadmap, perhaps they don't see it as a high priority, possibly based on projected sales.


----------



## Pixel (Feb 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You would have to ask Canon and Nikon. Since it isn't on either one's roadmap, perhaps they don't see it as a high priority, possibly based on projected sales.


You would have to ask Canon and Nikon....? So much for posing a point of discussion in a forum. Thx.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 7, 2022)

Pixel said:


> You would have to ask Canon and Nikon....? So much for posing a point of discussion in a forum. Thx.


I thought that pretty much summed it up. If there's no update or refresh for an item, it's usually sales. We all know here that our wishlists mean squat to Canon shareholders.


----------



## J’s Pic (Feb 8, 2022)

degos said:


> Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you...
> 
> Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.



same if you try to photograph the president getting out of the ‘beast’. Secret service was not friendly extra reach would have been helpful.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 8, 2022)

Pixel said:


> Why is there no 300 2.8 in neither Canon nor Nikon's mirrorless lens road map? The most current version was introduced 11 years ago!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I expect it when sales of the 400 f/2.8 lenses dry up. Nikon just pushed out a 120-300 f/2.8 lens in the f-mount so I would expect these zooms rather than a prime so they can make a more expensive lens/higher profit lens.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 8, 2022)

Pixel said:


> You would have to ask Canon and Nikon....? So much for posing a point of discussion in a forum. Thx.



I guess you missed the 2nd sentence...? 

"Since it isn't on either one's roadmap, perhaps they don't see it as a high priority, possibly based on projected sales."

Seems like a good and likely answer.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 8, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> …Nikon just pushed out a 120-300 f/2.8 lens in the f-mount so I would expect these zooms rather than a prime so they can make a more expensive lens/higher profit lens.


Agree that a zoom might be more likely. Disagree that more expensive equals higher profit. More expensive also means more expensive to manufacture and more expensive means lower volume. Since we don’t have access to that information we can’t assume we know the profit.

Given what Canon has done with the RF mount I could see them releasing a 120-300 f3.5 lens instead.

Less expensive, more sales, more profit?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Agree that a zoom might be more likely. Disagree that more expensive equals higher profit. More expensive also means more expensive to manufacture and more expensive means lower volume. Since we don’t have access to that information we can’t assume we know the profit.
> 
> Given what Canon has done with the RF mount I could see them releasing a 120-300 f3.5 lens instead.
> 
> Less expensive, more sales, more profit?


You are right, of course, there is a lot more profit from high volume sales, but if you look at profit as a percent of sales than the story may be different. It all depends on how the books are managed. The selling price is far more than the direct cost of production, so it's a matter of how they calculate costs for tooling, training, advertising, R&D, service ... all the related costs that are indirect. There is a risk factor as well, there is no guarantee that a product will sell well. Thats why prices of new products drop over time, the risk goes away, and many of the indirect costs are paid off. They amortize onetime costs over a certain number of units.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 10, 2022)

Alam said:


> Huh? really? You want to go hiking, wigh 150-600? I own tamron 150-600 G2 and
> Trust me, going from 500 to 600 is not that huge, miniscule compared to weight and extra siR you need to carry from 100-500
> 
> I zoomed my lens from 500 to 600 time to time to justify my next purchase of 100-500, trust me, the extra weight and length is not worth it, it's only 0.25 x magnification and you can easily regain that by maneuver closer and you have more energy to spare


I do not think we can assume a Canon version would be the same weight.
... or price.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is a much better lens than the Tammy 150-600mm G2 and sells for $2000 so Canon should be able to do it.


I can't see Canon only charging $2K whether they are able to or not


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 150-600mm f/5-6.3 sounds an awful lot like the Tam/Sig lenses.





The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Interested in seeing what the Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L can do. I have the sigma version but its so horribly built that it broke easily after one trip. I'd love it if Canon finally made one but faster at focusing and with much better quality... Terrified about that price though


@ Neuro: regarding the 150-600mm I am with you, but given the popularity of those lenses it would be a logical decision to bring it out. A closer look to its specs then would be very interesting. Between the Tammys and the Sigmas, there is a hidden, but for me quite crucial difference which is missed by most reviewers (one commendable exception is Brian Carnathan whose reviews contain really solid facts instead of bla bla): both Tamrons still open up to f=5.6 @ 400mm, the Sigmas stop down to 6.3 @ 380 (C) and already @ 320mm (Sports, at least the original version for DLSRs). So more expensive Sports version is the dark lord of those 150-600 zooms. 

@ The3o5FlyGuy: I've got the Tammy G2 as a lighter and more compact travel alternative to my EF 500mm. It's mechanical quality is quite good and optically it is good enough for satisfying results even @ 580mm (none of those zooms deliver true 600mm), but its AF performance at least on Canon's DSLRs doesn't match the speed and precision of any original Canon tele. That's the shortcoming of the reversal engineering of Canon's AF system (same with Sigma), but the G2's plus is that its AF performs much better than the original and cheaper "G1".


----------



## Nemorino (Feb 11, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> , but its AF performance at least on Canon's DSLRs doesn't match the speed and precision of any original Canon tele.


I tested the tamron for 1 1/2 hours in a local park this week on a R5 and the AF performance is the reason why I won`t buy one.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 12, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> I tested the tamron for 1 1/2 hours in a local park this week on a R5 and the AF performance is the reason why I won`t buy one.


The Sigma Contemporary does not focus very well on my R5 either


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 12, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The Sigma Contemporary does not focus very well on my R5 either


From all the reports and posts I've heard and read, all of the 150-600 variants are optically superior on R cameras vs dslrs yet lack in the AF department. So, for servo uses, pass but of you are a perched/still life shooter, it might be in your interest to adapt I guess.


----------

