# Here are some new lens images and early pricing



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2020)

> Some early pricing and new lens images have leaked ahead of the official announcement on July 9, 2020.
> UK pricing for four lenses has been confirmed.
> 
> Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro £649
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## sobrien (Jul 7, 2020)

Great to see a three position focus limiter switch on the RF 85. Hopefully AF will be snappy enough for general use, with the help of that. Bodes well I feel. Price also suggests it will be a quality offering and should be at least a match for the RF 35 in terms of IQ. Struggle to see myself not picking this up at some stage.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 7, 2020)

100-500 price isn't unexpected considering how expensive RF 70-200/2.8 is compared to EF. But when compared to say the $2K Sony 200-600 which is longer, faster, internal zoom, short zoom throw, excellent IQ (ie not a budget optic) and takes TCs well, the price of the 100-500 seems high to me. I think it should have matched the $2200 100-400II price more.

Comparing some other RF glass between UK and USD the UK price is usually just slightly less than USD (like £2599 vs $2699 for RF70-200)


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 7, 2020)

Rf 85 - Price is good
RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.

Very negative, the price of the 100-500! For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....

EDIT: the more zoom means more reach, the zoom value is the same


----------



## Billybob (Jul 7, 2020)

So can we expect to see the 100-500mm sell in the 2,500 range in the US? That would be in-line with Sony and the previous 100-400L (that lens was, I believe, under $2600 when released).


----------



## Billybob (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Rf 85 - Price is good
> RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
> RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.
> 
> Very negative, the price of the 100-500! For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....


Wrong comparison. The 200-600 is a consumer lens (a G lens; Sony's professional-grade lenses are GM). The 100-500L is a professional-grade lens that replaces the 100-400L. The Sony 100-400 GM is $2600, which is around where I expect (hope) the 100-500 sells for in the States.


----------



## WriteLight (Jul 7, 2020)

I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised by the price of those primes.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Jul 7, 2020)

Really happy with the price of the 85mm, will definitely be picking one up. Ideal for my type of work! 

Still interested to see what these telephotos are like, even if I won't be buying one.


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jul 7, 2020)

I looking forward to adding that 100-500 to my RF Lens count along with a 2x convertor


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2020)

Billybob said:


> Wrong comparison. The 200-600 is a consumer lens (a G lens; Sony's professional-grade lenses are GM). The 100-500L is a professional-grade lens that replaces the 100-400L. The Sony 100-400 GM is $2600, which is around where I expect the 100-500 to come out in the States.


Professionell?! With only 2 focus options? The Sony and Sigma has three...seems to be more professional at all!
I m heavily missing the near distance focus option! This is a huge mistake by Canon!


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 7, 2020)

If these are indeed the official UK prices well, I prefer knowing reality than even educated guesses! 

My educated guesses were, very close to these prices for the RF 85 STM, RF 600mm and RF 800mm would be.
Out of these 3, I am most interested in the 85mm (i.e. I can't see myself getting the 600mm or 800mm).

However I had hoped the RF 100-500mm might have been closer to around £/$2300 - because of the smaller aperture.
(But I did realise the 100-500mm was a premium in reach in terms of Canon's EF 100-400mm L IS USM II).

The RF 100-500mm is a lens I would be quite keen on after I pick up a RF 24-105mm f/4. That'll make a good 2 lens travel combination. 

The £/$2900 sets the bar high for me finding innovating ways of saving money after I hope put my hard earned cash in to buy a R5.
The good thing is with a EOS R adapter (EF lens on an RF mount) do work well (I've tried it on a friend's and store EOS R).
And I am assured that I will still get a lot of good use out of my EF 70-300mm L for a while. It's been great on my DSLRs.

As we know, extra reach s always welcome.  The EOS R5 is only a few days away from being announced!! Yay! 

PJ


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 7, 2020)

At the 100-500 price I'd be *shocked* now if that lens doesn't do 400mm at f/5.6 .


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

I was going to order the 100-500mm + R5, as I have written a few threads. But £2899 is too high and the total outlay will likely be >£5,500-6000. I'll wait awhile and keep going with my current excellent gear until convinced.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Very negative, the price of the 100-500! For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....
> 
> EDIT: the more zoom means more reach, the zoom value is the same



The Canon lens is a 5x zoom while the Sony is just 3x. Quotient matters, not difference. The Sony only has 20% more reach but lacks the very useful 100mm–200mm range at the wide end.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 7, 2020)

Well. It certainly looks like they have priced those primes at a point that will ensure they sell like hotcakes. I still think they are limited with the f11 but for those prices i think any limitation is more than acceptable.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 7, 2020)

pretty excited about the long primes. Less than 1k USD maybe for the 800. Definitely worth a rent and try. Of course, I'll have to get an RF body first. Or rent that too.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 7, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> The Canon lens is a 5x zoom while the Sony is just 3x. Quotient matters, not difference. The Sony only has 20% more reach but lacks the very useful 100mm–200mm range at the wide end.



The Canon is a more versatile lens and better for travel and everyday use. The Sony is a better wildlife lens in my opinion. I only read good things about the AF, build and image quality. Its a very solid lens, easily L quality.


----------



## Pompey John (Jul 7, 2020)

The prime prices are good I am however surprised at the price of the 100-500 when an EF 100-400 L is cheaper currently by about £900. If from what I have read EF glass will work fine including IS with IBIS and the only negative is a small adaptor between body and lens then I don't see why many would want the extra 100mm for £900 and a slower F7.1 compared to F5.6. I own the 100-400 mk2 and it is brilliant on my 7D2 and I have used it on an RP with adaptor with no issues at all so again the 45% increase in price for extra 100mm seems a lot to me.


----------



## Autoxave (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Rf 85 - Price is good
> RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
> 
> For example, the 200-600 F5.6-6.3 is Way cheaper, more luminous and have more zoom. Can´t understand this price...It´s a no good Canon....
> ...



RF 85 is not a L lens, while 100-500 is a L lens, and more expensive. The Sony 200-600 is a consumer zoom even though the image quality is very good. I would guess that the build quality of the 100-500 is in another league compared to the Sony 200-600. You are comparing apples to oranges. You can compare the Canon 100-500 to Sony 100-400.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2020)

A quick comparison between the Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS and Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM


*Specification**Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM**Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS*Weight1370g (3.02lbs)2115g (4.66lbs)Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")111.5mm (4.38") x 318mm (12.5")Filter Size77mm95mmElements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups24 elements in 17 groupsMinimum focusing distance0.9m (2.95')2.4m (7.87')Pricing$2699$1998Magnification0.33x (telephoto)0.20x (telephoto)


----------



## Billybob (Jul 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> A quick comparison between the Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS and Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM
> 
> 
> *Specification**Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM**Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS*Weight1370g (3.02lbs)2115g (4.66lbs)Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")111.5mm (4.38") x 318mm (12.5")Filter Size77mm95mmElements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups24 elements in 17 groupsMinimum focusing distance0.9m (2.95')2.4m (7.87')Pricing$2999 (speculation)$1998


Good comparison. I own the Sony, the Canon's predecessor (the 100-400L II), and am considering the Canon 100-500L. 
As I stated above, the Sony is a G lens, which is a step down from the Sony "Grand Master" lenses. The Sony is more comparable to the Sigma 150-600 S or Nikon 200-500. These are long, heavy, wildlife-specific lenses with a lower build quality than either L or GM lenses. Weather sealing will not be as robust if there is any at all. The 100-400 (or now 100-500) lenses have much better build quality, the fastest and most accurate AF available, and should survive rough handling a lot better than the sub-$2000 long zooms. 

I love my Sony 200-600, but the IQ at the 600 end falls a bit short of the best primes (not surprising). if someone came out with a DO or PF 600mm 5.6 prime with the IQ of Canon's latest 400mm DO or Nikon's 500mm pf, I'd definitely would go for it. I expect the 100-500L to have the best 500mm IQ of any non-exotic. I would not be surprised if it came close to the IQ of the Nikon 500mm pf (albeit 2/3 stops darker), which is excellent indeed.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 7, 2020)

Edit: the "click to expand" doesn't expand all the way. All the pictures are in the post if you go through the frontpage.

The nokishita google drive has a bunch more images


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

And the R5 price (along with any potential 'but to get 8K out of it will cost you a lot more' shockers) remains the most closely guarded secret in history.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Also, we can debate whether Sony's 200-600 is or is not the same price point as the RF 100-500L, but isn't a 5x zoom range vs. a 3x zoom range just begging to let us down sharpness-wise?

(Has a single 24-105 / 24-120 ever outresolved a similar timeframe 24-70?)

- A


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> And the R5 price (along with any potential 'but to get 8K out of it will cost you a lot more' shockers) remains the most closely guarded secret in history.



My "R5 + 100-500" plan has turned into "R5 + 180mm L". I'm hoping the IBIS will help a bit, it won't the 5 stops the 100-500 has, but I'd be happy with half a stop already to make the EVF less shaky.
If the R5 price is as predicted I might even have budget left for CFexpress cards


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ...
> Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM £699
> Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM £929
> ...


WOW!
I wasn't expecting those f/11 teles be below 1.000 (no matter if $, € or £). I was hoping for such prices, but not expecting them.
Here Canon really surprised me - better shocked me 

The rest is close to what I did expect. Though I can understand that the price of the 100-500 hurts.


----------



## stevensteven (Jul 7, 2020)

Any idea on the possible availability of these lenses ? Or the R5 and R6 for that matter ?


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jul 7, 2020)

stevensteven said:


> Any idea on the possible availability of these lenses ? Or the R5 and R6 for that matter ?


We will find out for sure on Thursday after Canon's announcement , but the R5 is supposed to be available in September (though limited stock ) and the R6 is available from August , nothing on the lenses yet , but I should thing now they have priced them they will be available soon .


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 7, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> If these are indeed the official UK prices well, I prefer knowing reality than even educated guesses!
> 
> My educated guesses were, very close to these prices for the RF 85 STM, RF 600mm and RF 800mm would be.
> Out of these 3, I am most interested in the 85mm (i.e. I can't see myself getting the 600mm or 800mm).
> ...


The 100-500 price is high, but within the range of what I thought it'd be based on the other prices for the trinity L IS zooms. The weight of it is considerable and will be slightly more than my previous heaviest lens, but I could still handle it. I looked at the graphs of maximum OOF background blur sizes at it's .33X maximum magnification at 500mm (which will greatly compress the background). So now I know that it will be able to take stunning flower/insect images near minimum focus with OOF backgrounds smeared into smooth gradients of colors & shades (which is one of the main things I do). And of course the medium to long telephoto reach will be good for wildlife, BIF and landscapes. All in all, it looks like it may be the 1st lens I get for the R5. If the reviews of it with TC's are good, then I'd probably get a TC to extend the reach further since I'd still have the zoom ability - but if the reviews with TC are worse than the 800 f11 then I might get the 800 also since it's so inexpensive.

I'm still deciding on the rest of the lenses. The 24-105 L f4 would indeed be a good 2 lens combo with the 100-500, as you mentioned. I'd still want something for fast aperture portrait use, and even wider angle landscape use. I wish I knew for sure what was best for me, since I have to pre-order something. Maybe B&H will allow me to preorder the R5 body alone, plus the R5 kit with 24-105 and cancel one of them later when there's more information?


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 7, 2020)

Let´s make it clear, I didn´t said the Sony Lens is better in any way!! ANY! What I have pointed is that the Canon lens is very expensive for the segment of the lens! If you think other way, of course its your opinion. My profession is to work with photography so i guess i can put myself in the "professional" segment. That doesn´t mean we will use L lenses all the time and if we don´t that doesn´t mean we are not professional anymore! Most of the times the L and the G master in Sony have few minor differences for other non L or not Master. Most of the times is the build quality the strongest difference.

Now being said that, yes I prefer L glass, but I find this particular lens, being a 100-500 F7.1 very expensive. Yes, it can be a good lens, even a great lens, but for me it is expensive. I know, it is smaller and lighter, I know its the newest technology...and I believe that there will be photographers out there that consider the price fair. I just don´t...
Fortunately i earn money enough to use a 500mm F4 so this lens is not for me. BUT...I do consider to buy some 100-400 or something like that when I can´t carry the big one. I was looking to this one, but the F7.1 is not good for what I do. And thats just my 2 cents and my personal opinion. Feel free to have others of course!


----------



## padam (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Let´s make it clear, I didn´t said the Sony Lens is better in any way!! ANY! What I have pointed is that the Canon lens is very expensive for the segment of the lens! If you think other way, of course its your opinion. My profession is to work with photography so i guess i can put myself in the "professional" segment. That doesn´t mean we will use L lenses all the time and if we don´t that doesn´t mean we are not professional anymore! Most of the times the L and the G master in Sony have few minor differences for other non L or not Master. Most of the times is the build quality the strongest difference.
> 
> Now being said that, yes I prefer L glass, but I find this particular lens, being a 100-500 F7.1 very expensive. Yes, it can be a good lens, even a great lens, but for me it is expensive. I know, it is smaller and lighter, I know its the newest technology...and I believe that there will be photographers out there that consider the price fair. I just don´t...
> Fortunately i earn money enough to use a 500mm F4 so this lens is not for me. BUT...I do consider to buy some 100-400 or something like that when I can´t carry the big one. I was looking to this one, but the F7.1 is not good for what I do. And thats just my 2 cents and my personal opinion. Feel free to have others of course!


The main problem with the argument is that it isn't the lens to compare with.
It's a different lens that Canon hasn't provided an alternative to just yet.
It is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS which is the closest alternative, let's take a look.



*Specification**Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM**Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS*Weight1370g (3.02lbs)1395g (3.07lbs)Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")93.9mm (3.7") x 205mm (8.07")Filter Size77mm77mmElements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups22 Elements in 16 GroupsMinimum focusing distance0.9m (2.95')0.98m (3.22')Pricing$2999 (speculation)$2499

Seems reasonable if it can match it with the wider range.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jul 7, 2020)

100-500 will be DOA at that price. Expect the price drops sooner than later on that one.


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 7, 2020)

padam said:


> The main problem with the argument is that it isn't the lens to compare with.
> It's a different lens that Canon hasn't provided an alternative to just yet.
> It is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS which is the closest alternative, let's take a look.
> 
> ...



But you also can´t compare with the Sony 100--400! Sony loses in range but gain very much in aperture. 5.6 vs 7.1. And also the price of Sony is 2500€ vs the 3000€ of this new Canon (rumored...) And yes, I also consider the Sony one a bit expensive....

EDIT: For me if Canon really wanted to be agressive, should price this lens at 2600€


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Also, we can debate whether Sony's 200-600 is or is not the same price point as the RF 100-500L, but isn't a 5x zoom range vs. a 3x zoom range just begging to let us down sharpness-wise?
> 
> (Has a single 24-105 / 24-120 ever outresolved a similar timeframe 24-70?)
> 
> - A



There are more compromises when going from wide angle to telephoto than just staying in one range (telephoto range). The goal of the RF 100-500 would be to be as good or better than the EF 100-400 II from 100-400mm, and to have an image at 500mm that is as good or better than the 100-400 II + 1.4x TC. The 100-400 II + 1.4x TC would be similar in price to the RF 100-500 but would be significantly heavier and would require TC swaps while giving slightly more reach (560 vs. 500mm). Give it a year, and the price will fall just it had for the 100-400 II and most L lenses. There is usually a premium to be an early adopter.

Well, according to TDP, the RF 24-105L outresolves the RF 24-70 f/4-7.1 but that has more to do with the difference in class and price of the lenses than difference in zoom ranges.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 7, 2020)

Can't wait to see reviews on the RF 100-500 IQ. That is what will determine whether or not the price is reasonable to me. Me comparing to a Sony lens would be stupid. I have a Canon body, the Sony can’t be adapted, and I won’t be switching systems.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> But you also can´t compare with the Sony 100--400! Sony loses in range but gain very much in aperture. 5.6 vs 7.1. And also the price of Sony is 2500€ vs the 3000€ of this new Canon (rumored...) And yes, I also consider the Sony one a bit expensive....
> 
> EDIT: For me if Canon really wanted to be agressive, should price this lens at 2600€



It depends what the aperture is at 400mm isn't it? I doubt it's at f/7.1. If it is f/5.6 at 400mm, then the RF 100-500 is like a 100-400 with a 1.25x TC, only it doesn't penalize you at the shorter focal lengths. I'll wait to see what the US price is. I probably jump in for the R5 but I can wait for the 100-500 to shed its early adopter premium.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 7, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Professionell?! With only 2 focus options? The Sony and Sigma has three...seems to be more professional at all!
> I m heavily missing the near distance focus option! This is a huge mistake by Canon!


Whats wrong with the near Focus Distance of the 100-500mm L? The Sony 200-600 focuses to 2.4M while the Canon focuses as close as 0.9M.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 7, 2020)

Pompey John said:


> The prime prices are good I am however surprised at the price of the 100-500 when an EF 100-400 L is cheaper currently by about £900.



You might find that a 2015 car is a lot less expensive than a 2020 model. Does that surprise anyone.


----------



## londonxt (Jul 7, 2020)

Tempted for that 85mm for Christmas, sold my EF 85mm F1.8 years ago and miss it, but certainly not its hit n miss autofocus ability!


----------



## RobbieHat (Jul 7, 2020)

Things are starting to round into shape. I am leaning toward a R5 with 24-105 f4 and 100-500 L lenses. I am debating on the future 70-200 f4 and if I will need that given the focal range being covered by the other two lenses. 

I will wait to see the IQ on all of them before finalizing my purchases but for landscape and walk around wildlife this seems to cover most needs. 

I will adapt my fast Sigmas (14 and 24) and my 11-24 and 600 mm L II for the time being. Everything else is on the chopping block! Going to be a fire sale on a lot of glass and a couple of bodies. This should also significantly lighten my load when packing all this stuff around (especially when I ditch the 600 mm L II)! My back with thank me.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

londonxt said:


> Tempted for that 85mm for Christmas, sold my EF 85mm F1.8 years ago and miss it, but certainly not its hit n miss autofocus ability!


Happy to see the three different focus limiter options, but wondering if this kind of suggests that autofocus through the full range is a bit slow? Hopefully not, just curious to see three positions on this lens and not, say, the 100-500mmL.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Whats wrong with the near Focus Distance of the 100-500mm L? The Sony 200-600 focuses to 2.4M while the Canon focuses as close as 0.9M.


I believe that the near focus distance being referred to by Fox is the near focus distance on the switch. The focus limiter switch does not have an option for close focus only.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 7, 2020)

Quick thoughts:

At those prices Canon will sell a boat load of the f11 primes.

RF L lenses are very high quality but expensive. Is that still news to anyone?

If you already own the EF 100-400 II you’re fine. Don’t worry, be happy.

If you don’t own the 100-400ii than the RF 100-500 is a worthy successor and you should consider getting one when the price levels out in a few months

Fair price for the 85 f2 but I don’t need it right away so I’ll wait and see if the price levels out.

additionally: those f11 primes are probably going to crush 7D Mark ii sales. Might be the end of the line for the 7D.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> A quick comparison between the Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS and Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM
> 
> 
> *Specification**Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM**Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS*Weight1370g (3.02lbs)2115g (4.66lbs)Size93.8mm (3.69") x 207.6mm (8.17")111.5mm (4.38") x 318mm (12.5")Filter Size77mm95mmElements/Groups20 elements in 14 groups24 elements in 17 groupsMinimum focusing distance0.9m (2.95')2.4m (7.87')Pricing$2999 (speculation)$1998


For anyone who likes using these telephotos for close ups of butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, etc., another noticeable difference between these lenses will be the max magnification of 0.33x for the Canon vs. 0.20x for the Sony 200-600 (and 0.35x for the Sony 100-400).


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 7, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> 100-500 price isn't unexpected considering how expensive RF 70-200/2.8 is compared to EF. But when compared to say the $2K Sony 200-600 which is longer, faster, internal zoom, short zoom throw, excellent IQ (ie not a budget optic) and takes TCs well, the price of the 100-500 seems high to me. I think it should have matched the $2200 100-400II price more.
> 
> Comparing some other RF glass between UK and USD the UK price is usually just slightly less than USD (like £2599 vs $2699 for RF70-200)


My thoughts exactly, and it saves me the bother of saying it. It's an interesting lenses, but purely on it's own the Sony 200-600mm is a far more compelling lens to wildlife photographers and probably other photographers.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Also, we can debate whether Sony's 200-600 is or is not the same price point as the RF 100-500L, but *isn't a 5x zoom range vs. a 3x zoom range just begging to let us down sharpness-wise*?
> 
> (Has a single 24-105 / 24-120 ever outresolved a similar timeframe 24-70?)
> 
> - A


Hopefully not! The high price tag compared to the competition and previous most similar Canon lenses suggests that Canon is very confident in the quality and performance of this lens. (I hope... Of course that 7.1 aperture has us all guessing...)


----------



## BillB (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Rf 85 - Price is good
> RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
> RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.
> 
> ...


Actually, 100-500 is a 5x zoom, while 200-600 is a 3x zoom.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Rf 85 - Price is good
> RF 100 - 500 - Hugely overpriced
> RF 600/800 - It was what I expected but I honestly cannot evaluate the price because we simply don´t know what the behaviour of such lenses.
> 
> ...


A 200-600 is a three times zoom (600/200=3), pretty close to the simplest type of zoom range eg 24-70, 70-200. A 100-500 is a five times zoom (500/100=5), five times zooms are MUCH more difficult and expensive to build to the same standard.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Well, according to TDP, the RF 24-105L outresolves the RF 24-70 f/4-7.1 but that has more to do with the difference in class and price of the lenses than difference in zoom ranges.




There's an RF 24-*70* f/4-7.1?

I thought that was also a 24-105.

- A


----------



## subtraho (Jul 7, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> If you already own the EF 100-400 II you’re fine. Don’t worry, be happy.



Have there been any rumors regarding if the R5/6 share the EOS R's inability to activate the High Speed Display EVF setting while using EF lenses? That's kind of the crux of this decision if one plans to use the lens for sports or fast-moving wildlife like BIF. If the EVF works better for tracking and panning with the 100-500 than the 100-400, it's still an upgrade.


----------



## [pod] (Jul 7, 2020)

3000$ that is terribe for this aperture zoom. Literally shocked.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 7, 2020)

subtraho said:


> Have there been any rumors regarding if the R5/6 share the EOS R's inability to activate the High Speed Display EVF setting while using EF lenses? That's kind of the crux of this decision if one plans to use the lens for sports or fast-moving wildlife like BIF. If the EVF works better for tracking and panning with the 100-500 than the 100-400, it's still an upgrade.


Good question. I don’t know about that one. Maybe someone else could chime in.

I have no idea if the DPAF in the R5 is up to those tasks so there are still lots of question about R’s for sports and wildlife IMO.

Disclaimer: all my Canon’s are DSLR’s. My only mirror less is a Fuji XT3 and despite focusing well for a MLC it’s just not in the same league as my 1DX Mark II for action. Not even close. I guess we’ll see how the new R’s do in a couple days.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

[pod] said:


> 3000$ that is terribe for this aperture zoom. Literally shocked.




If you only look at that feature, you are correct.

Nikon's cheap superzoom is 500mm f/5.6 with IS for $1400.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 7, 2020)

I bought my EF 400-500mm f4.5-5.6L II two years ago for £ 1,799. A £ 1,100 premium for the RF 100-500mm is in my book a steep increase. Ive had no issues shooting Red Kites with the EF 100-400 with & without the 1.4x converter on the EOS R.


----------



## bmfotonet (Jul 7, 2020)

I paid $1899 for my EF 100-400L II back in 2018. Based on what I have seen so far with Canon RF lenses, I was expecting there to be a price premium for the new lens. $3000 is just too much for me, however, considering that the 100-500L is an f/7.1. If it was an f/5.6 maximum, I would feel like I was getting something in return for the higher price but with the slower aperture, it's not really worth it for me. As of right now I'm planning to keep my 5D Mark IV and EF lenses for a while longer. Who knows, maybe after a year or two the prices of these new RF lenses will come down, especially after initial demand has been met. For now, I'm just sitting back and watching. Not like I'm going to be doing any major traveling this year anyway. The air show in my city has been canceled as well. Maybe next year.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 7, 2020)

Thanks for the info! I’m surprised by the pricing of the new 85mm f/2. Seems too high, especially when you can get a really stellar Samyang f/1.4 for $699. I don’t know that IS is worth that much more when you have IBIS. Anyone have a contrary opinion? Interested to know if there’s something I’m not considering here.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 7, 2020)

Please update the article to include estimated USD prices minus the 20% VAT so everyone can panic just a wee bit less!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Thanks for the info! I’m surprised by the pricing of the new 85mm f/2. Seems too high, especially when you can get a really stellar Samyang f/1.4 for $699. I don’t know that IS is worth that much more when you have IBIS. Anyone have a contrary opinion? Interested to know if there’s something I’m not considering here.




The Canon will offer:

1:2 Macro (Samyang 0.11x max mag)
First party AF you can rely on
IS will stack with IBIS (so we are told)
STM is probably going to be quieter focusing for video (but I am only speculating)
Surely smaller and lighter
It's a classic non-L prime for Canon: it's a stop slower than what you want, but it probably will do everything else well. I'd get the Canon all day unless you really need f/1.4

- A


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 7, 2020)

Thinking the 100-500 will come in at $2899 USD, then when it goes on sale (as the 28-70 and others did for a time @ $300 off) it will be right at $2599. Given what I paid for my RF 70-200 f/2.8, the 100-500 price does not surprise me. If this had been released at the same price point as the 100-400 II was, I would have been concerned about IQ @ 500mm.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 7, 2020)

EF telephoto users who have not used higher-end mirrorless telephotos with TCs may be in for a pleasant IQ-shock when they see how well they can work together. Take for example the GF 250 + 1.4x for the GFX. The IQ from using the TC noticeably exceeds the bare lens when cropped and enlarged to the same focal length – something I was not used to seeing on EFs with TCs. Stabilization and AF will also be much better with the TCs. I was never happy with the 1.4x on the 100-400 II and 5DsR – it was always sharper to crop and enlarge (some of this was due to the TC IQ loss and some was due to less effective IS when the TC was used).

In any case, I think the pain of the higher price for the 100-500 will be outweighed by the increased performance over the 100-400 II. We'll know for sure soon enough.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Jul 7, 2020)

Canon must have found a cheaper way of making DO elements for these two lenses, as Canon has historically charged a hefty premium for DO lenses. Maybe they are molding the elements instead of cutting them down to shape, analog to the same processes for aspherics. DO elements already induce flare artifacts in their bokeh, molding could introduce another layer of unpredictability, like the onion-shaped rings on molded aspherics' bokeh circles. Also, was not equipping an iris diaphragm an engineering limitation or a budget decision? On the 85mm, the only thing I can say is that its front element is very small, ensuring heavy vignetting and lots of cat's eyes, which was to be expected, as this lens is a companion the similarly small front element 35mm. Looking forward to seeing what type of 20mm lens Canon will concoct to accompany the 35 and 85mm.


----------



## Rule556 (Jul 7, 2020)

I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer. 

I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 7, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer.
> 
> I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.



I'm expecting it to be 6.3 at 400mm, but will be pleasantly surprised if it is 5.6. The DO allows lens designers to "cheat" on the length of the lens, but the maximum aperture for the maximum FL, as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), requires a minimum diameter for the front end of the lens. Look at the 400mm f/4 DO. It's light weight and relatively compact for what it offers. However, the front end is pretty massive to accommodate the f/4 max aperture. For the 100500 to be 5.6 or even 7.1 at 500mm would require a much bigger front end, which would take it out of the realm of a relatively compact zoom in the vein of its predecessors.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 7, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer.
> 
> I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.



++++If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus...

if we are at 6.3 at 400mm then the extra reach of 100mm at the long end and slow F7 aperture costed you $2000 Just for those 100mm. Suggesting you are better of upgrading to R5 for an extra $1000 and cropping to 500mm framing. And still be better off.
for the record, Sigma or Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 is smaller lighter and priced at around $600.
with a very reasonable IQ for a F6.3 lens.


----------



## Paul Nordin (Jul 7, 2020)

Based on those pictures, its clear that there will be no TC support of the RF 70-200L


----------



## tomri (Jul 7, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer.


I would not hold my breath. How many zooms do you know that get slower in the last 20% of their range?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> For anyone who likes using these telephotos for close ups of butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, etc., another noticeable difference between these lenses will be the max magnification of 0.33x for the Canon vs. 0.20x for the Sony 200-600 (and 0.35x for the Sony 100-400).



Thank you, I added it.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Whats wrong with the near Focus Distance of the 100-500mm L? The Sony 200-600 focuses to 2.4M while the Canon focuses as close as 0.9M.


It is about the damn setting you can do at the lens!
For example:
1. Close to 10/15m. 2. Above 10/15m and 3. Complete range!
But Canon has only # 2 & 3... only everything and far... that is a big design fail for a NEW and >3.000& lens!


----------



## scyrene (Jul 7, 2020)

WriteLight said:


> I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised by the price of those primes.



I am!


----------



## Tangent (Jul 7, 2020)

Glad to see the build quality of the 85 stay at the level of the 35 1.8. I would like to see that stay consistent as new midsumer primes are deployed.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I love how everybody is freaked out by f/7.1 at 500mm when we don't know the aperture it will have at 400mm. If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus. I'm really excited about this lens, and am saving for it. Hopefully airshows will be back next summer.
> 
> I'm used to my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, and f/5.6 works just fine for me at 300mm, so maybe I'm just plebe, but I'm looking forward to my first white L.


We'll see in a few days, but how likely is it that we will have:
100-400mm be in the F4.5-5.6 range
and then suddenly 400-500mm in the 5.6-7.1 range?
Shaped almost like an exponential curve? Not impossible... sure... but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Freddell (Jul 7, 2020)

padam said:


> The main problem with the argument is that it isn't the lens to compare with.
> It's a different lens that Canon hasn't provided an alternative to just yet.
> It is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS which is the closest alternative, let's take a look.
> 
> ...


That's a spot on comparison! They seem to be practically identical!
With the RF mount maybe the geometry managed to squeeze out som additional range.
Before we bash RF100-500 for aperture at 500mm it would be interesting to compare to Sony FE 100-400 where they overlap.
Maybe the RF is 5.6 at 400mm??


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ++++If we're still at 5.6 (or even 6.3) at 400mm, then the the extra reach is just a bonus...
> 
> if we are at 6.3 at 400mm then the extra reach of 100mm at the long end and slow F7 aperture costed you $2000 Just for those 100mm. Suggesting you are better of upgrading to R5 for an extra $1000 and cropping to 500mm framing. And still be better off.
> for the record, Sigma or Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 is smaller lighter and priced at around $600.
> with a very reasonable IQ for a F6.3 lens.


Hopefully there will be many benefits that would justify the price premium. Some examples of these would be:

Better IQ (sharpness, colors, contrast, etc.)
More pleasing bokeh
Faster autofocus
Compatibility with High Speed Continuous Shooting
Better Dual IS capabilities
Better TC compatibility
Higher max magnification
No need for adapter


----------



## padam (Jul 7, 2020)

Freddell said:


> That's a spot on comparison! They seem to be practically identical!
> With the RF mount maybe the geometry managed to squeeze out som additional range.
> Before we bash RF100-500 for aperture at 500mm it would be interesting to compare to Sony FE 100-400 where they overlap.
> Maybe the RF is 5.6 at 400mm??


A 1.25x teleconverter makes a 400mm 5.6 into a 500mm 7.1, so it is entirely possible that they are an exact match at the same focal lengths.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 7, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> My thoughts exactly, and it saves me the bother of saying it. It's an interesting lenses, but purely on it's own the Sony 200-600mm is a far more compelling lens to wildlife photographers and probably other photographers.



I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with you. I'd say 'certain types of wildlife'.

The canon isMUCH lighter than the sony, which is important if, for example, hiking, with nearly as much reach.
It's got a much better magnification for things you can get closer to, like butterflies, etc, making it better for that sort of 'wildlife'.

I'd personally favour the 100-500 over the 200-600 given these tradeoffs.

Also, I'm not in the market for either. I'll stick with my 100-400 II with the RF adapter. Not worth the upgrade to me at the moment  (And I swapped out the tamron 150-600 in favour of the 100-400. Less reach, but better sharpness and much smaller made the tradeoff well worth it to me.)

But I'm very intrigued as to what the image quality will be like for the 800 f11 given that price. I wasn't planning on buying one, but if the image quality is decent, the price and weight/size make it more interesting to me than I'd expected.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 7, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> It is about the damn setting you can do at the lens!
> For example:
> 1. Close to 10/15m. 2. Above 10/15m and 3. Complete range!
> But Canon has only # 2 & 3... only everything and far... that is a big design fail for a NEW and >3.000& lens!



The point of the focus limiter switch on tele lenses was to improve focusing speed and accuracy over the zoom range, given how slow some of these could be to focus when they had to hunt over the entire range. They were a solution to a problem *that should not exist*. How many times have you had the focus limiter in the wrong setting when it was nudged by accident and missed that shot? 

If this lens has only two settings, it's likely that it's going to focus damn fast and accurately; and you don't NEED more toggles to fiddle with, or get wrong.

Needing to have 3 switch settings is celebrating a failure.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> The point of the focus limiter switch on tele lenses was to improve focusing speed and accuracy over the zoom range, given how slow some of these could be to focus when they had to hunt over the entire range. They were a solution to a problem *that should not exist*. How many times have you had the focus limiter in the wrong setting when it was nudged by accident and missed that shot?
> 
> If this lens has only two settings, it's likely that it's going to focus damn fast and accurately; and you don't NEED more toggles to fiddle with, or get wrong.
> 
> Needing to have 3 switch settings is celebrating a failure.


I hope you are right!
Though this would suggest that autofocus on the new 85mm macro lens might struggle a bit if it needs this extra focus limiter position.


----------



## smr (Jul 7, 2020)

I'd love the 100-500 Lens. Fantastic focal length range and it's an L lens so the IQ is going to be fantastic. It's a bit too expensive for me though, I think considering the 100-400 MK2 is £1,300 grey then I'd probably buy that instead.


----------



## Max TT (Jul 7, 2020)

Rokinon RF AF 85mm 1.4 for me $699
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1563442-REG/rokinon_io85af_rf_af_85mm_f_1_4_lens.html

View attachment 191181
View attachment 191181


----------



## melgross (Jul 7, 2020)

These look like pretty good prices to me.


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> A 200-600 is a three times zoom (600/200=3), pretty close to the simplest type of zoom range eg 24-70, 70-200. A 100-500 is a five times zoom (500/100=5), five times zooms are MUCH more difficult and expensive to build to the same standard.


True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1

Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!

I do value the reducing weight and size, but that is not everything....For a L lens and like someone mentioned some posts behind,I think Canon can´t canibalize important things like aperture just to bring down size and weight. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a great thing, but...what matters most for a professional is if at the end of the day you can get a shot with the highest quality you can...F7.1 it´s not the end of the world....But it´ starting to be...  Unless the new R bodies are insane at ISO levels...

I dont want to be unfair with Canon, I do value the new lens and the new ways of bringing lenses to the market with less weight and size...But boy...3300€... For me, the right price is around 2600€/2700€ for this type of lens.

And don´t come with the thing that we dont know the aperture at 400mm. If I buy a 500mm is to use at 500 with quality!!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 7, 2020)

smr said:


> I'd love the 100-500 Lens. Fantastic focal length range and it's an L lens so the IQ is going to be fantastic. It's a bit too expensive for me though, I think considering the 100-400 MK2 is £1,300 grey then I'd probably buy that instead.



And it's likely the 100-400 II will take another price dive in the coming days. Makes me think about getting one and keeping my R versus the R5 + 100-500.


----------



## Chavim (Jul 7, 2020)

How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 7, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Hopefully there will be many benefits that would justify the price premium. Some examples of these would be:
> 
> Better IQ (sharpness, colors, contrast, etc.)
> More pleasing bokeh
> ...



I can understand that for most people, the value of the 100-400 II will be greater than the RF 100-500 at launch. The 100-400 II is so good already that I'm not sure how much IQ, bokeh and the slightly higher max magnification would sway people to get the RF. The faster dedicated RF communication could improve AF, IS and some other function, but that is also an incremental gain. I think the extra 100mm and the slight weight decrease are the primary drivers especially if it can maintain f/5.6 at 400mm.

I think that the wildcard are the new TCs. The latest EF ones were released a decade ago, and optical technologies have improved markedly since then. If the 100-500 + RF 1.4x TC can deliver excellent IQ, then it becomes a viable option to the 150-600 zooms. 700mm at f/10 vs. 600mm at f/6.3 but in a much smaller/lighter package with significant more range at the wider end.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 7, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> It is about the damn setting you can do at the lens!
> For example:
> 1. Close to 10/15m. 2. Above 10/15m and 3. Complete range!
> But Canon has only # 2 & 3... only everything and far... that is a big design fail for a NEW and >3.000& lens!


Curious why you need to set a 100-500 lens to only focus on close subjects? I get that it's important to you but what are some of the rest of us missing? I'm at an age where whenever I use a focus limiter, I forget that I set it and then miss a shot due to focus lock-out. Maybe it's me.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1
> 
> Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!
> 
> ...



The reason why this is such an issue is because Canon doesn't have a direct competitor to the 150/200-600 zooms or to Nikon's 200-500. Nikon not only has the 200-500 but also has the 80-400. Sony not only has the 200-600 but also its own 100-400. Canon RF will have only the 100-500... for now. And guess what, the 80-400 and 100-400 from Sony and Nikon cost more than their 200-500 and 200-600, so what kind of value do the 80-400 and 100-400 deliver? For your application, those lenses are worthless, but Canon/Sony/Nikon still decided to make them.

Canon might make a direct competitor to the consumer 150/200-500/600s in the future. I hope so, but I don't think of the RF 100-500 as such. There is room between the 100-500 and the RF 600 and 800 f/11s for something else because right now, Canon's solution for that range is big, heavy and expensive: the 200-400L with the internal 1.4x.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.




Very intrigued. One wonders if you extend those lenses in an unorthodox manner.






- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 7, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> True. But by the end of the day, you still have a 100-500 F7.1 for the great price of....3.300€ This is the aprox. price in EUR with my country taxes. I know some of you dont share my opinion, but I consider this a really High price for a zoom lens with a high aperture of F7.1
> 
> Also, of course some of you do make a big value of the 100-200 reach, but for me and possibly for most of the shooters that are looking for a telephoto the reach is everything we really need! So it would be so much better if Canon had made a 200-500 F5.6 or close to this! Nikon has it and it´s a great lens!
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing the pricing structure Canon believe they can or need to charge, or your willingness, or not, to pay that. I am merely pointing out that comparisons between disparate lenses of unknown IQ are problematic. Take it one step further the 200-400 f4 has a very small multiple yet is over $10,000 by which the 100-500 seems like a bargain. We all have budgets and we all have desires, if we are lucky they overlap, but with the choices out there even if they don't we generally still have options.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 7, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I hope you are right!
> Though this would suggest that autofocus on the new 85mm macro lens might struggle a bit if it needs this extra focus limiter position.



Interesting point!

I imagine that this is because it's a 'half macro' - which means it focuses from very close to quite far. Which means it may end up hunting over a much larger range than other 85mm that don't focus as close. So in this case, the limiter might be very useful as a way to indicate whether or not you want 'macro mode'.

And yeah, it would still be better if it didn't need that switch at all


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.


Looks the same as what's on the bodies and grips. If it's the same as what's on the EOS R, it feels pretty nice.


----------



## amorse (Jul 7, 2020)

I was interested in the 100-500 regardless of the f/7.1, but it does seem like a steep price all things considered, though maybe worth it when we see how it performs. 

As someone who hikes with way too much gear, I guess the thing that keeps ringing in my mind is that this does create some interesting options for pairing with other lenses to maximize zoom ranges, minimize the number of lenses to cary, and maintains somewhat lower weight. For instance, if I wanted my bag to have all zoom ranges from ~16mm-500mm (or more), I can do it in 3 lenses with this system (15-35, 24-105, 100-500). Every other system seems (off the top of my head - I very well could be wrong) to need 4 lenses (or will maintain a gap in zoom range or not make it to 500mm), and each system's heaviest lens will be plenty heavier than the 100-500. For instance, with Nikon I may be looking at 14-24, 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-500. Sony, 16-35 (or 12-24), 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-600. Or sub out any of the big lenses for the Sigma or Tamron offerings. 

Whether or not I should be carrying all of that is a different question entirely, but I can see that setup being attractive for a very specific use case.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The Canon will offer:
> 
> 1:2 Macro (Samyang 0.11x max mag)
> *First party AF you can rely on*
> ...



have many observed a difference in autofocus accuracy between native and non-native glass on R-mount bodies?


----------



## navastronia (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> How come no one is talking about that textured bit on the front of both the 600 and the 800 lenses? WTH is that? Fake leather? Rubber? Textured Plastic? Weird AH.


Better grip out in the rain. My next question: how good is the weather sealing on the R5 and R6?


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not arguing the pricing structure Canon believe they can or need to charge, or your willingness, or not, to pay that. I am merely pointing out that comparisons between disparate lenses of unknown IQ are problematic. Take it one step further the 200-400 f4 has a very small multiple yet is over $10,000 by which the 100-500 seems like a bargain. We all have budgets and we all have desires, if we are lucky they overlap, but with the choices out there even if they don't we generally still have options.



Yes you are totally right, that´s also why I pointed it is just m opinion based on my needs or expectations!  Yes, I do believe there is room for this lens and maybe it´s quite a good option for some users!

But I was with hope that the price was more low than this, if it was lower I would consider this one, but for this price I gain extra muscle and resistance and carry the big one all the time!!!   

Boy I Am really anxious for thursday!!! Can´t wait to see those gorgeous R5 and 6! I will not complain on those ones!!


----------



## Daner (Jul 7, 2020)

amorse said:


> I was interested in the 100-500 regardless of the f/7.1, but it does seem like a steep price all things considered, though maybe worth it when we see how it performs.
> 
> As someone who hikes with way too much gear, I guess the thing that keeps ringing in my mind is that this does create some interesting options for pairing with other lenses to maximize zoom ranges, minimize the number of lenses to cary, and maintains somewhat lower weight. For instance, if I wanted my bag to have all zoom ranges from ~16mm-500mm (or more), I can do it in 3 lenses with this system (15-35, 24-105, 100-500). Every other system seems (off the top of my head - I very well could be wrong) to need 4 lenses (or will maintain a gap in zoom range or not make it to 500mm), and each system's heaviest lens will be plenty heavier than the 100-500. For instance, with Nikon I may be looking at 14-24, 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-500. Sony, 16-35 (or 12-24), 24-105 (or 24-70), 70-200, 200-600. Or sub out any of the big lenses for the Sigma or Tamron offerings.
> 
> Whether or not I should be carrying all of that is a different question entirely, but I can see that setup being attractive for a very specific use case.



I have similar concerns, but for me, it is more about one-bag travel than just hiking. The key question will be the IQ and focus performance of the 100-500. If it matches or exceeds the 100-400 II on the R bodies while being smaller and lighter than the EF lens + adapter combo, it is a slam dunk.


----------



## glider4 (Jul 7, 2020)

I was keeping an eye on the RF 100-500 but if that is the price, I’m happy to stay with my EF 100-400 II lens with control ring adapter. I can’t imagine IQ a whole lot better. My current 100-400 lens is heavier, bigger with adapter but I paid less than $1,700 for both. If the new RF 100-500 gets under $2,000 by Christmas I’ll relook it.


----------



## Max TT (Jul 7, 2020)

Also are these new addition STM lenses weather sealed, because the 35 was not! 

I don't understand the exuberance about the 85 f2. The only thing hardware wise is that it has IS, but does that really matter when the R6 and R5 have IBIS? 

Don't mean to be a downer, but this should have been $500 max price. Possibly $450 on sale.


----------



## subtraho (Jul 7, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Good question. I don’t know about that one. Maybe someone else could chime in.
> 
> I have no idea if the DPAF in the R5 is up to those tasks so there are still lots of question about R’s for sports and wildlife IMO.
> 
> Disclaimer: all my Canon’s are DSLR’s. My only mirror less is a Fuji XT3 and despite focusing well for a MLC it’s just not in the same league as my 1DX Mark II for action. Not even close. I guess we’ll see how the new R’s do in a couple days.



I'm one of the odd Sony converts who kept all of their Canon glass after making the jump, and I've been looking closely at the R5 as a way to work my way back into the Canon ecosystem, but the High Speed Display issue on the R and RP genuinely worries me. If I attach my (still-beloved) EF 100-400Lii and get a slideshow trying to shoot birds, it's going to be very difficult to convince myself to keep the camera over my existing gear - especially given the rumored price of the RF 100-500.

On the other hand, I have to imagine that (given the upgraded AF and 12/20 fps burst rate) this is probably the first Canon mirrorless that the DSLR loyalists with big white lenses I see down at Conowingo are paying any real attention to, as a 7Dii replacement or as a second body alongside their 1DX models. (I realize it is meant to be a 5D replacement first and foremost, but with these specs it should make a pretty good 7D replacement too) Canon has to have made the realization that if one of those folks attaches their EF 600 f/4 or 800 f5.6 to the R5 and gets a slideshow, word will quickly get out and it's not going to go well for sales to that crowd. So, maybe they have fixed it? Time will tell.


----------



## Chavim (Jul 7, 2020)

Max C said:


> Also are these new addition STM lenses weather sealed, because the 35 was not!



Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Jul 7, 2020)

If that price is right, Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 for RF look even more appealing to me.


----------



## subtraho (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?



Technically the 400 f/4 DO isn't an L lens and is weather sealed, but given the price, optics, and build it might as well be one.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 7, 2020)

So are we thinking Canon RF 85 F2 IS = $749 USD?


----------



## deleteme (Jul 7, 2020)

The prices on the long lenses are what I was expecting and will really make them best sellers.
Yes they are f11 but the vast number of people out there are not hard core spec whores and will easily justify the money for a toy like that.


----------



## Max TT (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?



Point taken, but I am more comparing this to the recently released Rokinon RF AF 85 f1. 4, which is weather sealed very well for $699. I just don't see the value in this offering of the Canon RF 85 f2. Maybe it will appeal more to EOS R users who don't have IBIS. But for me the R6 and R5 have IBIS, I rather the faster 1.4 AF weather sealed lense from Rokinon for a similar price.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 7, 2020)

Autoxave said:


> RF 85 is not a L lens, while 100-500 is a L lens, and more expensive. The Sony 200-600 is a consumer zoom even though the image quality is very good. I would guess that the build quality of the 100-500 is in another league compared to the Sony 200-600. You are comparing apples to oranges. You can compare the Canon 100-500 to Sony 100-400.


I think Canon's consumer lenses are extremely good. My original 100 Macro was a non-L lens with excellent build and performance.
In some cases I might need an L lens because it is the only option. But I would be happy to have this 85 as a killer all round lens.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 7, 2020)

Chavim said:


> Are there any non-L lenses that are weather-sealed?


For all the attention given weather sealing one might be forgiven for thinking all photographers were idiots that only ventured out in inclement weather.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 7, 2020)

As an owner of only L RF Lenses, the 85 f2 looks so appealingly light.


----------



## LLW902 (Jul 7, 2020)

Max C said:


> Also are these new addition STM lenses weather sealed, because the 35 was not!
> 
> I don't understand the exuberance about the 85 f2. The only thing hardware wise is that it has IS, but does that really matter when the R6 and R5 have IBIS?
> 
> Don't mean to be a downer, but this should have been $500 max price. Possibly $450 on sale.



It's a big deal to those of us who bought an R or RP and don't want to upgrade our camera bodies after less than 2 years.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jul 7, 2020)

A lot of people on here don’t seem to know the following equations:

Lens + weather sealed + hood + pouch + $$$$ = Canon L series lens
Lens + $$ = Canon non-L lens


----------



## Max TT (Jul 7, 2020)

LLW902 said:


> It's a big deal to those of us who bought an R or RP and don't want to upgrade our camera bodies after less than 2 years.


Yea I figured it will be more appealing to the EOS R users who don't have IBIS. I would be content too, if I owned an EOS R. But for the R6 and R5 the AF Rokinon is a better option for me.


----------



## LLW902 (Jul 7, 2020)

Max C said:


> Yea I figured it will be more appealing to the EOS R users who don't have IBIS. I would be content too, if I owned an EOS R. But for the R6 and R5 the AF Rokinon is a better option for me.



The Rokinon does seem pretty spectacular for the price. Now if only Rokinon would port over their little autofocusing pancake lenses to RF....


----------



## Nelu (Jul 7, 2020)

subtraho said:


> Have there been any rumors regarding if the R5/6 share the EOS R's inability to activate the High Speed Display EVF setting while using EF lenses? That's kind of the crux of this decision if one plans to use the lens for sports or fast-moving wildlife like BIF. If the EVF works better for tracking and panning with the 100-500 than the 100-400, it's still an upgrade.



Why does that matter? 
It's not like the High Speed Display EVF does such a great job anyways; at least not for me, on my EOS-R!
Fast action photography with that camera sucks for two reasons:

EVF, high-speed or not
Maximum burst rate of 3 fps with AF tracking
I do find it challenging and that's why I keep using it; to hone my skills for BIF photography with a mirrorless camera.
When I really need results no matter what, I'll use my 1 DX Mark III.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jul 7, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> whenever I use a focus limiter, I forget that I set it and then miss a shot due to focus lock-out. Maybe it's me.


No, it's not just you! Been there, done that.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 7, 2020)

glider4 said:


> ...If the new RF 100-500 gets under $2,000 by Christmas I’ll relook it.


The first four RF lenses released (28-70, 50 1.2, 35 1.8, and 24-105 4.0) are 2 months shy of 2 years old and still sell for their original price. There, just saved you money. 

But seriously, maybe I've been away from forums too long, but there's a lot of folks expecting price drops in this soon-to-be announced gear by Black Friday, etc. Is that realistic at this point? Since I have the 2.8 trinity, 100 L Macro and 100-400II in EF, I don't plan to start off duplicating or replacing any of those. I'll pick up the 50 or the 85 1.2 for the holidays and (hopefully) they'll have some rebates in place by then for these early RF lenses. 

Anyway, whatever gear y'all decide to get (or not), enjoy the new toys.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 7, 2020)

A wide non L prime next please. An RF 24 f/2.0 IS would be nice...


----------



## Jethro (Jul 7, 2020)

Tick to the price of the long primes (which will likely include UK VAT), now fingers crossed about the IQ!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 8, 2020)

I am concerned about the 100-500mm price as well. I had planned to get R5 + 100-500mm (deposit in Feb!) but at this price it would be a AUD10K+ hit on day one (+ memory cards etc on top). I had EF 70-200mm f2.8L + 1.4x and 2x TCs when I wanted the occasional extra reach but sold my TCs (and sonn my EF70-200) so it means that I have no option for anything >200mm now (R5 + crop aside) without spending a lot of money. 
The price of a new EF 100-400mm lens + new RF 1.4TC + RF adaptor would still be cheaper. Hard to say which would be better overall. Probably will be good quality second hand EF 100-400mm with people upgrading making the value of the F100-500mm less obvious.
There hasn't been any specific price reductions on RF glass in Australia but there has been discounts store wide so maybe make a decision Christmas / Boxing Day sales.


----------



## dwarven (Jul 8, 2020)

I’ll probably be picking up the 800mm prime and wait for everything else to come down in price. Unless the 100-500 is exceptionally good, I don’t see it staying at that price for long.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 8, 2020)

Billybob said:


> As I stated above, the Sony is a G lens, which is a step down from the Sony "Grand Master" lenses. The Sony is more comparable to the Sigma 150-600 S or Nikon 200-500.



Billybob, welcome back. I too took a walkabout, mine through Panasonic and Sony lands. The one quibble I have with your post is that I don't think the Sony 200-600 is in the same league as the third party 150-600s. It may be a G lens, but I own it and the 600mm GM f/4, and aside from aperture, the 200-600 really holds its own. I've been out in the rain innumerable times, and it has been as tough as my 600 f/4. I would say that if the 100-400 II is an L lens, then the 200-600 should qualify as that level as well. 

So I will be comparing it to the 100-500 with hopes that it has similar image quality and build. The reduced length and size will be very welcome. The 200-600 did suffer from one major design flaw, which was that the strap lugs were oddly placed very close to the camera mount. This made it never quite balance correctly when hung from a strap, unless you wrapped the strap under the lens foot. 

The max magnification will also be very welcome. I missed that a great deal since selling my 100-400 II.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 8, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> My thoughts exactly, and it saves me the bother of saying it. It's an interesting lenses, but purely on it's own the Sony 200-600mm is a far more compelling lens to wildlife photographers and probably other photographers.



I love my Sony 200-600, but I have to say it has a good portion of its weight at the tippy end of it's very, very long barrel. It's not the easiest hiking lens. For that I miss my old 100-400 II, which gave me many a good "macro" shot on the trails too. I think the 100-500, if it has the same IQ as the previous Canon and the current Sony 200-600 would be preferable.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 8, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I’ll probably be picking up the 800mm prime and wait for everything else to come down in price. Unless the 100-500 is exceptionally good, I don’t see it staying at that price for long.


Indeed. I was hoping for $2400. It feels much too expensive at $2800-$2900.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 8, 2020)

I still hope the RF 100-500mm price in the US is incorrect. That is way too much. OTOH the 600 and 800 are a pleasant surprise to me at least. The only lens that is of my interest among these is the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro. I was hoping that will be around $500. I guess I will wait for a good deal down the line to buy the 85mm. The rest of the lenses are a pass for me. I guess Canon and Nikon are following the foot steps of Sony in terms of lens prices


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 8, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I hope you are right!
> Though this would suggest that autofocus on the new 85mm macro lens might struggle a bit if it needs this extra focus limiter position.


probably more to do with the max aperture creating such a shallow depth of field that it will more likely miss if in the wrong position.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 8, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> EF telephoto users who have not used higher-end mirrorless telephotos with TCs may be in for a pleasant IQ-shock when they see how well they can work together. Take for example the GF 250 + 1.4x for the GFX. The IQ from using the TC noticeably exceeds the bare lens when cropped and enlarged to the same focal length – something I was not used to seeing on EFs with TCs. Stabilization and AF will also be much better with the TCs. I was never happy with the 1.4x on the 100-400 II and 5DsR – it was always sharper to crop and enlarge (some of this was due to the TC IQ loss and some was due to less effective IS when the TC was used).
> 
> In any case, I think the pain of the higher price for the 100-500 will be outweighed by the increased performance over the 100-400 II. We'll know for sure soon enough.


The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is better than its EF cousin but you would not want to live on the difference. The RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM is not the greatest example of optical excellence. Yes both lenses are at the lower end of the RF price point but they have not moved the bar. 
It remains to be seen how good the RF 100-500mm will be with & without the converters but for almost 40% more in price it needs to be really good to justify that price hike.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 8, 2020)

Max C said:


> I don't understand the exuberance about the 85 f2. The only thing hardware wise is that it has IS, but does that really matter when the R6 and R5 have IBIS?
> 
> Don't mean to be a downer, but this should have been $500 max price. Possibly $450 on sale.


It's going to be very popular, not because of a headline-grabbing spec but because it's such a useful lens. It brings the old and much-loved 85/1.8 into the 21st century. Let's hope they've addressed the purple fringing!

The price looks high if you compare it with discounted EF lenses, but it's less than half the launch price of the EF 85/1.4L IS which was $1600.


----------



## TracerHD (Jul 8, 2020)

I hope the rf 85mm f2 is Inside focusing unlike the rf 35.


----------



## ozturert (Jul 8, 2020)

85mm will be the new EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Canon will probably produce it for 20+ years


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 8, 2020)

HenryL said:


> The first four RF lenses released (28-70, 50 1.2, 35 1.8, and 24-105 4.0) are 2 months shy of 2 years old and still sell for their original price. There, just saved you money.


Don't know where you are, but here in the UK the RF 28-70/2L launched at £3050 but is regularly available for £2500-£2600 and if you're quick you can grab one today for £2280 at Amazon or Currys. It also qualifies for a 'Lens Reward' cashback of £290 if bought within 12 months of a qualifying body, giving you a net price of £1990.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 8, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Billybob, welcome back. I too took a walkabout, mine through Panasonic and Sony lands. The one quibble I have with your post is that I don't think the Sony 200-600 is in the same league as the third party 150-600s. It may be a G lens, but I own it and the 600mm GM f/4, and aside from aperture, the 200-600 really holds its own. I've been out in the rain innumerable times, and it has been as tough as my 600 f/4. I would say that if the 100-400 II is an L lens, then the 200-600 should qualify as that level as well.
> 
> So I will be comparing it to the 100-500 with hopes that it has similar image quality and build. The reduced length and size will be very welcome. The 200-600 did suffer from one major design flaw, which was that the strap lugs were oddly placed very close to the camera mount. This made it never quite balance correctly when hung from a strap, unless you wrapped the strap under the lens foot.
> 
> The max magnification will also be very welcome. I missed that a great deal since selling my 100-400 II.



Tiggy, I'm not sure if I'm heartened by your observation that the 200600 holds its own against Sony's longest exotic prime. It's nice to know that I'm getting near-exotic quality for such a low price but somewhat discouraging if the $13,000 lens doesn't provide a substantial improvement in IQ. At least I can save my money.

I've enjoyed my Sony zoom as well and my only complaint is that it loses a little--not a lot--of sharpness above 400mm. I find the lens amazing--as sharp and contrasty as my 100-400L II--up to 400mm. It definitely drops off a bit beyond 400mm. The other long consumer-grade lenses also drop off zoomed out. However, I found that the Sigma 60-600mm matches the 200-600mm at 600mm, and might be a touch better. It's also built like a tank (but heavier!), so these two lenses are definitely in the same class. I didn't test the Sigma long enough to have an opinion on how well its AF performs. I think that the biggest claimed difference between the 200-600 and the GM is the quality of the AF motor(s). Whether this is a noticeable or significant difference, I have no clue. I'm just happy that I have the opportunity to enjoy such a fine instrument (the zoom) for under $2000. 

What's enticing about the 100-500 is the smaller size. Size matters and it is worth some premium to get 500mm of reach in such a compact package especially if the IQ holds up (I have my doubts about the f/11 DO lenses). Regardless, these are indeed exciting times.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 8, 2020)

Hey Canon. Remember that classic and most popular of all lenses in the photographic world? The humble 50mm f/1.4 at a reasonable cost and weight? Is it really too much to ask to make one for the RF?


----------



## HenryL (Jul 8, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Don't know where you are, but here in the UK the RF 28-70/2L launched at £3050 but is regularly available for £2500-£2600 and if you're quick you can grab one today for £2280 at Amazon or Currys. It also qualifies for a 'Lens Reward' cashback of £290 if bought within 12 months of a qualifying body, giving you a net price of £1990.


In the US, we unfortunately don't have those lens rewards available to us. 28-70/2L launched at $2999 and still sells for that today. RF 50/1.2L launched and still sells for $2299...you get the picture. In any case, glad some folks in other locations are able to take advantage of those deals you mention. I'm hopeful that this year some of the RF lenses will be on the list when the seasonal rebate offers start this fall - particularly hoping for the 85/1.2L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 8, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Hey Canon. Remember that classic and most popular of all lenses in the photographic world? The humble 50mm f/1.4 at a reasonable cost and weight? Is it really too much to ask to make one for the RF?


Ha that’s a joke, search this forum for the unrelenting hate the EF 50 f1.4 gets. Personally I love the thing and have owned the same copy for nearly 20 years and it still focuses fast and noisy, but absolutely accurately, at 1.4.


----------



## Proscribo (Jul 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Ha that’s a joke, search this forum for the unrelenting hate the EF 50 f1.4 gets. Personally I love the thing and have owned the same copy for nearly 20 years and it still focuses fast and noisy, but absolutely accurately, at 1.4.


So you are the one with the one and only accurately focusing EF 50mm f/1.4!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 8, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> So you are the one with the one and only accurately focusing EF 50mm f/1.4!


Indeed it seems I am, and I have posted proof of it here too with 14 FPS bursts at 1.4. I have also never broken it in nearly 20 years of it rattling around in a camera bag which is more than I can say for several L lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 8, 2020)

I get the sense these new crazy telephotos being at this pricepoint shows that Canon is expanding its entry level options across the board in a very big way. Someone could have the 24-240mm and a 600mm in a bag and have basically every focal length you'd ever need for a long hike or roadtrip.

I think these supertelephotos basically confirm Canon will soon do an ultra-affordable ultrawide lens too. I could imagine something like a cheap 17-35mm f/4-5.6.


----------



## milkod2001 (Jul 8, 2020)

Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jul 8, 2020)

Sticking with Canon and will adapt my 11-24 and my Sigmas for now but that new Sony 12-24 f2.8 WOW!!! I lust for that lens for landscape and Astro. That lens would replace four lenses in my kit. Canon, please, release something similar soon.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

milkod2001 said:


> Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.


Bright day = f/11, 1/800s, iso 400. Needs to be rather dull for iso 4000. You can do large birds in flight at a distance on a bright day at f/11, 1/2400s iso 1200. Not the brightest of lenses so use it in reasonable and avoid the dark.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 8, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> Sticking with Canon and will adapt my 11-24 and my Sigmas for now but that new Sony 12-24 f2.8 WOW!!! I lust for that lens for landscape and Astro. That lens would replace four lenses in my kit. Canon, please, release something similar soon.



That is an interesting lens. I saw a few of the "reviews" on YouTube. Seems to have lower distortion than the Sigma 14-24, but the thing I found interesting was Tony Northrup's video. In comparing to Sony's 16-35 f/2.8, the 16-35 was sharper over the overlapping range. That said, it's still going to be a great lens.

I remember threads here where people reported Canon reps were interested in how users want to handle the UWA range. The reps wondered whether users would be more interested in going to a larger aperture (i.e. 11-24 f/2.8) or keeping the same aperture but going even wider (i.e. 10-24 f/4). I don't think Canon will follow Sony's lead for a 12-24 f/2.8. Based on patents, it looks like we might see a 14-28 f/2 and a 10-24 f/4. Coupled with a 15-35 f/2.8, you'll have your choice of focal length range, while trading aperture and price.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jul 8, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> That is an interesting lens. I saw a few of the "reviews" on YouTube. Seems to have lower distortion than the Sigma 14-24, but the thing I found interesting was Tony Northrup's video. In comparing to Sony's 16-35 f/2.8, the 16-35 was sharper over the overlapping range. That said, it's still going to be a great lens.
> 
> I remember threads here where people reported Canon reps were interested in how users want to handle the UWA range. The reps wondered whether users would be more interested in going to a larger aperture (i.e. 11-24 f/2.8) or keeping the same aperture but going even wider (i.e. 10-24 f/4). I don't think Canon will follow Sony's lead for a 12-24 f/2.8. Based on patents, it looks like we might see a 14-28 f/2 and a 10-24 f/4. Coupled with a 15-35 f/2.8, you'll have your choice of focal length range, while trading aperture and price.



My vote would be for the 14-24 f2 all day long. I struggle with the 11-14 mm range on the 11-24 already. It creates many creative challenges being that wide and when I filter it I can't shoot below 12.5 mm without lots of vignetting. I would rather have the f2 (for creative use and astro) than the extra 1 mm. 

Horses for courses, but that would be my vote! 

Bob


----------



## SteveC (Jul 8, 2020)

ozturert said:


> 85mm will be the new EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Canon will probably produce it for 20+ years



Then I will have plenty of time to wear out my relatively new 1.8.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 8, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is better than its EF cousin but you would not want to live on the difference. The RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM is not the greatest example of optical excellence. Yes both lenses are at the lower end of the RF price point but they have not moved the bar.
> It remains to be seen how good the RF 100-500mm will be with & without the converters but for almost 40% more in price it needs to be really good to justify that price hike.



I think you're confusing my messages and replied to the wrong one or are combining my thoughts.

Previously I used the reference to the 24-240 to show that even in the worst-designed (IMO) RF zoom, the telephoto end is really good. That was when I was talking about the new RF f/11 primes that are around the same price point, trying to make the point that I think the IQ will be pretty good. Summary: if 240mm on the 24-240 is really good, the f/11 primes should be even better.

The exact quote I made that you referenced was about the GF 250 + 1.4x – That was only meant to speak to how the IQ of TCs has improved in the last few years plus how much better they are being designed for mirrorless than they were for DSLRs. Summary: Using higher-end mirrorless TCs can be more like having a modular lens with very few sacrifices (if any) in IQ.


----------



## Absolutic (Jul 8, 2020)

Want that 85STM. It will be perfect match to my 35STM on my RP. When is 85 being released? I want it. I am sure IQ will be great, just like 35.


----------



## Absolutic (Jul 8, 2020)

milkod2001 said:


> Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.



these are for the perched birds. The moment birds start moving, it is not going to work that well. But for perched birds, with superior IBIS, it might work.

OTOH I wonder how much bigger would these lenses be, if they designed them as F8 lenses. F8 would be much more useful IMHO....


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 8, 2020)

milkod2001 said:


> Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.



Once again, with modern sensors more resolution does not mean more noise, arcsecond to arcsecond. Smaller pixels does mean more _pixel-level noise _but that's comparing apples to oranges because _you also get more detail! _

Anyway. The sunny 16 rule says that in bright sunlight you get a 1/200s shutter speed at f/11 and ISO 100. Bump ISO to 1600, which is basically nothing on modern sensors, and you get 1/3200s. Or in less direct sunlight still something like 1/800s. Fast-moving birds in shade, that's another question, but you can't expect miracles at that price.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 8, 2020)

Gino_FOTO said:


> If that price is right, Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 for RF look even more appealing to me.


I am currently torn between that lens and the Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8. I will probably get the Tamron since I have started to do video again and it has IS (VC).


----------

