A new super telephoto lens will be announced soon

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
2,020
2,444
The RF 135 1.8 is double the price of the G-Master here around.
No, I will not buy, rather take a Sony ...
I will definitely not buy a Sony again (had an A7 ). My worst camera ever.
Either wait for the RF 135 to be priced like in the US, or simply keep using my wonderful EF 135 F2.
I will never try again a Sony, unless they start paying attention to what really matters, namely ergonomics and service. One Sony cured me!
The pricing of one single lens is no "ship-jumping" argument. Except in a forum...:rolleyes:
And, if you are honest, that the RF costs more is true, but twice as much is simply untrue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
The post implies that an existing EF lens will get a make over, so of the two examples you mention, only a 400 f/4 exists in EF: the EF400L DO. I don't think that is going to be 'affordable' if it stays in the L series. A 400mm f/4 DO non-L could be affordable, however unlikely such a lens would be.
The 400mm f/4 DO has a green ring (for DO). It is white (and expensive), but not an L lens. So far, Canon has not made an L lens with DO, but based on the IQ of the RF 600 and 800 f/11 lenses, the technology is good enough that such a thing isn't out of the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
A make over of the 400mm f/5.6L would be nice, especially if stays light and relatively cheap. If it has IS and a better than 1:2 magnification ratio, I would be interested.
Switching between the RF100-500L and EF180L makes me appreciate just how nice dual nano USM is, it feels like the body is holding back the lens, the EF180L is very clearly holding back the body.
The make-over would need to include IS and close focus. BTW, better to compare the 100-500 with the EF 100-400 II as macro lens AF typically favors accuracy over speed. That said, the AF on all the RF lenses I have is remarkably snappy.
 
Upvote 0

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,337
1,671
Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.
Is it silly to assume that the "lens of the year from DPReview" is unlikely to be interesting to people that already own an EF 100-400L II or an RF 100-500, and even less likely to be interesting to Canon users that don't?
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
How does that benefit Canon?

Canon’s lineup currently seems aimed at a low end and a high-end market, not a mid-range market. While many forum dwellers seem to fall into that third category, the question is how many actual buyers do? Canon seems to think the answer to that is not enough.
I suspect many forum dwellers are still using SLRs and have no idea of the aperture advantage of mirrorless. Many of those "low end" lenses are very much mid-range from an IQ standpoint. Weather sealing is really the only missing piece. Frankly, any mid-range prime from 100-500 is very decently covered by the 100-500L and even though it is pricey, it is certainly not more expensive than two mid-range primes. Bottom line, the crux of the complaints is more a commenter problem than it is a Canon problem. Those who have tried the new way are already sold on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
I've been a reader of this site for about 7 years, but never made an account. I just did, just to reply to your comment.
Um…welcome.

Um.. do you realize that Nikon's 500 5.6 pf has been getting sold like crazy since it's release?
Really? On what data are you basing that conclusion? How many units have they sold, compared to other lenses? I would be truly surprised if you had any actual data to support your assertion. Note that anecdotes like ‘lots of people I know bought one’ are not data.

I really don't think you understand just how amazing a 3k 500 5.6 is.. "perhaps canon knows something you don't"... While implying a 500 5.6 won't sell? Thats a little bit delusional.
Nikon announced the development of the 500/5.6 PF in mid-2018. Given typical corporate competitive intelligence, Canon knew about it long before that.

Such an amazing lens that sells like crazy, yet Canon has chosen not to make one. So again I suggest, perhaps Canon knows something you don’t.

Don’t misunderstand, I am not questioning the utility or “awesomeness” of such a lens. I am merely stating a fact, namely that Canon has not released such a lens.

So who is delusional here? A company that has long considered the possibility of making a 500/5.6 (Canon filed a patent for one back in 2011) and has not made one? Or a person who believes they know more about making and selling lenses than the company that has led the ILC market for 20 years? (In case you need a hint, the latter is far more likely.)

Of course, Canon not making one doesn’t mean they don’t think it would be popular. Their goal is not really making lenses people want, it’s making a profit. Often, those two coincide…but not always.

The 500 pf, 200-500, and now the 400 4.5 which overlap each other still exist because Nikon gives option to us mere mortals that can't buy a 10k lens. Canon's 100-400 ii is amazing but no it's not at the level of the 500pf (of course it's cheaper), neither is the 100-500 which is f7.1 and not quite as sharp.. anyway.. its very obvious why canon hasnt released a 500 5.6. it would be too affordable and people wont buy the 400 do.
A valid reason, from Canon’s perspective. As I’ve said, they’ve long appeared to prioritize lenses at the ends of the cost spectrum, not the middle. A good example are the 50mm primes, lots of 50/1.8 lenses, the 50/1.2 was among the first RF lenses, while the 50/1.4 languishes.

Also you said "..... Personally want something"..SO MANY people have been asking for an update to the now *30* year old 400 5.6, and the 25 year old 300 f4. Canon hasn't even bothered. Cmon. In 30 years they couldve updated it twice. Again, the reason behind it is very clear.
The 100-400 L lenses probably far outsold the 300/4 and 400/5.6. Thus, the 100-400L saw a MkII version and was brought into the RF mount as a 100-500L. Zooms have become far more popular than primes. If that’s what you mean, then yes the reason is clear. It seems to me you’re implying something different, in which case the reason is obviously not clear to one of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.
Silly to assume DPR has any real bearing on the market level under consideration, or that they are unbiased (given that they’re an Amazon subsidiary). But you can ASSume whatever you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
In the US, the Canon and Sony 135/1.8 lenses are the same price, and only the Canon has IS (which is more beneficial than IBIS at telephoto focal lengths).

Canon 32300 SEK vs Sony 18500 SEK here in Sweden (incl. VAT). Last years I've imported most lenses from the US, I won't pay such an overprice.

Everything Canon has released over here since the autumn 2019 has been crazily priced. Even the RF 18-150 is way more expensive than the EF-M version here while they cost the same in the US.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
You can so much closer with an RF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm that they are much better for insects. The RF 100-400 gives 0.41x at its closest distance whereas the old 400mm f/5.6 is only 0.12x magnification.
Yep, close focus is the one big downside to the 600 and 800 f/11 lenses (as well as just about every other long prime out there), but that is the norm for primes. Zooms get close focus by trading off focus distance with focal length. When they are close focused, they are typically nowhere near the indicated focal length, but that does not negate the utility of close focus. Macros achieve close focus by making a huge image circle (by effectively adding an extension tube between the lens and the sensor), which has its own limitations, but close focus is a design challenge for conventional primes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.
The DPR camera of the year and the runner up will likely be outsold by the R7, but the R7 didn't even make it to the list that DPR gave readers to vote on. Silly to assume that forum readers' (particularly DPR readers') opinions will coincide with sales numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
Macros achieve close focus by making a huge image circle (by effectively adding an extension tube between the lens and the sensor), which has its own limitations, but close focus is a design challenge for conventional primes.
IIRC, the EF 100L macro frames like ~68mm when focused at 1:1. That’s a deep focus breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,012
365
I will definitely not buy a Sony again (had an A7 ). My worst camera ever.
Either wait for the RF 135 to be priced like in the US, or simply keep using my wonderful EF 135 F2.
I will never try again a Sony, unless they start paying attention to what really matters, namely ergonomics and service. One Sony cured me!
The pricing of one single lens is no "ship-jumping" argument. Except in a forum...:rolleyes:
And, if you are honest, that the RF costs more is true, but twice as much is simply untrue.
Interesting comment about the A7. I was not a fan of the early Sony A7 series cameras either, but I finally made the jump to Sony about four months ago when I bought an A7 IV. So far so good. I won't say I will never go back to Canon (if you'd asked me three or four years ago I would have said I couldn't see myself moving to Sony!), and there is no doubt Canon makes good gear, but at this point I am very happy with the move. For me and what I shoot, the Sony system suits me better than the Canon system at this point in time.
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,630
2,527
Really? On what data are you basing that conclusion? How many units have they sold, compared to other lenses? I would be truly surprised if you had any actual data to support your assertion. Note that anecdotes like ‘lots of people I know bought one’ are not data.

Let me underscore this.

If I look around me, and try to guess who the market leader is, Nikon has it by a mile. I see more of their cameras and when the local camera shop (yes we have one!) holds a sale, they sell a boatload of entry-level Nikons. I hardly ever see Canons or Sonys in the wild here.

That of course turns out to be wrong if one extrapolates it to the global or even just to the national level, which is Neuroanatomist's point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
All the while Nikon continues to bleed market share. I get your point great cheap lenses are nice, but it seems they don't keep the lights on.
That matters to you? As a customer, wouldnt you want a wider more affordable market? If so why do you even consider the perspective of the company? It's such a sad way to justify what canon has been doing for ages. Limiting their cameras to not cannibalize high end product sales, not updating lenses because.. well, they don't have to, you can always buy the 15k lens if you want.. as a consumer I respect what Nikon is doing very much. Also saying Nikon dont keep the lights on is pretty stupid. They are now climbing up after a very bad period. Canon users are slowly waking up realizing whats up. A company that never listens to it's users will fall eventually. When nikon started to listen to its users everything changed. In the past 4 years they only grew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I suspect many forum dwellers are still using SLRs and have no idea of the aperture advantage of mirrorless. Many of those "low end" lenses are very much mid-range from an IQ standpoint. Weather sealing is really the only missing piece. Frankly, any mid-range prime from 100-500 is very decently covered by the 100-500L and even though it is pricey, it is certainly not more expensive than two mid-range primes. Bottom line, the crux of the complaints is more a commenter problem than it is a Canon problem. Those who have tried the new way are already sold on it.
Don't compare the 100-500 to prime level quality. Not even close
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Um…welcome.


Really? On what data are you basing that conclusion? How many units have they sold, compared to other lenses? I would be truly surprised if you had any actual data to support your assertion. Note that anecdotes like ‘lots of people I know bought one’ are not data.


Nikon announced the development of the 500/5.6 PF in mid-2018. Given typical corporate competitive intelligence, Canon knew about it long before that.

Such an amazing lens that sells like crazy, yet Canon has chosen not to make one. So again I suggest, perhaps Canon knows something you don’t.

Don’t misunderstand, I am not questioning the utility or “awesomeness” of such a lens. I am merely stating a fact, namely that Canon has not released such a lens.

So who is delusional here? A company that has long considered the possibility of making a 500/5.6 (Canon filed a patent for one back in 2011) and has not made one? Or a person who believes they know more about making and selling lenses than the company that has led the ILC market for 20 years? (In case you need a hint, the latter is far more likely.)

Of course, Canon not making one doesn’t mean they don’t think it would be popular. Their goal is not really making lenses people want, it’s making a profit. Often, those two coincide…but not always.


A valid reason, from Canon’s perspective. As I’ve said, they’ve long appeared to prioritize lenses at the ends of the cost spectrum, not the middle. A good example are the 50mm primes, lots of 50/1.8 lenses, the 50/1.2 was among the first RF lenses, while the 50/1.4 languishes.


The 100-400 L lenses probably far outsold the 300/4 and 400/5.6. Thus, the 100-400L saw a MkII version and was brought into the RF mount as a 100-500L. Zooms have become far more popular than primes. If that’s what you mean, then yes the reason is clear. It seems to me you’re implying something different, in which case the reason is obviously not clear to one of us.
Well, basically youre saying "we canon users are sheeple, canon knows it so it analyzes the market and does not release affordable gear because, well, it's not making enough money, and canon knows we canon users will keep buying whatever they release without ever questioning anything or even having an original thought"? Oh ok
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,596
1,383
www.flickr.com
Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.
We are not making the decisions for Canon. We try to apply some logic based on limited public knowledge and personal biases.

Canon is making strategic decisions for themselves and their shareholders. If they think that there is a market niche where they can design and manufacture a lens and make significant profit from it then it would be reasonable to suggest that they do so.

If they haven't then there are 2 possibilities:
- It is in the pipeline and they don't have capacity yet or
- They don't think that it is worthwhile for them to make
 
Upvote 0