Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!Why anyone would buy a prime for 20k really boggles my mind as you are so limited in your subject distance!
Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?
Upvote
0
The best lens I had had was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF - loved it. Then, I got the RF 100-500mm, and it was even better - almost as sharp, so much more versatile and would focus so much closer.Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!
Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?
Upvote
0
I find these lenses very interesting indeed. I am currently debating a big white lens purchase and kind of want to keep renting them until the RF mount get more filled out with their primes. The current big whites are just EF lenses with permanent mount adaptors, so I would probably just buy the EF version until they release a series of lenses with built in 1.4x TCs.
Upvote
0
One of these lenses will end up in my bag. I love my EF 500 f4 II, but I like to alter between tight shots and bringing some of the environment in for context for wildlife shots. This is perfect. I can see a price point anywhere from $12k to $20k. That will determine how long I wait. Is it in the "save up" or "win the lottery" range.
Upvote
0
I have a 100-500 and it suits my needs well. For me to be interested in another lens it would have to have more magnification and be comfortable to carry with the 100-500 on one hip and the other lens on my other. I have been thinking a 800 with a 1.4 built in extender. f5.6 or 6.3 would be ideal. That way I have several different options from closer up to further away. Another scenario would be the 100-500 on a camera strap and the 800 on tripod. Portability is one of the most attractive things about the 100-500 paired with an R5 or R3
Upvote
0
Nikon has been pushing the RF sports lens theater with the introduction of the 120-300 F2.8 for indoor work, and the super light 400 2.8 with built in 1.4X. As an owner of the Canon 200-400, 600 F4, and the RF 100-500mm. I have found the new 100-500mm to be a terrific alternative to its much heavier cousins. I would not sell my 200-400 to get the proposed RF 200-500, but the 600 F4 would be out the door ASAP if a RF 400 2.8 with 1.4X became realty. FYI: I never carry the 200-400 & 600 to the same event. Which one I use totally depends on my access to the players (footballers, etc).
Upvote
0
davidcl0nel
Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
The old EF 200-400 1.4x was at this pricepoint years ago.
If no one ever had bought it, Canon would not make a patent for a redesign. After the typical price increase of the last RF lenses (in comparison to the EF ones) this might be also in 15k+ range.
And of course you can decrease the weight also on zoom lenses, both RF 70-200 are the perfect example. Yes yes, they now extends and are no internal zoom as the EF ones anymore, I know. But maybe this is here also the case?
Upvote
0
This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here
Upvote
0
The R5 + RF 100-500 is an excellent setup for birding. What this lens might offer (it’s just patent at this point, and few patents become real lenses) is mainly a wider aperture. That means lower ISOs / faster shutter speeds. It also means less diffraction softening, which can be a minor issue with the R5 / R7 and a TC on the 100-500. Being a ‘great white’ the image quality will be technically better, but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens).
The trade-off is cost, size and weight. Whether those are significant issues depends on you. I expect a 200-500/4 + 1.4x to be a bit lighter than my 600/4 II. I can hike with the 600/4 and shoot handheld, but not everyone can. I do have a tripod and gimbal, I use those mainly with winter raptors where I’m standing in one place for a long period. On hikes, I carry the lens on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap, which is a left handed version because that makes sense for a heavy lens (lift and support with my left hand, shoot with my right). I carry a monopod with tilt-head for times when I pause in a spot (carried on a belt in a holder designed for a MagLite flashlight.
I almost always use the 600/4 with a 1.4x or 2x TC, the 200-500 would mean less reach (probably not enough for my needs).
Upvote
0
How you use it and what you can get out of it depends on how strong you are. It's too heavy for me, a keen opportunistic birder, to walk around with, but younger stronger guys and gals could cope with it, and a monopod would help. The IQ of the 100-500 is very impressive. A 200-500mm f/4 will have advantages in low light, 1 2/3rd stops, and should take extenders better in terms of combating diffraction, but the 100-500mm takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs very well.
My post crossed with Neuro's in the ether, which makes the same points. A 200-500 f/4 is technically better optically than a 100-500 f/7.1 but the trade off in loss of portability and increased difficulty of handling makes a 100-500mm f/7.1 the preferred choice for most of us who use a lens on bird hikes and going from hide to hide.
Upvote
0
Thanks both of you for such a wonderful response. I am trying to get "better" photos but don't want to stop being a birder either lol. Included a link for my Flickr to show how im progressing. I am wondering how all the hot shots on IG get all those insane tack sharp shots with perfect perches and backgrounds lol
Upvote
0
Some people set up backyard feeders with a ‘preferred’ perch (a single available branch a few meters from the feeder, with a distant and pleasing background). Some raptor shots are taken at rehabilitation facilities that are set up for that, with flight paths and live bait.
Upvote
0
The 200-400mm is heavy... I was really surprised as it is double the RF100-500mm and much more front heavy.
Given the heavier/larger front element of a RF200-500mm/4, I am not sure that there will be much difference in weight overall but it should hopefully be more balanced.
The price will be super high but may be reasonable to rent for short periods/trips.
Upvote
0
Canon were happy to use extending lens designs for RF100-500 and RF70-200 but I am not convinced that the big whites will get the same treatment. I recall the fears of dust pumps from the older designs but that hasn't been the case so far.
External zoom would be incredibly practical for transportation but I get the impression that the big whites put up with the worst that nature throws at them and it may be a step too far for this level of price tag.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
