RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
frisbfreek Regular Member • Posts: 123
RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
3

What does everyone think of the announcement of the RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and the RF extenders?

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-officially-announces-the-development-of-the-rf-100-500-f-4-5-7-1l-is-usm-1-4x-and-2-0x-extenders/

For myself, the 100-500 seems a bit underwhelming given the f/7.1 at the far end. Of course the transition from f/4.5 could be slower than I think, but the picture of the lens seems fairly thin, so I’m guessing not. As such, my guess is that the existing EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.4 II will be a bit faster for most of the far end (until 400mm).

The extenders are also interesting... they clearly protrude into the lens, so this suggests that it’s incompatible with the existing RF 70-200 f/2.8! I think this will be quite disappointing to some.

 frisbfreek's gear list:frisbfreek's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
Faing22 New Member • Posts: 15
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
1

the main concern is the weight

OP frisbfreek Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
4

Actually I just did the math... f/7.1 @ 500mm and f/5.6 @ 400mm is about the same size. So perhaps this lens is just extending the capabilities of the EF 100-400mm with an extra 100mm in reach? If that’s also the case, it will probably clock in at similar to slightly heavier weight than the EF.

 frisbfreek's gear list:frisbfreek's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
ThePointblank Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
2

I can definitely see that the 100-500 be a very popular lens, especially for us air show photographers. If the lens is optically excellent to begin with, especially at the 400mm+ range, having a native 500mm capability will just push it over the edge, rather than being forced to use a 1.4x TC with the resulting 1 stop light loss and degradation of image quality.

 ThePointblank's gear list:ThePointblank's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
stevvi Regular Member • Posts: 172
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
1

I think it could be wonderful, a native and better 100-400 L IS II. Of course, no-one knows the details yet and it's  pointless speculating about them, although I dare say that won't stop people here get worked up about it

 stevvi's gear list:stevvi's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM
Erwann Loison Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
4

I thought L glass was not going lower than 5.6 (I don't know the whole L range though).

I guess it was to maintain AF on DSLR but still, 7.1 is a bit much. I was hoping for something different for a Canon "super tele zoom".

My mind was already gone anyway.

ThePointblank Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
2

Erwann Loison wrote:

I thought L glass was not going lower than 5.6 (I don't know the whole L range though).

I guess it was to maintain AF on DSLR but still, 7.1 is a bit much. I was hoping for something different for a Canon "super tele zoom".

My mind was already gone anyway.

Well, with the current 100-400, it goes to f/8 with the 1.4x TC, but you go up to 560mm.

To get to 500 on the 100-400 and 1.4x TC combo, the equivalent would be about 360mm, and at that focal length, the lens is a f/5.6 lens, which is f/8 with the TC.

A f/7.1 is about 1/3 of a stop brighter than the 100-400 & 1.4x TC combo. To me, that's an improvement, and if the IQ is equivalent or better than the 100-400 and 1.4x TC combo, the upcoming 100-500 is a more flexible option; unless you truly need the extra 60mm of focal length, the 100-500 is going to be the better lens.

 ThePointblank's gear list:ThePointblank's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Erwann Loison Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
8

ThePointblank wrote:

Erwann Loison wrote:

I thought L glass was not going lower than 5.6 (I don't know the whole L range though).

I guess it was to maintain AF on DSLR but still, 7.1 is a bit much. I was hoping for something different for a Canon "super tele zoom".

My mind was already gone anyway.

A f/7.1 is about 1/3 of a stop brighter than the 100-400 & 1.4x TC combo.

That's a very positive way of seeing things, to me it's 66% less light than f/5.6 when early/late in the day or in the woods, busier backgrounds and not much more reach than 400 and it gets even worse with a TC. But that's just me. I'm sure as an L lens it'll be sharp, fast focusing and enjoyable but that's not the lens I was waiting for to decide if I wait for an R body that could somewhat replace my 7D2. I was hoping for something directly competing with the various xxx-600 f/6.3 (and I was hoping Canon would put up an f/5.6 here) or the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6.

ThePointblank Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
1

Erwann Loison wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Erwann Loison wrote:

I thought L glass was not going lower than 5.6 (I don't know the whole L range though).

I guess it was to maintain AF on DSLR but still, 7.1 is a bit much. I was hoping for something different for a Canon "super tele zoom".

My mind was already gone anyway.

A f/7.1 is about 1/3 of a stop brighter than the 100-400 & 1.4x TC combo.

That's a very positive way of seeing things, to me it's 66% less light than f/5.6 when early/late in the day or in the woods, busier backgrounds and not much more reach than 400 and it gets even worse with a TC. But that's just me. I'm sure as an L lens it'll be sharp, fast focusing and enjoyable but that's not the lens I was waiting for to decide if I wait for an R body that could somewhat replace my 7D2. I was hoping for something directly competing with the various xxx-600 f/6.3 (and I was hoping Canon would put up an f/5.6 here) or the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6.

Without knowing the exact details regarding the max aperture and focal length comparisons, it's hard to tell.

But if the lens only becomes f/7.1 beyond 400mm, I'm happy to get the extra focal length and a slightly lighter lens over a much heavier f/5.6 version.

 ThePointblank's gear list:ThePointblank's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Nigge Regular Member • Posts: 119
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
5

500 is to short so extender must be used. 
it should have been 600/7.1 or 500/5.6. 
100 on the sort end isn’t really needed. It could have been 200-500 or 300-600. 
this is very bad because it’s unlikely that they will also make a slightly more usable variant that would be quite similar.

 Nigge's gear list:Nigge's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +6 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
2

It suggests to me that Canon isn’t really intending the TC’s to be used with this turtle.  So looks like we might be getting some long fast primes in RF mount soon.

At f/7.1 at 500mm it’s going to have to do something really special for me to replace my Sigma 150-600 C with it.

I think this is Canon continuing to play the spec game.  I’m sure they made it so slow so they can keep up the illusion that the RF mount means smaller and lighter.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
2

I’ll be really surprised if it’s f/5.6 at 400mm but time will tell. I do expect it will be sharp wide open and AF should be good with great IS.  Unfortunately f/7.1 limits the usefulness of the lens quite a bit.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

rrc1967 Senior Member • Posts: 1,029
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

frisbfreek wrote:

What does everyone think of the announcement of the RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and the RF extenders?

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-officially-announces-the-development-of-the-rf-100-500-f-4-5-7-1l-is-usm-1-4x-and-2-0x-extenders/

For myself, the 100-500 seems a bit underwhelming given the f/7.1 at the far end. Of course the transition from f/4.5 could be slower than I think, but the picture of the lens seems fairly thin, so I’m guessing not. As such, my guess is that the existing EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.4 II will be a bit faster for most of the far end (until 400mm).

I'm sort of interested in it. I never would have been interested in a faster 100-500. but if this one hits the right numbers in terms of weight I'm all freaking over it like a bad rash.

As far as the teleconverters. they make no sense to me. most of the new RF designs even for supertelephotos have rear elements closer than that.

So I don't know?

Suave Senior Member • Posts: 1,988
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

Nigge wrote:

. It could have been 200-500 or 300-600.
this is very bad because it’s unlikely that they will also make a slightly more usable variant that would be quite similar.

Oh, they might - after all they do have 200-400 along with 100-400 in EF.  It's just that it costs 10 times more.  So I would not entirely discount the possibility of something like 300-600/4-5.6 for $20-25k.

 Suave's gear list:Suave's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS RP Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
2

Wow, I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard of who has been dreaming of a f/7.1 500mm lens.   🤣

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

Well we can always dream 😆

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

rrc1967 Senior Member • Posts: 1,029
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Wow, I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard of who has been dreaming of a f/7.1 500mm lens. 🤣

weight is an important consideration for me.

I was actually wondering how well the 100-400 tamron would do since it weighed in at 1111g. while this will be obviously heavier because of the fact it's an L and goes to 500mm. it should still be considerably lighter than a corresponding F4-F5.6 which would put it both monetarily and weight wise out of my justification and the difference between f5.6 and f7.1 is only 2/3's of an EV. you can EC -2/3's of a stop and get the same shutter speeds but less weight.  yes, you lose on DOF .. shrugs.

Erwann Loison Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
3

rrc1967 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Wow, I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard of who has been dreaming of a f/7.1 500mm lens. 🤣

weight is an important consideration for me.

I was actually wondering how well the 100-400 tamron would do since it weighed in at 1111g. while this will be obviously heavier because of the fact it's an L and goes to 500mm. it should still be considerably lighter than a corresponding F4-F5.6 which would put it both monetarily and weight wise out of my justification and the difference between f5.6 and f7.1 is only 2/3's of an EV. you can EC -2/3's of a stop and get the same shutter speeds but less weight. yes, you lose on DOF .. shrugs.

if weight is as important as favoring this lens over a faster one that would be 50% heavier or something along those lines, you'd be better off using some bridge superzoom camera I think.

The problem of this lens is that it's a full frame lens for birding/sports/wildlife enthusiasts and it falls very short of what the competition has put up (sony's 200-600, nikon 200-500, sigma & tamron 150-600). Canon would have been better inspired removing the L grade and make it faster and heavier, if what scares them is too many people being content with a prosumer zoom instead of going for the big primes.

Nigge Regular Member • Posts: 119
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders
1

Suave wrote:

Nigge wrote:

. It could have been 200-500 or 300-600.
this is very bad because it’s unlikely that they will also make a slightly more usable variant that would be quite similar.

Oh, they might - after all they do have 200-400 along with 100-400 in EF. It's just that it costs 10 times more. So I would not entirely discount the possibility of something like 300-600/4-5.6 for $20-25k.

For most shooters that would be pointless and also out of the category more usable but quite similar. 
I think you missed 600/7.1 or 500/5.6

 Nigge's gear list:Nigge's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +6 more
Mark B. Forum Pro • Posts: 26,763
Re: RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

Nigge wrote:

500 is to short so extender must be used.

But...equivalent of f/14 at the long end with the 2x.  Wow!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads