If Canon could improve on the RF-100-500

[alphaZ]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

 

[Ephemeris]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

All nice to haves but what would the impact to cost and weight be? Our 100-300 lenses are almost exactly double the mass (add a Tele and it's going south).

 

[KDPeregrine]

Coming from the Nikon system and the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens, I do find myself missing the buttery soft bokeh when shooting birds, but as Ephemeris pointed out above, that would come at a cost.

One of the reasons I came over to the Canon system in the first place was because of how impressed I was by the RF 100-500mm. It's a damn good jack-of-all-trades lens that lets me shoot birds and - while you'd never confuse it for an actual macro lens - does some pretty impressive work up-close with smaller subjects, all while keeping the size and weight down.

All that being said, if Canon ever released a collapsible version of the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 that also had a nice short minimum focus distance for insects, it would be an automatic buy for me.

 

[R2D2]

What would you ask them to do?

Add function buttons.

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

No. This would increase size and weight.

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

Yes, but only if it didn't impact the image quality (with TC or without).

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

No. I don't want a bigger lens.

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois

What suggestions?

/build

I have no issues as is.

/bokeh.

Yes, any improvements in bokeh are always welcome.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

Too big. I'd much rather see a lightweight 500/4L prime.

R2

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I'm with R2 on this. I would only want your improvements, if they didn't increase the size or weight, which seems unlikely. Even though the new 70-200 F2.8 barely increased the weight over the original, the size increase was enough for me not to be interested. I love the versatility of the 100-500. I used it at a track meet last week (until the light got low), and loved being able to use everything from 100 to 500. A fellow photographer had a Nikon 400 or 500 prime, along with a 24-something zoom on his other camera. He was quite jealous of my setup of 100-500 on one, and 24 F1.4 on the other.

 

[Zeee]

Me too. I’m very happy with it the way it is. I’d like to seem 500 5.6 similar to the Nikon FP.

I'm with R2 on this. I would only want your improvements, if they didn't increase the size or weight, which seems unlikely. Even though the new 70-200 F2.8 barely increased the weight over the original, the size increase was enough for me not to be interested. I love the versatility of the 100-500. I used it at a track meet last week (until the light got low), and loved being able to use everything from 100 to 500. A fellow photographer had a Nikon 400 or 500 prime, along with a 24-something zoom on his other camera. He was quite jealous of my setup of 100-500 on one, and 24 F1.4 on the other.

 

[jjbinx]

Make it constant f/4

Give it a built-in 1.4x extender

Put in a rear drop-in filter setup

;-) wink

jj

 

[Karl_Guttag]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

No, it would make it too big and heavy.

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

Yes - they would almost certainly have to make the lens a little longer, but it should have minimal impact on weight. I consider the RF100-500's issue with the teleconverter to be its only major flaw. It is too awkward to take the teleconverter on and off due to the "reach into" the lens, but the major problem is the lack of zoom range (less than 2x) with the teleconverter installed.

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

No, too big and heavy to do this.

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500

 

[Zeee]

Make it constant f/4

Give it a built-in 1.4x extender

Put in a rear drop-in filter setup

And $12,000 later it will be as affordable as the RF 600 f4 to most :-D

;-) wink

jj

 

[IvorHooper]

I have the 100-500 and it's a great lens, however I hate the thing when the 1.4x is installed.

It goes against the small, compact feeling of the bare lens.

I wish Canon would do some lightweight primes like the Nikon 400mm 4.5, Sigma 500mm 5.6 or Nikon 600mm 6.3.

For wildlife with Canon, It's either cheap or mega expensive primes...there's nothing in between. Canon zooms are better, but I would prefer something to 600mm that isn't massive/long and/or heavy.

 

[drsnoopy]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

500/6.3 would need an 80mm front element and 82mm filter at least. Adding TC range would require a complete redesign - I believe this restriction is what allowed them to keep it smaller yet a longer FL than the EF 100-400 L ii. I doubt any of your suggestions could be achieved within the same size/weight envelope. I agree the bokeh can be a little “busy”. But these are all trade-offs, and there are no free lunches, as they say. If you’re happy to pay more for a bigger, heavier lens, that’s fine but Canon would have to see a market niche for it.

 

[Leigh A]

Perhaps we'll find out when the RF 100-500L Mark-2 comes out, but if that's anything like the time frame of the EF100-400L V1 to Mark-2, 1998-2014, ---Don't hold your breath!

 

[drsnoopy]

Perhaps we'll find out when the RF 100-500L Mark-2 comes out, but if that's anything like the time frame of the EF100-400L V1 to Mark-2, 1998-2014, ---Don't hold your breath!

Indeed, but there’s not even a rumour of a rumour. And the laws of optics will still apply. You can’t get f6.3 500mm with a 77mm filter.

 

[Sittatunga]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

That would be a bigger, heavier and much more expensive lens for a ⅓ stop improvement. Really you're asking for a lens in the next class above this one, rather than a Mark II.

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

I've always thought that you've bought the wrong lens if you need an extender at the wide end of a zoom (but then I've always been more interested in wideangle zooms). People keep asking for a 70-200mm f/4 lens compatible with the Canon Extenders, but a 2× Extender would turn one into a 140-400mm f/8, yet the extender alone is not much less than the price of the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8. I've not looked for any image quality comparisons between, say the EF 70-200mm f/4L II lens using a 2× Extender and the RF 100-400mm but I don't believe any difference would match the huge disparity in price.

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

Realistically, an internal zoom is going to be the size of an extending zoom at full extension. According to lensrentals the internal zooms are, if anything, bigger dirt magnets than tromboning ones.

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

I'm very impressed with the build of the RF 100-400mm, despite its plastickiness. Mine's shrugged off far too much punishment over the past three years. How much are people prepared to pay for refinements in the OIS/build/bokeh? Bearing in mind that the current RF 100-500mm is already more than 4× the cost of the RF 100-400mm.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

The 200-800mm.

 

[Ephemeris]

What would you ask them to do?

My suggestion would be;

1)Maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and 6.3 up to 500mm

That would be a bigger, heavier and much more expensive lens for a ⅓ stop improvement. Really you're asking for a lens in the next class above this one, rather than a Mark II.

2)Tele-conv for full range ie 140 start

I've always thought that you've bought the wrong lens if you need an extender at the wide end of a zoom (but then I've always been more interested in wideangle zooms).

No. Let's say I'm at an event and I have a TC on for the long end but then suddenly need to focus on something close by. Or tractor pulling where im 140m away to begin with and then 20m away at the end. Then what? It's an utterly stupid design with an awful lot of people saying similar.

Work around is to use a 2x on one of our 100-300 but that's getting bog and heavy all day. Do other manufacturers pass on this restriction?

People keep asking for a 70-200mm f/4 lens compatible with the Canon Extenders, but a 2× Extender would turn one into a 140-400mm f/8, yet the extender alone is not much less than the price of the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.

We use 1.4x and 2x on the 2.8z variant. Very effective .

Different people have different use cases and requirements.

I've not looked for any image quality comparisons between, say the EF 70-200mm f/4L II lens using a 2× Extender and the RF 100-400mm but I don't believe any difference would match the huge disparity in price.

3)Depending on size increase, internal zoom

Realistically, an internal zoom is going to be the size of an extending zoom at full extension. According to lensrentals the internal zooms are, if anything, bigger dirt magnets than tromboning ones.

Apart from that mostly refinements in the ois/build/bokeh.

I'm very impressed with the build of the RF 100-400mm, despite its plastickiness. Mine's shrugged off far too much punishment over the past three years. How much are people prepared to pay for refinements in the OIS/build/bokeh? Bearing in mind that the current RF 100-500mm is already more than 4× the cost of the RF 100-400mm.

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

The 200-800mm.

That isn't the same lens or use case. Certainly not a lens we would use but perhaps a 200-500 capable of extenders and reasonably fast. We effectively have a 200-600 5.6 but it would be nice to achieve similar without extenders

 

[Zeee]

I have the 100-500 and it's a great lens, however I hate the thing when the 1.4x is installed.

That has never bothered me. The compact size of the 100-500 is great for travel. When I put the 1.4 on it's for a reason and I never need it at 140 or it's lower limit. I have a couple of excellent bags for local travel so easy to transport. But that is just me and I'm a minority when it comes not minding that design.

It goes against the small, compact feeling of the bare lens.

I wish Canon would do some lightweight primes like the Nikon 400mm 4.5, Sigma 500mm 5.6 or Nikon 600mm 6.3.

For wildlife with Canon, It's either cheap or mega expensive primes...there's nothing in between. Canon zooms are better, but I would prefer something to 600mm that isn't massive/long and/or heavy.

 

[Andy01]

Alternatively, whatever happened to the 200-500?

If the 200-500 you are referring to is a replacement for the EF 200-400L, it is an absolute beast of a thing. Huge, very heavy and stupidly expensive. I tried one once at a Canon day around a large zoo and gave up after about 90 minutes and went back to my own EF 100-400L ii - which even at 1700g, was a dinky toy by comparison No thanks.

 

[jjbinx]

Make it constant f/4

Give it a built-in 1.4x extender

Put in a rear drop-in filter setup

And $12,000 later it will be as affordable as the RF 600 f4 to most :-D

but I’m still more likely to spend that $12,000 for the lens I want rather than the $3,000 for the 100-500mm that I don’t want

jj

;-) wink

jj

 

[Sittatunga]

Make it constant f/4

Give it a built-in 1.4x extender

Put in a rear drop-in filter setup

And $12,000 later it will be as affordable as the RF 600 f4 to most :-D

but I’m still more likely to spend that $12,000 for the lens I want rather than the $3,000 for the 100-500mm that I don’t want

jj

;-) wink

jj

I don't doubt that. All you need to do is find another ten thousand people who feel the same way and Canon will provide it.

 

[jjbinx]

Make it constant f/4

Give it a built-in 1.4x extender

Put in a rear drop-in filter setup

And $12,000 later it will be as affordable as the RF 600 f4 to most :-D

but I’m still more likely to spend that $12,000 for the lens I want rather than the $3,000 for the 100-500mm that I don’t want

jj

;-) wink

jj

I don't doubt that. All you need to do is find another ten thousand people who feel the same way and Canon will provide it.

I don’t need to find anything and I made no comment on the likelihood that Canon will make such a lens.

In fact I’d rather see and even more likely to buy an RF 500mm f/5 L than a new 100-500mm zoom. Would you make the same disparaging comment on Canon’s likelihood to make that or for there to be sufficient demand for it ?

jj