Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?

I would be happy with the built-in converter. But let's see if it happens.

Not my budget.
But looking at the EF200-400L with converter Canon and the users should know, how useful that TC is.
I'd vote for "built-in".

As i said, it will be a 20k€ Lens.

Honestly, I\'d take the slight performance hit for an external TC that lives on this lens that gives me 2.0x instead of 1.4x.

I picked up a 200-800 last week, slapped a 2x on there, and I don\'t want to give up that kind of range now. I\'d take slightly less for a much sharper image, of course. But being able to see a distant thing and get (soft) details with 1600mm is far better than not being able to get it at all because it\'s too far away.

When this lens hit \"CR3\", it went to the top of my list... but now, I dunno. I really just want one really distant zoom lens that\'s worth more than my car. Is that so much to ask?

PLease no, we need the 1.0 to 2x converter instead

R5boy said:

PLease no, we need the 0 to 2x converter instead

Click to expand...

from 0 mm to 1000 mm? SCNR

Benjamin_L said:

from 0 mm to 1000 mm? SCNR

Click to expand...

For once, someone can speak on behalf of all of us - no-one needs a 0x converter.

I am undecided on whether I would want a built in 1.4x. My greatest concern would be the weight of the lens. The EF 200-400 was 8 lbs and a RF 200-500 mm with a built in TC would likely be as heavy or heavier.

john1970 said:

I am undecided on whether I would want a built in 1.4x. My greatest concern would be the weight of the lens. The EF 200-400 was 8 lbs and a RF 200-500 mm with a built in TC would likely be as heavy or heavier.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that is the case. Canon will use the current EF 500mm f4 LIS mkII as it's design benchmark. Canon will want a similar size, similar weight and similar optical resolution but with this target zoom range and maybe this funky internal teleconverter.
We've seen from the new RF 100-300 f2.8 that this is certainly possible. There have been osme advances in AF motor and IS unit design that allow for a slimmer and lighter construction (these things are always a gradual improvent). It means if these items can be built lighter and smaller but yeilding the same capability, then all of the structures, supports, chassis, armatures and housings can be made slightly lighter too.

I suspect that the slightly lower resolution of the current RF big whiltes (compared to the EF mkII variants) was a crafty and deliberate. Sure they EF mkIII (and subsequant RF adaption models) are a lot lighter than the EF mkII variants, but they aren't quite as sharp. This is usually manifested with the teleconverter resolution drop. I suspect that these lenses could have been made equally sharp as their forebares...but Canon was paving an expectation level for the future zoom replacements. Canon needs these zoom lenses to optically match the performance of the current RF primes....and I'm pretty certain that they will.

However the previous gen (EF mkII) primes will be the slightly sharper variants. So the upgrade choice from the EF mkII owners becomes a little drop in ultimate sharpness (mostly seen with teleconverters) for the addition of zoom versatility and flexibility.

Cost wise, sure it's open to conjecture, but i think that the current RF primes are deliberately massively overpriced for what they are...giving Canon the option to price match their current catalogue. Canon is giving upgraders / side graders no viable argument, but playing a very cleaver long game.
So my guess is that the new RF 400-600mm f2.8 - 600mm f4 will be approximately the same as their currently over priced RF 600mm f4.

Let's face it, the current RF primes are an over priced re-hash of the old EF mkIII kit. The RF 800mm f5.6 is so obviously a EF 400mm f2.8 LI SIII with a built in 2x TC and EF to R adapter that it's laughable. Same with the RF 1200mm f8. it all adds room for the slew of new Zoom replacements where the true R&D has been invested in.

I’d prefer a teleconverter that could be moved to an “off” position. Add 1.4 when you want it , plain glass if not. It would be usable on multiple lens. I suppose it would have been invented if it were possible.

Hector1970 said:

I’d prefer a teleconverter that could be moved to an “off” position. Add 1.4 when you want it , plain glass if not. It would be usable on multiple lens. I suppose it would have been invented if it were possible.

Click to expand...

The current EF 200-400 f4 LIS employs such a design. The 1.4x TC is flipped into the optical path and then flipped out when not in use. Nikon emply a similar design to their current super-primes....I can't call them super-whites because theirs are usually painted black!

rf600 5.6 with built in 1.4 TC would be nice..

yuvyuv said:

rf600 5.6 with built in 1.4 TC would be nice..

Click to expand...

What would be REALLY interesting is a RF 200-430mm f2.8 LIS with an internal 1.4x TC. Giving a lens that can cover the 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 range in one very sweet lens. Or the rumoured EF 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens...amazingly sweet and versatile with no need to TC at all for these two focal lengths.
It's curious that both the EF 300mm f2.8 II LIS and EF 500mm F4 II LIS are missing from the RF counterpart catalogue. Canon probably had intended the zoom variants to be ready a lot sooner than they were, knowing that the longer focal length primes > zooms would take even longer and rushed reworked EF to R version to market as a quick stop gap.
Who knows...except we know that Canon is missing the lucrative 500mm f4 range in the RF range. Maybe Canon will suprise us with a super lightweight / cheaper RF 500mm f5.6 and 600mm f5.6 options and ditch the 500mm f4 entirely?
Most people like the 500mm f4 option because it was more cheaper and portable than a 400/f2.8 or 600/f4, this has become less of an issue since the EF mkIII versions were / are so lightweight and portable. Even the mkII versions were way more porable than the original mk I versions! I regularly hand hold my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II.

john1970 said:

I am undecided on whether I would want a built in 1.4x. My greatest concern would be the weight of the lens. The EF 200-400 was 8 lbs and a RF 200-500 mm with a built in TC would likely be as heavy or heavier.

Click to expand...

Have you seen Nikon's implementation of the built-in 1.4x TC? It probably adds no more than 100g to the weight.

This generation of exotic primes has shed huge amounts of weight off the previous generation. This will undoubtedly be true for this exotic prime. I would expect it to be 7lbs plus or minus a few ounces.

GMCPhotographics said:

The current EF 200-400 f4 LIS employs such a design. The 1.4x TC is flipped into the optical path and then flipped out when not in use. Nikon emply a similar design to their current super-primes....I can't call them super-whites because theirs are usually painted black!

Click to expand...

I think Hector was referring to an external (add-on) TC with an on-and-off switch that could be used on different lenses. I like this option, which provides even more flexibility than a built-in TC.

AlanF said:

For once, someone can speak on behalf of all of us - no-one needs a 0x converter.

Click to expand...

I have one, it came with my camera. I think Canon called it a body cap.

GMCPhotographics said:

I'm not so sure that is the case. Canon will use the current EF 500mm f4 LIS mkII as it's design benchmark. Canon will want a similar size, similar weight and similar optical resolution but with this target zoom range and maybe this funky internal teleconverter.
We've seen from the new RF 100-300 f2.8 that this is certainly possible.

Click to expand...

Actually, we’ve seen that a similar size is likely not possible. The RF 100-300/2.8 is 75 mm / 3” longer than the EF 300/2.8 prime. If the same ratio holds for the 200-500/4, it will be the length of the current RF 600/4.

Hector1970 said:

I’d prefer a teleconverter that could be moved to an “off” position. Add 1.4 when you want it , plain glass if not. It would be usable on multiple lens. I suppose it would have been invented if it were possible.

Click to expand...

It’s technically possible, the problem is that the off position would still require optics. That’s because if the 1.4 X elements were just flipped out of the optical path, you’d be left with an extension tube that would eliminate infinity focus for the lens.

An internal switchable teleconverter is possible for a dedicated implementation on a lens, because there are optics behind the TC position.

Billybob said:

Have you seen Nikon's implementation of the built-in 1.4x TC? It probably adds no more than 100g to the weight.

This generation of exotic primes has shed huge amounts of weight off the previous generation. This will undoubtedly be true for this exotic prime. I would expect it to be 7lbs plus or minus a few ounces.

Click to expand...

The new RF 100-300mm weighs 6.7 lb (2650g), more than the old EF 300mm f/2.8ii at 6lb (235g). The EF 500mm f/4ii weighs 10lb, (3190g). It will be pretty amazing if an RF 200-500mm f/4 gets down to the weight of the 100-300mm. Scaling up the the 100-300mm to 500mm, would give an f/4.7 lens, much smaller than an f/4. I'd guess closer to the 10lb mark. We might see.