The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM has been rumored for quite some time, and with each passing month we get very little new information on the lens. The last time we reported on the lens, we mentioned that it could finally be announced in November, and with multiple people actively testing the lens, that timeline didn’t seem outside of the realm of possibilities.
We now have a source with a checkered history of accuracy “confirming” that the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM will come with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter. I will note that the accuracy of this source has been improving.
The built-in teleconverter discussion has been back and forth numerous times in our inbox and we still don’t have a clear picture if that will actually be the case. We have not been privy to detailed information about this lens, only that it exists.
Let’s be honest, it’s a 50/50 proposition.
A curveball we have recently been thrown, again by a source with a solid, but imperfect history of information, claims that the RF 200-500mm will have that built-in teleconverter, but it will be f/5.6 instead of f/4. This is the first time that we have ever heard this, and it doesn’t make a ton of sense to us. We think something may have been lost in translation, as engaging the 1.4x teleconverter brings an f/4 lens down to f/5.6.
We think the target market for a lens such as this will want the f/4, as the the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM already exists if you want terrific performance in a small and “affordable” package.
Canon is gearing up for some lens announcements in and around November with the release of the EOS R1, and we still have the RF 200-500 as a high possibility of being announced at that time.
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
An internal switchable teleconverter is possible for a dedicated implementation on a lens, because there are optics behind the TC position.