We have been reporting for what seems an eternity that Canon will be announcing an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM any day now! That has obviously has not come to pass, but over the last month or two there have been some changes in what the 200-500 may actually be. Sometimes information has some assumptions, and sometimes we’re guilty of the same thing (insert the quote).

We have now been told twice in the last little while that that Canon will release an RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM and not an f/4. The information comes from some people with spotty records, but this may be one of those times that the information is solid.

I’m not sure what I think about the RF 200-500mm being an f/5.6, but I could see some reasoning behind the the choice. One, it would be less expensive than going f/4. As you know, the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x launched at about $11,000.

If you had the teleconverter engaged, you were sitting at 560mm f/5.6. The 60mm difference really isn’t a big deal in the grand scheme of things with a super telephoto lens, but it’s a pretty safe bet than an RF 200-500 would take teleconvers. Hey, that’s another thing to sell you.

There is also the weight consideration, it would be a far more useable lens for a lot of people. Mix that with the lower cost, it could actually sell pretty well. There is a demographic of people with a lot of disposible income that travel a lot, whether it be for birding or safaris, I believe this would be a popular choice if size and weight are controlled.

I think Canon already has the $12,000+ lens category well equipped. The RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600 f/4L IS USM are already very light, so having a 500mm f/4 lens in the lineup doesn’t have the same weight advantages it did in the EF days.

The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x wasn’t exactly light weighing in at 8lbs. Though Canon has done a good job over the last bunch of years stripping big lenses of weight. The EF 500 f/4L IS USM II was about a 1lbs less, but there was never a version III of the EF 500, so it never received the weight reduction tech that came in the EF v3/RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and EF v3/RF 600mm f/4L IS USM.

An RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM would obviously be a step up from the terrific RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, both with optical and performance advancements. It would almost certainly be an internal zoom design.

There’s always the possibility that we see some kind of a diffractive optics design to shrink the size even more? Though that wouldn’t really help with keeping the cost of the lens down, unless Canon has figured something out.

However, I do think this would be a strange overlap if true. Though one of the sources did say that it would “cannibalize the sales of another RF lens”.

There’s obviously going to be some pushback about it not being f/4, but how many of the people that pushback on the internet would actually buy one?

We haven’t seen any patent applications with an f/5.6 design, but there have been a lot of f/4 designs, with and without built-in teleconverters. Reading into that is a 50/50 proposition. Sometimes we see designs before a lens is released, sometimes you don’t see patent applications until after launch.

This is an interesting evolution and I figured I would share it, sometimes it shakes the proverbial tree for additional information.

I was just giving some potential reasons why they would do this, I’ll let you all give the reasons why they shouldn’t. Either way, I’m not interested in either lens design, so I have no real skin the game.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

113 comments

  1. So again something in-between? It´s like the Sony FE 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 but with 100mm less and a fixed aperture ... that sounds confusing to me... most of the time I'm missing the 100mm more on my 100-500mm L not the aperture
    • 0
  2. 5.6 is of zero appeal to me... Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L is of preorder value though
    Same here. A 200-500 mm f5.6 would be useless to me. Now if they compromised and made it f4.5 or f5 maybe??

    Or maybe a 200-600 mm f5.6 with 1.25x built in TC?

    I already have the 100-300 mm f2.8 that with a 2x TC gives me 200-600 mm f5.6 and honestly I would rather have that then at 200-500 mm f5.6.
    • 0
  3. Instead off $11k, would they want $8k for it? Or would it get a lot closer to the 100-500, maybe around $5k? For the latter, I could consider getting rid of my 100-400 EF II and 200-800 for the 200-500 5.6.

    Brrian
    • 0
  4. Apart from price and size, I don't know what aperture I would prefer here.
    I think both could be interesting.
    But I'll have to admit that at the long end 500/5.6 doesn't seem to be much far way from 500/7.1, that already exists.
    So it would depend on more detailed specs, like IQ compared to existing lneses, MFD and max. magnification.
    • 0
  5. Why not go to 600 if you're going to drop to 5.6? If I'm carrying a telephoto I don't know if I've ever said "I'm sure glad this is 5.6 and not 4.0!" but I've definitely said "I really wish I had another 100/200/whatever of reach right now"
    • 0
  6. f5.6 for this big white seems kind of redundant and pointless to me:
    • Cannibalize sales of another Canon lens? Meaning RF 100-300mm f2.8 + 2x Extender = 200-600mm f5.6?
    • RF 200-500mm f5.6 + 1.4x Extender = 280-700mm f/8...kind of like the RF 200-800mm f6.3-9?
    • RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 wider, brighter at the wide end, and possibly smaller?
    • 0
  7. I can see if they price it approximately the same as the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 (MSRP $2000, currently $1900). Obviously this would be an entirely different lens than a hypothetical $15,000 200-500mm f/4.
    • 0
  8. Telephoto designs are limited by the front element diameter. 500mm/5.6 = 89.3mm, 800mm/9 = 88.9mm. So a hypothetical 200-500/5.6 would be about the same diameter as and physically shorter than the existing RF 200-800. I think we'd be looking at $2000 for a non-L or ~$3000 for an L-series version (regardless, I doubt such a lens will be made because the 100-500L and 200-800 non-L already exist).
    • 0
  9. I rarely say this about a rumor (not even the then rumored 600mm F11), but I simply don´t believe this one. People, who´d like a cheaper (not necessarily affordable) telezoom and lighter telecom, will buy the RF 100-500mm. Why cater to these folks? The RF 100-500mm is at f5.6 up to 350mm (actually, I think it is 363mm) and F6.3 up to 451mm. That's really, really close to the now mentioned specs. Despite the RF 100-500mm not beeing an internal zoom, I really can't see Canon stepping down to f5.6 with the professional zoom.
    • 0
  10. f5.6 for this big white seems kind of redundant and pointless to me:
    • Cannibalize sales of another Canon lens? Meaning RF 100-300mm f2.8 + 2x Extender = 200-600mm f5.6?
    • RF 200-500mm f5.6 + 1.4x Extender = 280-700mm f/8...kind of like the RF 200-800mm f6.3-9?
    • RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 wider, brighter at the wide end, and possibly smaller?
    Totally agree, considering the existing line-up it just doesn't make sense to me.
    • 0
  11. A 200-600 f4.5-f6.3 L is the wildlife lens that I would like to see to replace my 100-500 f4.5-f7.1.

    Extra reach is what I am missing. Marginal additional brightness would not hurt.

    I am not sure what a 200-500 f5.6 brings to the table compared to the 100-500. 2/3 of a stop might make a difference of about 10 to 15 minutes early in the morning and early in the evening on safari compared to the 100-500.

    The 400 f4 DO with the 1.4X tele converter could be a more interesting companion to my 100-500 than the 200-500 as a potential replacement.

    For the price point that I am interested in, focal length divided by aperture has to be just under 100 to avoid the quantum leap in the prices of front elements larger than 100.
    • 0
  12. If the optical quality was a step up from the 100-500, and the weight and price were reasonable I would be a buyer. This would be the ultimately telephoto landscape lens (mountains, dunes, etc.). Especially if it was internal zoom.

    I have been disappointed with the optical quality of the 100-500 for landscape. The center of the lens is decent and works for wildlife and birds, but the edges have been soft and prone to diffraction for me. Especially if I shoot above about f 8. I would welcome improvements optically with a replacement.

    If it also took teleconverters and didn’t handicap the zoom and focal length to only 300-500 that would be welcome as well.
    • 0
  13. I’d be more interested in a 400-600 f/5.6 USM L (or 400-800 if they can swing it)

    Kind of like the old EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L. It was sharp and budget friendly and fairly light. No is or teleconverter. Still does extremely well on my r6 with IBIS.

    No IS, No teleconverter, give it some range. Price it well. I’d buy it. But I might be the only one…

    I’d also take a replacement for the EF 300mm f/4 IS USM L as well!

    While we’re at it, the Spectacular EF 180mm f/3.5 USM L Macro is my top choice for replacement. Give it IS and maybe a little faster… ‍♂️
    • 0
  14. I’d be more interested in a 400-600 f/5.6 USM L (or 400-800 if they can swing it)

    Kind of like the old EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L. It was sharp and budget friendly and fairly light. No is or teleconverter. Still does extremely well on my r6 with IBIS.

    No IS, No teleconverter, give it some range. Price it well. I’d buy it. But I might be the only one…

    I’d also take a replacement for the EF 300mm f/4 IS USM L as well!

    While we’re at it, the Spectacular EF 180mm f/3.5 USM L Macro is my top choice for replacement. Give it IS and maybe a little faster… ‍♂️
    I wouldn't be able to swing a 400-800 f/5.6.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment