No, but my point wasn't about the usability of the lens but rather its existence. I don't understand how from a lens design perspective a built-in TC on a zoom doesn't sound right, when such a lens exists.
Upvote
0
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I am no Africa safari expert but was fortunate enough to sneak away from a S.A. business trip for an evening/morning tour in Pilanesberg. Since photography was a secondary focus of the trip, I only had my 100-500L, which was fine until it got dark (and after it got brighter in the morning). For a lot of shots, 100mm at the short end was too long (elephants mostly and large gatherings of antelope-type mammals). There was only a couple of occasions where I didn't have enough reach. However, if the tour was longer and birds were a focus, having a longer prime would have been desirable. I think what I missed most, however, was not having a second body with a second lens. I wouldn't want to have to change lenses out in the dust.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The EF 200-400 f/4 has a built in extender.
Canon also has a bunch of video zooms with built-in extenders.
Upvote
0
Sports.
Jeff Cable used to use one but he replaced it with an RF 100-300 f/2.8 + RF Extenders.
Upvote
0
I use the 200-400 in photohides for bird photography when you can get close to the subject. The zoom and built in extender provide flexibility in composing, e.g. zoom out or ‘switch off’ the extender when a bird stretches it’s wings. The f4 aperture is better in dim light than the RF100-500mm or RF200-800mm (both great RF lenses).
The weight should be compared to lenses of that time:
- EF 200-400mm f4 (2013): 3620 gr.
- EF 400mm f2.8 II (2011): 3850 gr.
- EF 500mm f4 II (2012): 3190 gr.
- EF 600 mm f4 II (2012): 3920 gr.
Upvote
0
Yes, really. The reason I wrote that is that a zoom already extends over a focal range, and that range could be extended further via the internal mechanism. It's already been done in the current RF 200-800mm. It's a question of relative costs and IQ. A prime, on the other hand, doesn't have an internal zoom and needs an external extender. Believe it or not, I do know of the EF 200-400mm and have even tried one - proved too heavy for me to hand hold, and they can now be picked up used here very cheaply.
Upvote
0
I hope I have explained it again in my last post, it's not a question of whether such lenses exist already but one of logical design - a lens that naturally zooms from 200-700mm is a more pleasing concept than one that zooms a shorter range and then needs a bodge to extend it.
Upvote
0
I was sure you did, thus my confusion about your statement. It's also a question of aperture. In the case of the 200-400 (and presumably the 200-500) it is a constant f/4 though the zoom range, becoming f/5.6 with the TC engaged. A 200-560/5.6L zoom (or the variable aperture equivalent thereof) would probably not have had the same appeal as a 200-400/4L zoom with a TC, even though the optical differences would really not have been all that significant.
There seems to be a cachet about constant aperture zoom lenses, it's weakening more recently but I think the perception is still there. Certainly a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or 24-105/2.8 could be marketed as variable aperture and faster at the wide end (e.g. 70-200/1.8-2.8), the lens designs cam down the aperture as the lens is zoomed from tele to wide to keep it constant f/2.8. For the same reason, I think Canon would go with a 200-500/4 + 1.4x rather than a 200-700/3.5-5.6 (or whatever) as the latter is less consistent with their high end lines.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thank heavens that you understood what I was getting at.
Upvote
0
Yeah it's heavy for its boring image rendering.
The time doesn't really matter, it doesn't change that the 400 2.8 is a more versatile lens, is better for birding with TCs, and has a much better rendering. You don't buy that lens for serious big dollar birding. Of course you can get great results with any long lens, but you're better off with one of the primes if birding is your main goal.
Maybe Canon has figured out a way to make big zooms significantly lighter in and around $12,000. Unfortunately, they need more glass and that doesn't get any lighter. The 100-300 has impressive weight when compared to the prime, so hopefully that carries over.
EF 400 2.8 III 2840g
EF 600 4.0 III 3050g
Upvote
0
Except that the EF 300/2.8 was the MkII version and never got the diet program that was applied to the MkIII versions of the 400/2.8 and 600/4. So while the weight gain for the zoom was only modest compared to the 300/2.8 II, presumably that's at least in part due to the application of the same changes seen on the MkIII lenses. If you apply the same ratio for a 200-500/4 to the 500/4 II, then a 200-500/4 would come in at ~3.6 kg. I presume Canon will do a little better than that, but I wonder how much better is feasible without compromising build/IQ too much.
Upvote
0
I have an old TAMRAC 1.4 extender that is based on my tests much better than Canon own recent extender, even those that are built-in. I am surprised about this almost every day! And of course the non-IS 5.6L 400 is also a top-notch gear, sharp even in the extreme corners. Why do you spend 10.000 bucks on these lens, I just don't get it as a professional photographer. 
))
))
Upvote
0
Oh, and
.Ok, in fairness maybe they've figured out a way to make them cheaper...but that doesn't mean they'll sell them cheaper.
Upvote
0
I have made four private photo safaris in Southern Africa, using the EF 300 2.8 w/ a 1.4TC, the EF 200-400mm, and the EF 600mm F4 III w/wo a 1.4TC. From these shoots, two images were published by Nat Geo, and several were winners in the IPA awards. Even having one of the top guides in Africa and a private vehicle, the range of 200 - 560mm was invaluable in the bush. It is fabulous lens, but it has now been replaced by the RF 100- 300mm, which with the RF 1.4TC becomes a 140 - 420mm F4. For sports work, the 200- 400 was a great optic for football (soccer), where the action is lighting fast and all over the place. But I now cover that sport with the 100-300. IMHO, Canon should abandon the RF 200-500, and make a RF 600mm with built 1.4 TC which Nikon already has available.
Upvote
0
I'd suggest 200-800mm f/5.6 would be much better, especially if it was variable f/1.4-5.6 if that's feasible?
Don't understand why they don't make the pro zooms variable, why not a 70-200mm f/1-2.8 ?
I realise a constant aperture is good for video and keeping your exposure constant but surely that can no be done with software even if the maximum aperture is variable. I'd much rather have a zoom which uses the maximum entrance pupil at all focal lengths so the 100-300mm f/2.8 could be f/1.0-2.8 and Canon could give you an option in the camera software if you want to lock the aperture at f/2.8 as you zoom.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They had shown an actual prototype 600mm f/4 DO at a trade show 9 years ago, so the idea has definitely been bouncing around inside Canon enough for them to make physical prototypes and exhibit them publicly.
Upvote
0
Tanzania side of the Serengeti is stricter: no off-road (although the definition of "road" is a quite loose compared to at home, some are barely 4WD tracks) and no leaving the vehicle. They even had signs up at the park entrance area we went through asking people to report vehicles they saw going off-road.
Upvote
0
I can see that I'm a bit late to the "EF 200-400 lovefest" /s.
First of all, I think that we shouldn't see it as a constant-aperture 200-400 f/4 lens, but a 200-560 f/4-5.6 lens.
I use it for motorsports (bike racing) and there you can't go out in the middle of the track to get the right shots. You stay where you're told to stay (behind the railings and fences). As an amateur, it's only when I shoot at my local club's trackdays that I can get to such a good spot - otherwise I need to stay with the plebs (read: the other spectators), behind a wire fence and even further away from the track.
For me, the utility of being able to zoom is fantastic. Would I like to have the RF 100-300/2.8? Yeah, but I'm not willing to pony for it at 98.000DKK (€13.150). I already have the EF 300/2.8 II, which I paid less than 1/3 of that for back in 2012 (yes neuro, I found the receipt by chance the other day). I have a true lovefest with that lens, and you'll pry it from my cold dead hands.
What I've found is that the EF 200-400 (and the EF 300) autofocus better/faster than the RF 100-500 (see thread).
But yes, it's large. And it's (relatively) heavy. The used EF 400 f/2.8L IS USM I had for a short while was heavier. What I often do is to mount the lens on a monopod with a tilt head, with the end into a flagholder that is attached to a belt. That way, I can swivel freely and the weight is a nonproblem.
Sure, it would have been nice if it had more than a 2x zoom range (ignoring the extender), say 100-400, but that's probably exactly why Canon chose to add the integrated extender.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
