Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Why are you using EF lenses for comparisons when there are modern mirrorless lenses, which provide a more accurate and relevant idea of what's possible?
All the exotic Canon, Nikon, and Sony 400 and 600mm lenses are under 7lbs except for the Nikon 600mm TC, which is 100g above 7lbs. Based on what's out there--albeit primes and not zooms--That 7-7.5lb number strikes me as an apt target. Of course, I don't know if 7lbs plus or minus is possible for the 200-500, but I'm extremely confident that a lens bigger than 8lbs today is not going to have many buyers, and one that is nearly 10lbs is not going to happen in today's market.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oops you are right - I was using the in-use weight of the EF 200-400mm. The in-use weight of the 500mm f/4 is 3420g, 7.5lb, and 3190g for the lens without hood etc.
Upvote
0
I love the idea of this lens. But the price will be eye watering. If they could make a 200-500 5.6 without a TC at something like $5kUSD...i'd trade my 100-400II and 200-800 to get it. But I'm sure this will be an f/4 and with or without TC around $15k.
Brian
Brian
Upvote
0
One important factor by which Canon was able to reduce the weights of the EF 400mm f/2.8 II and EF 600mm f/4 II primes to the Mark III and RF versions is that they removed the large heavy lens elements behind the front lens and replaced them by smaller ones further back. They didn't do that with the RF 100-300mm, presumably because zoom design is more restrictive. So, I don't think the weight changes in the prime series necessarily a good basis. Here are the lens designs for the EF 400mm f/2.8 II and III (RF same as III) and the RF 100-300mm copied from the-digital-picture.com. I think that Mk III (RF design) led to a loss of IQ as a compromise.
Upvote
0
I think we're both making lots of assumptions here. There are multiple explanations for the RF 100-300mm lens design choice including 1) desire to get the lens out quickly, and 2) the weight is already an acceptable sub-6lbs.
Anyway, Canon's RF "replacement" lenses (except for the warmed over exotic 400 and 600mm primes) have shaved weight from their EF predecessors including the RF100-500mm zoom relative to the EF 100-400mm zoom. Therefore, I would expect that Canon could shave some weight from the EF 200-400mm lens's 7.9lbs--hopefully a 1/2 lb if not more--in producing the RF 200-500mm.
Of course this is all speculation. However, I stand by my hypothesis that a lens that is over 8lbs will not be very attractive today.
Upvote
0
The weight of the EF 200-400mm is 9 lb 2 oz, (3620g) without the hood, and in use weight with hood 9 lb 7 oz (3620g) according to TDP. Shaving off 1/2 lb will still leave that above 8 lb. By the way, the RF 100-300 is not less than 6 lb but 6 lb 9 oz without the hood according to Canon.
Upvote
0
Really hoping the lens announcements for the R1 include either an:
- RF 20-50mm f/2
- RF 24-70mm f/2 (kind of a mk. II of the 28-70/2)
- RF 20-50mm f/2
- RF 24-70mm f/2 (kind of a mk. II of the 28-70/2)
Upvote
0
Put a 0.7x on your your 100-300/2.8 and you will be there.
Upvote
0
3620g is less than 8lbs--barely--but still under 8lbs.
As for the RF 100-300mm, TDP lists it at 2650g, which is under 6lbs.
Upvote
0
I agree with your thesis that over 8lb is unattractive so let's wait and see. We could have a long wait though.
Upvote
0
Canon Rumors - Can you provide an update on the "Zoom" teleconverter that you previously rumored was to be released with with the 200-500.
Every time I have to add/remove/change a teleconverter in windy field conditions I threaten to switch to Nikon. The Nikon super telephotos (with this feature) are clearly superior in this regard, and it is a shame canon has not followed suite. The variable extender, if well executed, would be a great catch up for Canon, and would address the deficiency in more that one lens.
New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom
We have been told that Canon will introduce a new type of teleconverter alongside the Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS, which will likely be announced in Q4 of this year, or Q1 of next year.
www.canonrumors.com
Every time I have to add/remove/change a teleconverter in windy field conditions I threaten to switch to Nikon. The Nikon super telephotos (with this feature) are clearly superior in this regard, and it is a shame canon has not followed suite. The variable extender, if well executed, would be a great catch up for Canon, and would address the deficiency in more that one lens.
Upvote
0
I would not recommend getting your hopes up for that. A 1.4x/2x switchable TC is a reasonable possibility, but as has been stated several times, a 1.0x setting on a switchable, rear-mounted TC is more complicated because it requires optics, not merely the absence of TC group(s).Canon Rumors - Can you provide an update on the "Zoom" teleconverter that you previously rumored was to be released with with the 200-500.
New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom
We have been told that Canon will introduce a new type of teleconverter alongside the Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS, which will likely be announced in Q4 of this year, or Q1 of next year.www.canonrumors.com
The patent referenced was misinterpreted, it’s a patent for a simple, generic adapter and the 1-1.5-2x markings in the diagram are an example of compensating for different sensor sizes (that example had just four elements in two groups, less than even single magnification TCs).
Upvote
0
I have a 200-400 f4 with built in teleconverter, and love it. A 200-500 f4 sounds amazing, and maybe having a built-in 1.4x sound even better. But I am curious about the "weight savings" discussed above. A 500mm f4 lens is going to be considerably larger and heavier than a 400mm f4 lens, 25% heavier at a minimum if using the same design/tech. The front element is going to have to be larger. If the new lens can zoom to 500mm f4, it's going to be larger and probably heavier than the 200-400 f4. Obviously some new tech could be used to reduce the weight, but I can't see how it would be less than the 200-400.
About the 1-2X zoom teleconverter. Considering most people refuse to use the 2X extender available now, a 1-2X zoom converter seems crazy.
Not trying to be Debbie downer here. Maybe realistic Robert?
About the 1-2X zoom teleconverter. Considering most people refuse to use the 2X extender available now, a 1-2X zoom converter seems crazy.
Not trying to be Debbie downer here. Maybe realistic Robert?
Upvote
0
Interesting! Even when we consider the EF 300mm prime would need a 25mm adapter...if this is incorporated into the zoom design....we are still looking at an addional 2". I can't imagine Canon would make an extending barrel 200-500mm lens like the RF 70-200's. Whihc is the only way to realistically reduce physical bag space.
I wonder if this is why these new zooms are taking SO long to appear? I wonder if some one in marketing / managment / strategy has said...we are now migrating to super-white zooms and the engineering department are saying...ok but we will loose all of the size and weight benefits of the previous gen Primes.
Upvote
0
I think that is unlikely, but not completely impossible. Canon would have had the Research and Technology (R&T) including the patent-able lens designs completed, and Product Development roadmap priorities decided long ago. All these would have had the majority of questions you raise already answered as part of a portfolio and specific design review(s). Any product development is a collaborative and negotiated process, not a decision by one or the other exclusively.
Upvote
0
Aeons ago, back in my film days (Late Cretaceous) I had a TC where the glass elements were in a mount sort of like a jeweler’s loupe that came out of the body of the lens with a 1/4 turn, leaving you with an empty extension tube.
Upvote
0
Kendo made a ‘zoom TC’ that went switched from 2x to 3x with an extension tube that, when mounted, moved a spring-loaded set of elements in the TC.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
