The Kenko or APS CF Variable AUTO TELEPLUS 2X-3X.
You can get one for Canon FD mount for 20€ with a 6 month warranty
see:Kenko CF Variable AUTO TELEPLUS 2X-3X (per CANON FD)
www.rcefoto.com
Upvote
0
Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
You can get one for Canon FD mount for 20€ with a 6 month warranty
see:
www.rcefoto.com
I didn't know you were into Japanese martial arts as well as cameras. I think I prefer to exchange words with you rather than blows.
Upvote
0
I’m gonna blame Siri for that one. At least it’s better than what autocorrect does to Tamron if you neglect to capitalize the ‘T’.
Upvote
0
The rumored price (august 2023) was $ 15.999.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/
Upvote
0
Kendo or Ronco?
Not sure who made my TC/macro tube thingie. I think it was some Goldberg guy…first name “Rube”, maybe…
Upvote
0
Why doesn't a 400mm f/2.8 with a built in 1.4x tc that weighs under 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg) make sense to anyone but me? That would take care of the 400mm f/2.8 and the 600mm f/4 with one tidy lens. Even if it cost a ton.
As for the rumored zoom in Nov, I am just hoping for some sort of 200-500mm f/4 that weighs under 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs). With our without a built in TC. I'm almost willing to accept the ridiculous price they would put on it at this point.
What would most people prefer to see? A 400mm f/2.8 with a built in TC or a 200-500 f/4 without a built in TC? If you had to choose between the two, and assuming price was not a concern.
As for the rumored zoom in Nov, I am just hoping for some sort of 200-500mm f/4 that weighs under 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs). With our without a built in TC. I'm almost willing to accept the ridiculous price they would put on it at this point.
What would most people prefer to see? A 400mm f/2.8 with a built in TC or a 200-500 f/4 without a built in TC? If you had to choose between the two, and assuming price was not a concern.
Upvote
0
The Canon 100-300 mm f2.8 weighs in at 5.7 lbs officially so I doubt the 200-500 mm f4 will weigh less. especially since it will have a larger front lens element (300/2.8 = 107 vs. 500/4 = 125). More realistically, I would expect the 200-500 mm f4 to weigh in around 7 lbs.
Personally I would take a 200-500 f4 zoom instead of a fixed focal length with a built in TC, but that is just me. A 200-500 mm f4 with 1.4x TC becomes a 280-700 mm f5.6 which is perfect for the vast majority of wildlife photography. With that said a 400 mm f2.8 lens is one of my favorites as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The RF 400 f/2.8L IS USM is 2890g, and you need to add the TC for weight as well. Less than 2.9kg is incredibly light, as the previous EF generations were 3.85kg and 5.37kg (the EF-RF extension weights 50g).
Upvote
0
Nikon has what you are asking for with the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC (not quite the weight you are looking for — that lens weighs 2,950g or 6.5 pounds). And you are right it costs a ton — $2000 more than Canon RF.
I suspect the weight is hard to cut and still have the lens be robust.
Upvote
0
I've been waiting to see ANY final version of the long-awaited 200-500. With or without a TC.
We have a EF 400 2.8 with adapter, plus with the 1.4 III and 2.0 III TC, and the RF 100-500. A fixed focal length is problematic when sitting on the edge of a duck pond where one might find action 30 foot away or 150 foot away. (Has anyone ever found a Buffelhead that wasn't skittish?)
The 100-500 is a great walkabout lens for birding etc. But only during the day. Once you hit dusk it's just too slow. So I'm hoping for basically a faster 100-500. An f/4 200-500 would be much faster of course, with a front element larger than 300 f/2.8 but smaller than the 400 f/2.8. Even if it's ultimately too heavy for walkabout, it'd be awesome with a gimbal and a tripod. It would also be super versatile and could cut down on the total number of lenses to pack/carry.
I think what we would really be getting is an extra 30 minutes of prime light both in the morning and in the evening when compared against the existing 100-500.
We have a EF 400 2.8 with adapter, plus with the 1.4 III and 2.0 III TC, and the RF 100-500. A fixed focal length is problematic when sitting on the edge of a duck pond where one might find action 30 foot away or 150 foot away. (Has anyone ever found a Buffelhead that wasn't skittish?)
The 100-500 is a great walkabout lens for birding etc. But only during the day. Once you hit dusk it's just too slow. So I'm hoping for basically a faster 100-500. An f/4 200-500 would be much faster of course, with a front element larger than 300 f/2.8 but smaller than the 400 f/2.8. Even if it's ultimately too heavy for walkabout, it'd be awesome with a gimbal and a tripod. It would also be super versatile and could cut down on the total number of lenses to pack/carry.
I think what we would really be getting is an extra 30 minutes of prime light both in the morning and in the evening when compared against the existing 100-500.
Upvote
0
Canon have proposed in a patent for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 zoom lens which will fullfill both niches very well. However...it needs to be rediculously sharp because most users of these lenses need the 1.4x and 2x TC extenders for the extra reach. So when someone buys a 600/f4, what tehy are really buying is a 600/f4, 840/f5.6, 1200/f8. All of which need to be sharp on an R5's 45mp sensor.
I regularly use a 2x TC on my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and it makes a very sharp 800mm f5.6. I want to try a 2x and a 1,4x TC soon, just to see how it fares optically.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
