Canon RF 100-500 4.5 - 7.1

ed rader wrote in post #19071535
LMAO! I have a feeling they're not gonna be around much longer

Possibly. A few years ago I had the financial opportunity to switch but decided to stay with Canon. I was interested in the D500 and the 200-500. I read about the grass is greener people switching and coming back. I have this opportunity again. If I made a change today it would be Sony. We will see what the R5 gives us first. I was at my local mom and pop camera shop today and they said Canon has to hit this one out of the ball park.

We will see if there is a official announcement when this happens.

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …e-first-few-days-of-july/

And now a purposed Canon RF 120-700!

chuckmiller wrote in post #19074640
And now a purposed Canon RF 120-700!

Where did you see that?

ed rader wrote in post #19071496
about the size and weight of 100-400 II. use it at 400mm if f7.1 bugs you.

500/7.1 is pretty much like 400/5.6 with a 1.25x TC.

digital paradise wrote in post #19074668
Where did you see that?

I just across this.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1515607

Another 120-700 snipit here:

https://fstoppers.com …oto-zooms-pipeline-491630

Yes I read about that yesterday.

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …ns-lens-roadmap-for-2020/

f11 on the 600 and 800mm seem quite narrow?

duckster wrote in post #19076100
f11 on the 600 and 800mm seem quite narrow?

Yes this is getting the same response all over the place. Looks like Canon who like everyone else is suffering the mobile phone industry is going after a large group of people to get the sales numbers up.

.

digital paradise wrote in post #19076103
.
Yes this is getting the same response all over the place. Looks like Canon who like everyone else is suffering the mobile phone industry is going after a large group of people to get the sales numbers up.
.

.
I guess it's not too terrible, if that's what it takes to generate a lot of cash, and they use that cash to R&D real lenses, then sales of sub-par lenses to the masses could actually help those who want lenses of world-class quality. . So I suppose it could help the elitists, albeit in a very indirect way.

It's kinda like how all those sales of millions of Rebels and kit lenses helped to make the 1 series and the great big whites possible.

But it does kind of humor me to think that there will be thousands upon thousands of people shooting wildlife in lousy light at f11 and 6400 ISO, thinking that they're "still getting great photos, because noise reduction software is so good these days!"

Ha ha ha ha ha! . As if ... !

.

It is quite possible I'll continue to shoot with the 100-400 II and see what comes out next year.

digital paradise wrote in post #19076117
.
It quite is possible I'll continue to shoot with the 100-400 II and see what comes out next year.
.

.
I will certainly do the same. I can't imagine that any of these super-cheap, super-slow tele zooms that are rumored are going to out-perform the 100-400 v2 ..... especially when you consider how useful the 100-400 is for real close up subjects, with it's awesomely short minimum focus distance. . I can't imagine that these cheap slow lenses are going to have 0.31x magnification like the 100-400mm has.

With supertelephoto focal lengths, I've long thought that a big part of what determines the quality of images that come from a lens is the actual physical size of the maximum aperture opening. . Even if you stop down and make the aperture that you actually shoot through smaller, the fact that the aperture can be big seems to play a big part in final output. . Probably because if a manufacturer goes through the expense of making a lens with a huge aperture, they are not making many compromises in other areas.

F11 at 600mm is a tiny little hole ..... resulting in a cheap-to-make, light-to-carry lens, but undoubtedly embracing several compromises along the way that will cause it's final image quality to not be quite up to par with the truly great big lenses. . Sadly, some photographers don't care about the finer, more subtle points of image quality such as background rendition, out-of-focus rendering character, and ultra-fine detail resolution.

.

The few key things will be the R5 and EF lens performance. An RF lens mounted on an RF body has faster transmission speeds. I'm wondering how an EF lens will perform with blackout during burst shooting and AF. Faster EVF wakeup time would help a lot. I can live with reduced buffer speeds for now.

I have been limping along with the R since September. Not that there is anything wrong with it. It just isn't a birding/sports camera and I knew that going it. If I get the R5 the R will retire to a general shooting travel, etc camera. I really like it with my RF 24-105 and if an R Mark II comes out I don't see the need to upgrade. The R has good AF and 30 megapixels is all I need for that purpose so I'm set there for years to come. I'm ready for Sony mirrorless AF for moving targets.

If this lens line up is actually true it is very confusing. My local mom and pop shop said the R5 has to hit it out of the ball park. They introduce a flagship MLIC and not one fast zoom/prime to go with it. I guess they expect the fast zoom/prime EF owners will be happy to use the R5 for now. There are several owners at Fred Miranda who like their Canon lenses, got Sony bodies have been waiting for Canon to get into the game.