Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Archive 2020 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

Today we have a rumor of this lens being announced in 2020: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-70-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm-to-be-announced-this-year-cr3/

This ties back to the patent filed last year for the same lens: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-70-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm-and-more/

The source claims this lens would be similar in size to the new RF 70-200/2.8, which would be incredible for a hiking telephoto. I was waiting to see an RF version of the 100-400, but I think this lens would fit the bill just as well. Since I typically use my 100-400 for landscapes, the slightly slower aperture at the wide end doesn't really plus me.

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:00 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

That's a pretty interesting development, especially if some there things play out as we might expect.

If this 70-400mm lens has the same optical qualities that we see in the EF 100-400mm v.2, it should be a very popular and useful lens. The size estimate makes sense, too, given that the EF 100-400mm v.2 is fairly close in size to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

Assuming that Canon eventually brings RF equivalents of existing EF lenses to market, I can see the potential fora very interesting three-lens kit that would replace a four-lens kit used by many landscape and similar photographers now. My current kit uses EF lenses: 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 100-400mm. Imagine that the first three are produced in f/4 RF versions an that the 70-400mm lens becomes available. Many folks could eliminate the 70-200mm lens and get the same focal length range coverage.

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:21 AM

cdtoms
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

With the RFs advantages in size they could potentially design something similar to a 16-70 2.8-4 .
As long as you don’t need super low light or a constant aperture for serious video, you could literally have from UW to ST (16-400) with decent apertures in 2 lenses!

gdanmitchell wrote:
That's a pretty interesting development, especially if some there things play out as we might expect.

If this 70-400mm lens has the same optical qualities that we see in the EF 100-400mm v.2, it should be a very popular and useful lens. The size estimate makes sense, too, given that the EF 100-400mm v.2 is fairly close in size to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

Assuming that Canon eventually brings RF equivalents of existing EF lenses to market, I can see the potential fora very interesting three-lens kit that would replace a four-lens kit used by many landscape and similar photographers now. My...Show more →

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:28 AM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

gdanmitchell wrote:
That's a pretty interesting development, especially if some there things play out as we might expect.

If this 70-400mm lens has the same optical qualities that we see in the EF 100-400mm v.2, it should be a very popular and useful lens. The size estimate makes sense, too, given that the EF 100-400mm v.2 is fairly close in size to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

Assuming that Canon eventually brings RF equivalents of existing EF lenses to market, I can see the potential fora very interesting three-lens kit that would replace a four-lens kit used by many landscape and similar photographers now. My...Show more →

To be fair, I think many people already have a 3 lens landscape kit (at least in sony land where I post most) with the 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400. That's my setup and I have very little use for any aperture under f4 99% of the time.

I wouldn't MIND having a 24-70/2.8 instead of the 24-105 however, because any hiking portraits would likely be taken with that lens, where a little more bokeh would be welcome sometimes, but since that's the lens that would be on my camera most WHILE hiking, I'm not sure if the extra weight would really be worth it in the end (225g extra).

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:29 AM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

There is a patent for a 17-70 F3.5-F5.6 and 18-80 F3.5-F5.6 but we all know Canon and patents...still an interesting idea, I'd definitely consider the 17-70 and 70-400 as my two lens solution.

cdtoms wrote:
With the RFs advantages in size they could potentially design something similar to a 16-70 2.8-4 .
As long as you don’t need super low light or a constant aperture for serious video, you could literally have from UW to ST (16-400) with decent apertures in 2 lenses!

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:35 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

I'd rather have a 100-300/4 L IS to pair with the 24-105/4 L IS.

Jan 08, 2020 at 10:47 AM

esanchez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

Yeah that would make sense. No overlap.

DavidP wrote:
I'd rather have a 100-300/4 L IS to pair with the 24-105/4 L IS.

Jan 08, 2020 at 11:01 AM

J Williams
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

DavidP wrote:
I'd rather have a 100-300/4 L IS to pair with the 24-105/4 L IS.

That's more what I'm thinking too. I relay would care if it went down to f5.6 at the long end, just don't get there by 100. Make it have good IQ wide open and I'll be happy. I'd like something smaller than the 100-400 and not just by an ounce or 2.

Jan 08, 2020 at 11:35 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

RoamingScott wrote:
To be fair, I think many people already have a 3 lens landscape kit (at least in sony land where I post most) with the 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400. That's my setup and I have very little use for any aperture under f4 99% of the time.

I wouldn't MIND having a 24-70/2.8 instead of the 24-105 however, because any hiking portraits would likely be taken with that lens, where a little more bokeh would be welcome sometimes, but since that's the lens that would be on my camera most WHILE hiking, I'm not sure if the extra weight would really...Show more →

That's a fair point. A friend with whom I spend a week photographing in the Sierra backcountry every year (and whose work you might encounter at TAAG) works with a two-lens kit comprised of the 24-105 and the 100-400. (He does, at least in the front country, also add some lenses with the ability to tilt/shift.)

I once photographed for a week in the upper Kern Basin and used only the 24-105. It was really important to minimize weight/bulk on that trip. (My normal Canon setup for this today is 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8*, 70-100mm f/4, plus 1.4x TC.

* (I got the f/2.8 version of this lens for another purpose, and haven't yet switched it out for the f/4.)

The considerations might be a bit different for front-country landscape photography with vehicle support... where the weight/bulk issues are less of a concern.

In the end, there are a lot of ways to get to a personal "perfect" kit.

Jan 08, 2020 at 11:49 AM

cdtoms
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

For sure. I wasn’t aware of those pattens! I too have been using a 3 lens kit for Sony. 12-24, 24-105, 100-400. It is an amazing set. But, I’m selling all and moving to canon. That rf glass is amazing. The a7riii is a little more noisy at high ISO’s. My kit will be the 15-35, 50mm (have these 2) and likely the 70-400 for landscapes. I don’t do portraiture so the 70-200 for that price tag doesn’t interest me as much. Plus, I’ll have the 50 in a pinch. I hope this lens comes to fruition and has the optics of the lenses I’ve used to far! Would be a phenomenal kit!

RoamingScott wrote:
There is a patent for a 17-70 F3.5-F5.6 and 18-80 F3.5-F5.6 but we all know Canon and patents...still an interesting idea, I'd definitely consider the 17-70 and 70-400 as my two lens solution.

Jan 08, 2020 at 12:16 PM

alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

DavidP wrote:
I'd rather have a 100-300/4 L IS to pair with the 24-105/4 L IS.

I think that if Canon made a 100-300/4 L IS in the RF mount, they could just as well make it 70-300/4 L IS at little extra cost or compromise.

Jan 08, 2020 at 12:24 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

alundeb wrote:
I think that if Canon made a 100-300/4 L IS in the RF mount, they could just as well make it 70-300/4 L IS at little extra cost or compromise.

Well, if they're gonna go to a 4x zoom, then I'd rather have a 100-400/4 DO IS.

Wouldn't matter to me if it's 70-300 or 100-300 . . but I want the constant f/4 and the IS.

I just think the IQ would be better with a 3x zoom than a 4x zoom at those focal lengths.

Jan 08, 2020 at 12:33 PM

alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

DavidP wrote:
Well, if they're gonna go to a 4x zoom, then I'd rather have a 100-400/4 DO IS.

Wouldn't matter to me if it's 70-300 or 100-300 . . but I want the constant f/4 and the IS.

I just think the IQ would be better with a 3x zoom than a 4x zoom at those focal lengths.

Just like I think the IQ would be better with a 3X zoom than a 4x zoom from 24 mm

It is good to see you back, David. I guess you don't remember me

Jan 08, 2020 at 12:41 PM

cdtoms
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

But, imagine this scenario. The current conversation is assuming one stays with the eos r or rp. If canon comes out with a 60+ Mp camera with a crop of 30+ mp AND MAYBE a new set of teleconverters with minimal image reduction, we could easily have covered 15-600 with a constant aperture of no higher than 5.6 or 6.5 with the 15-35 and the 70-200 alone. Both have IS and both are 2.8. Even without new teleconverters you could still have 15-52 and 70-300 with no higher than an f/4 with minimally 30mp. Only missing out on 52-70 and you could crop some with 30+mp. I think the 70-400 is aimed at the people who will be staying with the r or rp. 15-300mm with IS and fairly low constant apertures make a very compelling kit for anyone who isn’t shooting extreme lowlight or portraiture professionally. But, heck the 70-200 2.8 would still do a bang up job with that. Just a thought.

DavidP wrote:
Well, if they're gonna go to a 4x zoom, then I'd rather have a 100-400/4 DO IS.

Wouldn't matter to me if it's 70-300 or 100-300 . . but I want the constant f/4 and the IS.

I just think the IQ would be better with a 3x zoom than a 4x zoom at those focal lengths.

Jan 08, 2020 at 12:46 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

alundeb wrote:
It is good to see you back, David. I guess you don't remember me

Thanks.

If it makes you feel better, I rarely remember anybody.

I guess I just wish there was a "holy trinity" in f/4, and not just in f/2.8

But 70-200 just seems so limiting. If one has already stretched the 24-70 into 24-105, it would seem logical to stretch the 70-200 into 70-300.

I suppose a 12-24/4 on the wide end would be asking too much?

Jan 08, 2020 at 01:31 PM

alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

DavidP wrote:
Thanks.

If it makes you feel better, I rarely remember anybody.

Not at all:

https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-10-24mm-f-4-and-canon-rf-14-28-f-2-0/

Maybe I don't even want to be remembered from the old days

Jan 08, 2020 at 02:47 PM

Jesse Evans
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

I don’t think it’s possible to make that lens in a similar size to the RF 70-200 f/2.8. That lens got most of its size savings from moving from a fixed length to a telescoping designs. The 80-400s and 100-400 f4-5.6s of the world are already telescoping. A shorter flange distance doesn’t help at all with these lenses.

It will probably be lighter though, since it will be made of composites instead of metal probably.

Jan 08, 2020 at 03:05 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

gdanmitchell wrote:
The size estimate makes sense, too, given that the EF 100-400mm v.2 is fairly close in size to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

Jesse Evans wrote:
I don’t think it’s possible to make that lens in a similar size to the RF 70-200 f/2.8. That lens got most of its size savings from moving from a fixed length to a telescoping designs. The 80-400s and 100-400 f4-5.6s of the world are already telescoping. A shorter flange distance doesn’t help at all with these lenses.

It will probably be lighter though, since it will be made of composites instead of metal probably.

My thoughts mirrored Jesse's when I read about the size. Dan points out that the EF 70-200s are similar to the 100-400, which they are, but the 100-400 is already an extending zoom design and that is surely the biggest factor in shrinking the size of the RF 70-200. So if they can make a 70-400 RF to be similar sized to the 70-200RF then that would be a terrific feat as we are already used to having extending zoom with 100-400 lenses so we don't need to listen to the complaints of not having a non-extending design.

Jan 08, 2020 at 03:11 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

That's exactly right. We're all used to the long length on existing 100-400s, but packing it up at half the size would be AMAZING.

arbitrage wrote:
My thoughts mirrored Jesse's when I read about the size. Dan points out that the EF 70-200s are similar to the 100-400, which they are, but the 100-400 is already an extending zoom design and that is surely the biggest factor in shrinking the size of the RF 70-200. So if they can make a 70-400 RF to be similar sized to the 70-200RF then that would be a terrific feat as we are already used to having extending zoom with 100-400 lenses so we don't need to listen to the complaints of not having a non-extending design.

Jan 08, 2020 at 03:18 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Rumored RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

A good point raised on Canon Rumors was that the RF variant is about the same size as the EF when extended and that this space savings might only be feasible for a lens that internally zooms on EF.

Since the 100-400 already externally zooms, and physics hates cheaters...

Jan 08, 2020 at 04:00 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.