RobAmy wrote:
Well I just sold my last EF lens, the 200-400. I have my order in for this lens, most likely it will take a bit to get as I waited to order. I think this lens will be awesome for the kayak and of course Kenzie pictures . I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm.
This is excellent news because we'll greatly benefit from your real-world feedback and images, including with the TCs, compared against your experience with the 400/2.8 and other 'big whites.'
I'm confident this will be another great lens but still looking forward to your experiences with it. Hopefully you won't have to wait too long for it!
My primary safari lens journey has been:
300 2.8 v.1 @6 lbs + 1.4x = OMG sharp/gorgeous blur/beautiful 3D tonality (kept for memories sake)
500/4 V1 = upgraded/sold
400 DO V1 = meh/sold
800/5.6 = needed for polar bears/shimmers in Africa heat/sold; and now the
500/4 V2 = 7.2 lb + always with a 1.4x III aka 700mm/5.6 ‘cause I focus on young cheetah families and like to give them a comfort zone + an RF adapter)
I’ve been waiting for a EF500 III and now a RF500 for way too long!
In my quest to save camera weight now so that I can continue to shoot wildlife in my twilight years - while being height constrained @ 5’1’ 113 lb - you can see why EVERY ounce counts to me. I even swapped to a short hood earlier this year to save a few ounces.
I already downsized from the series 1 bodies that I used since the beginning of time and now shoot with the R3/R5. And, I’ll downsize my main lens to a 100-300/2.8 if I can use it as a 200-600 5.6 with MINIMAL REAL world quality loss.
Then I can further save travel weight by switching my #2 lens - RF100-500/EF100-400II to a RF70-200/2.8 for a total wt savings of 2.6 lb.
The issue is, I’ve only liked/used primes as my main lens, and never liked using 2x extenders (softer/less contrast) but will have to it I’m really serious about saving travel weight and my body parts. And maintaining smooth 3D tonality is still very important to me.
I put a deposit on the 5.7 lb 100-300/2.8 and am #1 on my dealer’s list (can sell EF bodies/lenses to help fund). Unfortunately, I won’t have the lens in time for a May 20th Patagonia trip when I really could use it.
Since I won’t need the lens until my next Africa trip in Feb, I’m trying to decide if I should cancel my order and wait for “trusted” reviews as I normally do, or gamble that image quality will be as acceptable as the EF200-400 (which I never used).
Thoughts?
I respect Ron Scheffler’scopinion, so his action kind of tells me to stay on course. Also, the Canon reps were at Samy’s Camera today in So. Cal, so I expect that we’ll be seeing hands on images/videos soon.
Lastly since I’m strictly wildlife, should I be concerned about the MTF charts? As mentioned, 3D tonality is more important to me that vignetting in corners.
My initial thought is if it's in the budget, stay on the order list and get one as soon as it's out. It will give you time to test various scenarios and determine if it's really what you need/want for February. As an early buyer, if you find it's not meeting expectations, it should be relatively easy to sell at minimal loss, especially if Canon is not able to fill orders in timely manner over the first year or so. From past experience with Canon, sometimes if you don't get it on the first shipment, you might be left waiting a while. Of course this is difficult to predict and isn't always the case, but could be with a lower volume specialist product, rather than a more consumer level release.
My concern is that you use the 500 almost permanently with the 1.4x at 700mm. At least based on MTFs, I'm a bit skeptical that the 100-300 with 2x will be as good. But as you suggested, real world use may be closer than the charts let on. When I first got the 200-400, I did all sorts of crazy TC experiments with it, using the internal 1.4x with external 1.4x, 2x AND stacking external 1.4 and 2x... and the results were better than I expected. But that was on a 18MP 1DX body...
Though we don't know when it will happen or what the specs will be, it's possible you'll be able to offset some loss of the 700mm reach when the R5II is released. Expectations are it will be higher resolution. That said, the 'look' (background separation/blur) will not be quite the same as 700mm.
Thx Ron, you make great points and I’ll stay the course. It’s nice to have others to confer with :-) I keep 2nd guessing myself and am not getting anything else done when I’m totally swamped with other priorities. And you’re right, only I can assess what is acceptable re: sharpness and the 3D look that I want.
rscheffler wrote:
The sagittal and tangential line separation away from image center of the 100-300 (and 200-400) implies increased astigmatism which may manifest as 'less clean' peripheral background blur and possibly some swirl, too due to the likelihood of greater optical vignetting at play than the 400 prime.
Astigmatism is not implied. It is more likely a trace of lateral chromatic aberration.
Those hoods are not plastic, they are carbon fiber composite and are super light for their size. I agree 650.00 is a lot regardless of material, and carbon fiber is no longer "exotic" like it was in the 80's and 90's.
rscheffler wrote:
@ChrisHA@ Thanks for the kind words!
My initial thought is if it's in the budget, stay on the order list and get one as soon as it's out. It will give you time to test various scenarios and determine if it's really what you need/want for February. As an early buyer, if you find it's not meeting expectations, it should be relatively easy to sell at minimal loss, especially if Canon is not able to fill orders in timely manner over the first year or so. From past experience with Canon, sometimes if you don't get it on the first shipment, you might be left waiting a while. Of course this is difficult to predict and isn't always the case, but could be with a lower volume specialist product, rather than a more consumer level release.
My concern is that you use the 500 almost permanently with the 1.4x at 700mm. At least based on MTFs, I'm a bit skeptical that the 100-300 with 2x will be as good. But as you suggested, real world use may be closer than the charts let on. When I first got the 200-400, I did all sorts of crazy TC experiments with it, using the internal 1.4x with external 1.4x, 2x AND stacking external 1.4 and 2x... and the results were better than I expected. But that was on a 18MP 1DX body...
Though we don't know when it will happen or what the specs will be, it's possible you'll be able to offset some loss of the 700mm reach when the R5II is released. Expectations are it will be higher resolution. That said, the 'look' (background separation/blur) will not be quite the same as 700mm....Show more →
Planetwide wrote:
Ron, are you getting the 100-300mm?
I'm hoping for a more direct 200-400 replacement, such as a speculated 200-500, preferably with internal 1.4xTC. I find the long end more beneficial for field sports and 300 would be too short, unless there will soon be a 'pro' APS-C option. Or a R5II with pixel density for an APS-C crop in the mid 20MP range.
LANCER1975 wrote:
Those hoods are not plastic, they are carbon fiber composite and are super light for their size. I agree 650.00 is a lot regardless of material, and carbon fiber is no longer "exotic" like it was in the 80's and 90's.
I believe the end is the same size as the 300 mk2 so the 3d printed hoods should work.
rscheffler wrote:
I'm hoping for a more direct 200-400 replacement, such as a speculated 200-500, preferably with internal 1.4xTC. I find the long end more beneficial for field sports and 300 would be too short, unless there will soon be a 'pro' APS-C option. Or a R5II with pixel density for an APS-C crop in the mid 20MP range.
I didn't know Nikon has a 400 f2.8 w/1.4 tc built in just recently announced, I'd take that for field sports all day long. With a z9 in DX mode your what at 840mm, that's pretty crazy. Canon doesn't have much to compare unfortunately.
This 100-300 would be great for basketball, but still a pricey lens for whatever audience.
I’ve just watched the video on YouTube
I can see why pros want it, and possibly wealthy photogs for their local wildlife/bird sanctuaries…or as is often the case…take snaps of their cat/dog😂
But as a amateur I’d rather take the R3 + RF 70-200/2.8 personally and crop the image.
It looks a real PiTA to haul about if you REALLY don’t need 300/2.8!
My primary safari lens journey has been:
300 2.8 v.1 @6 lbs + 1.4x = OMG sharp/gorgeous blur/beautiful 3D tonality (kept for memories sake)
500/4 V1 = upgraded/sold
400 DO V1 = meh/sold
800/5.6 = needed for polar bears/shimmers in Africa heat/sold; and now the
500/4 V2 = 7.2 lb + always with a 1.4x III aka 700mm/5.6 ‘cause I focus on young cheetah families and like to give them a comfort zone + an RF adapter)
I’ve been waiting for a EF500 III and now a RF500 for way too long!
In my quest to save camera weight now so that I can continue to shoot wildlife in my twilight years - while being height constrained @ 5’1’ 113 lb - you can see why EVERY ounce counts to me. I even swapped to a short hood earlier this year to save a few ounces.
I already downsized from the series 1 bodies that I used since the beginning of time and now shoot with the R3/R5. And, I’ll downsize my main lens to a 100-300/2.8 if I can use it as a 200-600 5.6 with MINIMAL REAL world quality loss.
Then I can further save travel weight by switching my #2 lens - RF100-500/EF100-400II to a RF70-200/2.8 for a total wt savings of 2.6 lb.
The issue is, I’ve only liked/used primes as my main lens, and never liked using 2x extenders (softer/less contrast) but will have to it I’m really serious about saving travel weight and my body parts. And maintaining smooth 3D tonality is still very important to me.
I put a deposit on the 5.7 lb 100-300/2.8 and am #1 on my dealer’s list (can sell EF bodies/lenses to help fund). Unfortunately, I won’t have the lens in time for a May 20th Patagonia trip when I really could use it.
Since I won’t need the lens until my next Africa trip in Feb, I’m trying to decide if I should cancel my order and wait for “trusted” reviews as I normally do, or gamble that image quality will be as acceptable as the EF200-400 (which I never used).
Thoughts?
I respect Ron Scheffler’scopinion, so his action kind of tells me to stay on course. Also, the Canon reps were at Samy’s Camera today in So. Cal, so I expect that we’ll be seeing hands on images/videos soon.
Lastly since I’m strictly wildlife, should I be concerned about the MTF charts? As mentioned, 3D tonality is more important to me that vignetting in corners. ...Show more →
I haven't used these but going to 2x concerns me. The 500 looks really good on TDP, not sure how much you can improve on it. Fro may have something using 2x in the video above, the video might be a bit of an ad, though, you might not take it too seriously
Thx AmbientMike - the 2x attached full time concerns me a lot as well and yesterday I cancelled my pre-order. Another factor for the cancellation is that I wouldn’t be saving as much travel weight as I thought (forgot to add in 12 oz. for the 2x), I just learned that I have a complete rotator tear/rupture (giving me 2nd thoughts about continuing with my 20 year passion after next year), and I’d rather wait for a RF 500mm before spending a big chunk of change.
ChrisHA wrote:
Thx AmbientMike - the 2x attached full time concerns me a lot as well and yesterday I cancelled my pre-order. Another factor for the cancellation is that I wouldn’t be saving as much travel weight as I thought (forgot to add in 12 oz. for the 2x), I just learned that I have a complete rotator tear/rupture (giving me 2nd thoughts about continuing with my 20 year passion after next year), and I’d rather wait for a RF 500mm before spending a big chunk of change.
That injury doesn't sound good at all I did handle the 800/11, one of the people on the Christmas bird Count had one, if you need really light. Good feel, eye af picked up on seagulls maybe 50yds or more away. Have you considered 400 DO V2? Supposed to be sharper than the first version, a lb lighter than the 100-300/2.8 .
I think the RF extenders on this lens will work very well, all the lenses I have tried with the RF 1.4x and the 2x have performed outstanding on both the R5 and the R3. If it holds true with this lens also then this lens will be a super versatile travel lens. You will get 100-600mm with one lens. I think once real use reviews come out that this lens will be very popular. I enjoyed my 200-400mm but it was my heaviest lens, hoping this will make a great replacement. I personally did not like the 100-500mm ( image quality was very nice) due to the extending barrel and limitations with the use of the TC and of course the f7.1. I think for my uses this will make a better fit replacing the 100-500mm / 200-400mm (both now sold) and possibly the RF 70-200mm but that lens is so small and so good I doubt I would sell it. Time will tell, good news is my dealer actually got back to me and said I am first on the list even that I waited to order, put a small deposit down also
I wanted to note with the advise above to try the 400mm DO II which is sound advise, I personally found that due to the balance I found the Ef/RF 400mm f2.8 felt lighter when in use. A nod to the RF version due to no need for an adapter which felt better yet. The 400mm DO II was Amy's mainly used lens and now uses the EF 400mm III due to the lighter feeling. Obviously a bigger and more expensive lens also. Just food for thought. Best of luck with you injury Chris.
If is performs even close to my RF 400mm f2.8 + 2x, I will be a happy camper
Jared didn't appear to use the 2x much and there's very little feedback on the 2x in his video. Can't wait for someone else to really put the 2x to the test with this lens.
RobAmy wrote:
I think the RF extenders on this lens will work very well, all the lenses I have tried with the RF 1.4x and the 2x have performed outstanding on both the R5 and the R3. If it holds true with this lens also then this lens will be a super versatile travel lens. You will get 100-600mm with one lens. I think once real use reviews come out that this lens will be very popular. I enjoyed my 200-400mm but it was my heaviest lens, hoping this will make a great replacement. I personally did not like the 100-500mm ( image quality was very nice) due to the extending barrel and limitations with the use of the TC and of course the f7.1. I think for my uses this will make a better fit replacing the 100-500mm / 200-400mm (both now sold) and possibly the RF 70-200mm but that lens is so small and so good I doubt I would sell it. Time will tell, good news is my dealer actually got back to me and said I am first on the list even that I waited to order, put a small deposit down also
I wanted to note with the advise above to try the 400mm DO II which is sound advise, I personally found that due to the balance I found the Ef/RF 400mm f2.8 felt lighter when in use. A nod to the RF version due to no need for an adapter which felt better yet. The 400mm DO II was Amy's mainly used lens and now uses the EF 400mm III due to the lighter feeling. Obviously a bigger and more expensive lens also. Just food for thought. Best of luck with you injury Chris.
If is performs even close to my RF 400mm f2.8 + 2x, I will be a happy camper
BTW I will be using this for doggie pictures too ...Show more →
I'm sure others will confirm but I'm wondering if Canon could build an RF 200-400 f/2.8 with built in 1.4x TC that wouldn't be too much heavier than the current EF 200-400 f/4? If f/2.8 would be too heavy maybe an f/3.2 would be possible? If yes, that would be a dream lens to have.
artsupreme wrote:
I'm sure others will confirm but I'm wondering if Canon could build an RF 200-400 f/2.8 with built in 1.4x TC that wouldn't be too much heavier than the current EF 200-400 f/4? If f/2.8 would be too heavy maybe an f/3.2 would be possible? If yes, that would be a dream lens to have.
I would think they could, Nikon has some nice built in TC and did great with the weights. I agree you give me that 200-400mm f2.8 with a TC that is lighter than the current, then wow. I bought we will see anything like that now this lens is here but one can hope.
I wish they built a 1.4x TC that could be engaged just like on the 200-400mm but removable. To me that would be fantastic. No need to make the lenses longer and heavier when you do not TC's but can be put on if needed. To me that seems like actually better than built in.
. I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm. 
