Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
  

RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

  
 
bman212121
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


G Lavaty wrote:
I've got to say, my initial reaction to this is disappointment. 500mm f/4 is by far my most used lens and I had my hopes up for a lighter version of the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II with better IS and a built-in 1.4x TC. I don't typically need shorter than 500mm so zooming to 200mm doesn't excite me very much and it does add weight, extra cost and makes the lens more susceptible to damage. I'm guessing this zoom will be at least a few thousand more expensive than the RF 100-300. I'm guessing the special TC
...Show more

It sounds like a 600mm f/4 might be the better solution in your case. You could set up position back a bit farther to make sure the subject fits into frame, and then just crop as needed. I can't imagine there being a big image quality difference if using the 600 bare versus using 500 + 1.4.

The issue I see with what you're suggesting is if you look at the specs of the 500 f/4 vs the EF 600 / III, it's only about 1.5" shorter, and weighs 200g more. Sure they can give it the weight reduction treatment and the shortening treatment, but then trying to add the flip teleconverter is going to add back in all of those savings and will cost more than a bare 500mm lens. So the issue with that is if it's as long or even longer than a 600 f/4, weighs almost as much as a 600 f/4, and closes the price gap to a 600 f/4, what part of that lens makes sense to purchase over having 600 f/4 versus 700 f5.6?



May 19, 2023 at 11:07 AM
G Lavaty
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


bman212121 wrote:
It sounds like a 600mm f/4 might be the better solution in your case. You could set up position back a bit farther to make sure the subject fits into frame, and then just crop as needed. I can't imagine there being a big image quality difference if using the 600 bare versus using 500 + 1.4.

The issue I see with what you're suggesting is if you look at the specs of the 500 f/4 vs the EF 600 / III, it's only about 1.5" shorter, and weighs 200g more. Sure they can give it the weight reduction treatment and
...Show more

It might seem that way but I've owned all three EF versions of the 600mm f/4 IS and though they are very nice lenses, they aren't really to "lens for me."

Yes, of course if the theoretical RF version of the 500mm f/4 had the built-in TC I'd be thrilled if it was the same weight as the EF mk2, else I'd like the weight/size reduction treatment the 600 got.

Anyway, it seems to be all academic at this point as it looks like we're getting the zoom with add-on TC at what will likely be a considerable price jump.



May 19, 2023 at 11:15 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


JimmyJames wrote:
What would be the teleconverter that is unique to the current models? My only thought would be a drop-in or built-in filter. Or a 1.4x/2x in one.

jedibrain wrote:
What if it was an external TC with a flip element to turn it on/off? That would be something....

-Brian


How is that going to focus at infinity with the TC out of the way? There would need to be extra lens elements in there and that does not help IQ.
A combined 1.4x / 2x TC would not be so difficult, but I don't want a 2x.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 11:17 AM
bman212121
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


G Lavaty wrote:
It might seem that way but I've owned all three EF versions of the 600mm f/4 IS and though they are very nice lenses, they aren't really to "lens for me."

Yes, of course if the theoretical RF version of the 500mm f/4 had the built-in TC I'd be thrilled if it was the same weight as the EF mk2, else I'd like the weight/size reduction treatment the 600 got.

Anyway, it seems to be all academic at this point as it looks like we're getting the zoom with add-on TC at what will likely be a considerable price
...Show more

My question about if they were not the lens for you, what about them was the issue that the 500mm resolved? Given the 600 III weighs less than the 500 does, it's probably not an issue of weight. You purchased them, so it's not really price either. So for physical specs the 1 1/2" is the main difference, which I have seen where others mentioned it's the difference in getting in and out of cars easily. That's likely the biggest thing I can think of, other than having some extra room in framing at the "wide" end.


Edited on May 19, 2023 at 11:30 AM · View previous versions



May 19, 2023 at 11:24 AM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Well this is very disappointing news. A while back it sounded like a RF 500mm DO f/4.5 was coming and would be somewhere in the 4.5lb range (if no built-in TC), as well as a bit shorter. While I am not "old", I am not "young" anymore, and will be getting "older" every day (funny how that works). The weight reduction would have been massively appealing to me.

For anybody with a 100-400 or 100-500 already, adding a 200-500 to the kit seems to be of minimal value yet of great cost.

So all the weight and at a substantial cost but no built in TC. I would describe this as the worst possible outcome for my needs.



May 19, 2023 at 11:29 AM
G Lavaty
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


bman212121 wrote:
No, but my question about if they were not the lens for you, what about them was the issue that the 500mm resolved? Given the 600 III weighs less than the 500 does, it's probably not an issue of weight. You purchased them, so it's not really price either. So for physical specs the 1 1/2" is the main difference, which I have seen where others mentioned it's the difference in getting in and out of cars easily. That's likely the biggest thing I can think of, other than having some extra room in framing at the "wide" end.


The diameter of the front element. Like I said, I've owned and used the mk3 600 and though it's a very nice lens I like the 500 better for my uses.



May 19, 2023 at 11:30 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Right, but the EF lens that was similar was a 200-400 with built in TC, so it was 200-400 at f/4, or 280-560 at f/5.6. This is 200-500 at f/4. The 60mm isnít a huge deal, so effectively it is the 200-400 with a TC that doesnít lose light.

Plus if you do need 700mm, you can attach it.

EB-1 wrote:
Too often 500mm just isn't long enough. Swapping an external TC is very 20th century. Canon developed the internal TC for film cameras long ago and now they don't use it. Probably all the wimps complained about the weight, and the main market will be sports. If you use a TC is it worth the cost for a 280-700/5.6 that takes a while to convert back to 200-500/4? We'll have to see the MTF with 1.4x and 2x TCs.

EBH




May 19, 2023 at 11:31 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


The difference in length between the 500/4 IS II and EF 600/4 IS III is about 2.5".
The 600/4 RF is 3.5" longer than the 500/4 IS II and at 18.6" is a real problem in camera bags. The difference in diameter between 500/4 and 600/4 is about an inch and the 600 lens hood is larger.
If Canon made an RF 600/4 at the same length as the EF 600/4 IS II including an internal 1.4x like Nikon, that would be an attractive option.

EBH

Edited on May 19, 2023 at 11:38 AM · View previous versions



May 19, 2023 at 11:36 AM
bman212121
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


G Lavaty wrote:
The diameter of the front element. Like I said, I've owned and used the mk3 600 and though it's a very nice lens I like the 500 better for my uses.


Interesting. Thank you for the information!



May 19, 2023 at 11:37 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
Too often 500mm just isn't long enough. Swapping an external TC is very 20th century. Canon developed the internal TC for film cameras long ago and now they don't use it. Probably all the wimps complained about the weight, and the main market will be sports. If you use a TC is it worth the cost for a 280-700/5.6 that takes a while to convert back to 200-500/4? We'll have to see the MTF with 1.4x and 2x TCs.

EBH

Jman13 wrote:
Right, but the EF lens that was similar was a 200-400 with built in TC, so it was 200-400 at f/4, or 280-560 at f/5.6. This is 200-500 at f/4. The 60mm isnít a huge deal, so effectively it is the 200-400 with a TC that doesnít lose light.

Plus if you do need 700mm, you can attach it.


I have the 200-400/4 w/1.4x and the 500/4 IS II, and have used the 600/4 EF III and 600/4 RF plenty.
I'm just not so sure how good the RF 200-500/4 and RF 1.4x will be compared to the 500/4 IS II and the EF 1.4x III on the high-res (small pixel pitch) bodies. It won't be as good when zooming from 280-500mm with the TC on, compared to flipping an internal 1.4x TC out would have been. We'll have to see the MTF.

Regradless of the complaints about what it isn't, this will be a great lens for the intended sports folks.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 12:15 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
I have the 200-400/4 w/1.4x and the 500/4 IS II, and have used the 600/4 EF III and 600/4 RF plenty.
I'm just not so sure how good the RF 200-500/4 and RF 1.4x will be compared to the 500/4 IS II and the EF 1.4x III on the high-res (small pixel pitch) bodies. It won't be as good when zooming from 280-500mm with the TC on, compared to flipping an internal 1.4x TC out would have been. We'll have to see the MTF.

Regradless of the complaints about what it isn't, this will be a great lens for the intended
...Show more

Canon has the ability to work some magic sometimes with their glass so I think it's possible the 200-500 with 1.4x could match or come very close to the 500II with 1.4xIII. We'll see.

I'm not familiar with lens element design, so did you say it wouldn't be possible to make a separate 1.4x that's flickable with an on/off switch just like the 200-400's built in TC?

Regardless, I think the 300II and 500II used values are going to hold steady for awhile.



May 19, 2023 at 12:23 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


artsupreme wrote:
Canon has the ability to work some magic sometimes with their glass so I think it's possible the 200-500 with 1.4x could match or come very close to the 500II with 1.4xIII. We'll see.

I'm not familiar with lens element design, so did you say it wouldn't be possible to make a separate 1.4x that's flickable with an on/off switch just like the 200-400's built in TC?

Regardless, I think the 300II and 500II used values are going to hold steady for awhile.


A housing for a TC (without glass when swung out of the optical path) will act like like an extension tube and prevent infinity focusing. Maybe there can be 1.0x glass in there to maintain focus. I hope we have some optical engineers around that can propose a solution. I just know it cannot be an open tube when the 1.4x is out of the way.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 12:28 PM
artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
A housing for a TC (without glass when swung out of the optical path) will act like like an extension tube and prevent infinity focusing. Maybe there can be 1.0x glass in there to maintain focus. I hope we have some optical engineers around that can propose a solution. I just know it cannot be an open tube when the 1.4x is out of the way.

EBH


I get that, it would have to have another element in there. I think it's possible but it would just make the lens longer which should be fine for most people using it. A 200-500 f/4 & 280-700 f/5.6 combo with the flick of a switch would be pretty sweet and not too much bigger and heavier than the 200-400.



May 19, 2023 at 12:32 PM
marximus4192
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


I own the 500 II, and I'm thinking at this point I'd probably just get a 600 III. I've seen them on eBay for about $9k, which I think is doable (after selling the 500). It's supposed to be supported for repairs for another few years, but I'd feel a little better having a newer lens.


May 19, 2023 at 02:10 PM
Tony5787
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


What I donít understand with the external toggle-able extender is how can they combine a 1.4x and 2x design and not always lose 2 stops? Iíve always been of the impression that the loss of light with extenders is due to the increased distance of the rear of the lens to the sensor, is that not the case?


May 19, 2023 at 02:19 PM
artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Tony5787 wrote:
What I donít understand with the external toggle-able extender is how can they combine a 1.4x and 2x design and not always lose 2 stops? Iíve always been of the impression that the loss of light with extenders is due to the increased distance of the rear of the lens to the sensor, is that not the case?


They would definitely lose 1 stop with 1.4x and 2 stops with 2x if there were flickable like the 200-400.



May 19, 2023 at 02:26 PM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


What's the going rate for a kidney these days? I'd trade a kidney for a 200-500mm f4 lol


May 19, 2023 at 02:27 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
How is that going to focus at infinity with the TC out of the way? There would need to be extra lens elements in there and that does not help IQ.
A combined 1.4x / 2x TC would not be so difficult, but I don't want a 2x.

EBH


Most obvious way would be that the 'off' position of the TC has an optical element designed to extend the back focus distance by a certain distance. If they could do a 1.4x with basically no discernable IQ impact, they could do a 1x.

-Brian






May 19, 2023 at 02:54 PM
pokemeng
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Tony5787 wrote:
What I donít understand with the external toggle-able extender is how can they combine a 1.4x and 2x design and not always lose 2 stops? Iíve always been of the impression that the loss of light with extenders is due to the increased distance of the rear of the lens to the sensor, is that not the case?


I dont know exactly how the teleconverters work optically but I would imagine that they are "zooming" in on the central portion of the image that is created by the bare lens. Thus, you are not utilizing all the light that the lens collects to create an image on the sensor and you lose light. I think the distance to the lens is more a function of how much glass it takes to create this maginfication.

Dont quote me though



May 19, 2023 at 03:02 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


I would be interested in that for other lenses like the RF 600/4.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 03:03 PM
1      
2
       3              6       7       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



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