And AmbientMike- what exactly did you disagree on? He did say the IQ with the 100-500 is excellent but not being able to retract fully is a little bit annoying. I'd say that is pretty spot on.
But not to sidetrack here- I am definitely looking forward to hearing more about this lens and, reading through the comments and his responses, really shows he is quite confident this one appears soon.
I agree with Jan's assessment of the 100-500. it's the best 100-400 lens out there in terms of IQ and weight, but yeah it sucks using TC's with it.
a 200-800 zoom walk around lens would be a dream for me, but I don't think Canon is going to make it a reality.
I'd love to see a manufacturer make a more expensive 200-xx lens, something around $5K and under 4lbs. but given how the other manufacturers have gone, I think Canon will probably have it closer to an RF 800 F11 than say an EF 200-400 F4 in terms of pricing, performance, etc.
in order to compete with Sony/Nikon, Canon would likely have to make it a non L lens, little to no weatherproofing, and probably 5+ lbs
will be interesting to see for sure
I'm guessing 200-800 f6.3 - f9 priced around $2500 and weighing around 5lbs. non L glass.
Personally, I don't see that using TC's with the 100-500 sucks. I am using the TC's to get greater reach than 500mm, so I really don't care that you have to use the TC's only for the 300-500mm zoom range.
It gives me great results with both TC's and is still not too heavy and large.
Canon EOS R6m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens1000mmf/13.01/250s1000 ISO+0.5 EV
I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to make a living though some of these videos are simply nonsense. Canon has been patenting a ton of lens combinations. Will any see the light of day? Who knows. Until then, enjoy shooting with the tremendous gear available and avoid the hype.
nmerc_photos wrote:
I agree with Jan's assessment of the 100-500. it's the best 100-400 lens out there in terms of IQ and weight, but yeah it sucks using TC's with it.
a 200-800 zoom walk around lens would be a dream for me, but I don't think Canon is going to make it a reality.
I'd love to see a manufacturer make a more expensive 200-xx lens, something around $5K and under 4lbs. but given how the other manufacturers have gone, I think Canon will probably have it closer to an RF 800 F11 than say an EF 200-400 F4 in terms of pricing, performance, etc.
in order to compete with Sony/Nikon, Canon would likely have to make it a non L lens, little to no weatherproofing, and probably 5+ lbs
will be interesting to see for sure
I'm guessing 200-800 f6.3 - f9 priced around $2500 and weighing around 5lbs. non L glass....Show more →
I´m pretty sure that Canon has the cheap end covered with the 24-240, RF100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. I have them all and they do very well indeed on both R5 and R7. The 600/11 really shines on the R7 as a 1000mm field of view supertele, extremely handy, very good IQ.
So a 200-800 will be a fastish (my guess f/8 as they have nice experience with the 200-400), expensive (+15k for sure), L with all bells and whistles including an IQ that will survive further higher res sensor tech for ten years to come. At least.
So,
1) People need to remember that patents do not equal products in development, let alone that will be released, let alone released any time in the foreseeable future.
2) If such a lens is ever released, it is unlikely to be any of the specifications filed so far, and more likely some kind of combination or 'average' of patented designs.
Need I remind people that seven years ago Canon filed multiple patents for an EF 28mm f/1.4, which of course never came to be, and two years ago also filed a patent for an RF 28mm f/1.4, which also so far has yet to have been heard of in any way. Canon has a long history, going back decades, of filing multiple patents for a focal length or group of focal lengths, with seemingly no intention of ever actually producing such a lens.
All it means is that someone, somewhere in Canon, sat at a drawing board, did a bit of maths, and figured out a hypothetical optical formula, and Canon want to call shotgun on it before someone else does. They file patents more to protect ideas and block competitors from producing the same thing, rather than to broadcast that a product is on the way. (Indeed, usually when they are actually making a lens, they obscure the filing of the patents so they don't give the game away.)
I don't doubt that Canon will, at some point in time, make an RF zoom which goes beyond 600mm. But that's as safe a bet, and as unworthy of being called news, as saying they will inevitably make a camera body with more than 45mp.
200-800 and f/8 at the long end will just be a 200-400/4 with 2x TC, which is not small. Sure, they can make it slower and an extending design to reduce diameter and packing size somewhat. It would need to be substantially slower than f/8 to shrink closer to the 100-500's diameter, and that lens is f/10 at 700mm with the 1.4x TC.
This lens IMO would have a somewhat niche application, probably more towards some bird/wildlife and landscape uses (and I'm sure others) and it kind of encroaches on the 600 and 800/11 lens use (usability) territory, but with zoom. Viewing this as a sports/events photographer, it would be a strictly daylight lens. While this sounds OK, even late season day games, under heavy overcast, can be quite dark with ISO already into the 1600-3200 range at f/5.6. The versatility of the 200-400/4 is that f/4 is still usable, if not ideal, for night/indoor venues lit for TV broadcast. At these I'm typically ISO 3200-4000 at f/4 but use the TC a fair amount, so pushing up into ISO 6400-8000 to maintain acceptable shutter speeds (at or slightly over 1/1000). So from a sports photography perspective, this lens would be a tough sell unless one knew it would only be used on good weather days at daytime/outdoor events.
I'd buy that lens in a heart beat. To me it would be much more useful than the 100-500 for wildlife.
Currently I have the RF 100-500 and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 on two R5 bodies for wildlife.
I would be tempted (and broke) to go with the 100-300 f/2.8 and the 200-800 max f/9 on two bodies instead for my Africa trips.
He uses the patent to back up his source but that's not the main reason he's saying this lens is probably coming. He's not basing this off the patent. And he clearly says it's a rumor and that he hasn't held it.
f/9 wouldn't really have to be much bigger than the 180-600 type lenses, same size class.
Sony has the 100mm advantage at 600mm in the video, but the 100mm advantage at 500mm gets brushed under the rug and it's a 100-400, which is ridiculous. And I'm adding a tc to get past 500mm so mostly I'm taking it off if I'm at the short end.
my excitement was somewhat tempered when I saw the long list of Canon patent applications. Mind you, I have a copy of the Sigma 300-800/5.6 sitting here ... still have yet to really use it. Size does matter in some things ... like my back and sore knees.
sebjmatthews wrote:
It's irresponsible, and plain pathetic clickbaiting, for anyone to portray this as news, let alone imply that they're holding such a thing.
Canon file dozens of patents every week, and usually at least two or three are lenses. In this case, they have filed all of the following:
So,
1) People need to remember that patents do not equal products in development, let alone that will be released, let alone released any time in the foreseeable future.
2) If such a lens is ever released, it is unlikely to be any of the specifications filed so far, and more likely some kind of combination or 'average' of patented designs.
Need I remind people that seven years ago Canon filed multiple patents for an EF 28mm f/1.4, which of course never came to be, and two years ago also filed a patent for an RF 28mm f/1.4, which also so far has yet to have been heard of in any way. Canon has a long history, going back decades, of filing multiple patents for a focal length or group of focal lengths, with seemingly no intention of ever actually producing such a lens.
All it means is that someone, somewhere in Canon, sat at a drawing board, did a bit of maths, and figured out a hypothetical optical formula, and Canon want to call shotgun on it before someone else does. They file patents more to protect ideas and block competitors from producing the same thing, rather than to broadcast that a product is on the way. (Indeed, usually when they are actually making a lens, they obscure the filing of the patents so they don't give the game away.)
I don't doubt that Canon will, at some point in time, make an RF zoom which goes beyond 600mm. But that's as safe a bet, and as unworthy of being called news, as saying they will inevitably make a camera body with more than 45mp....Show more →
I was trying to be kind to Jan, but he's making up stuff.
If a person actually studies the patent applications one finds the 200-800/5.6-8 is not a simple rehash of the ef 200-400/4. No built is teleconverter is involved. Without going back to the applications to quote the exact length, it is surprisingly compact. Of course, it is much larger and will be heavier than the 100-500. Even if it used both diffractive optics and fluorite that would be true. It is very highly corrected, and as such I suspect it would be an L lens, but because the lens elements are not huge, it may not be out or sight of the100-500, size wise, weight wise, and price wise.
The other lenses with the smaller f stops, one could definitely show up as a lower price lens meant to compete with the Sony 200-600 and the new Nikon and throw down a little extra focal length on them.
That Canon has put this much time and effort, perhaps three groups of engineers working on similarly specced lenses, indicates they plan on producing one, or possibly even two, with one being built to L level specs, lenses.
IndyFab wrote: I was trying to be kind to Jan, but he's making up stuff
Maybe he's not, he's doubling down, we shall see
&ab_channel=JanWegener
My guess is, his "source" is Canon calling him to do a video leaking the 200-800. I'd guess that's how these things work. Probably some sort of marketing benefit
AmbientMike wrote:
My guess is, his "source" is Canon calling him to do a video leaking the 200-800. I'd guess that's how these things work. Probably some sort of marketing benefit
That is literally not at all how these things ever work, in any way whatsoever, and I can't fathom why you'd think that was even remotely a possibility.
I have friends who have previously worked in Canon EU/UK distribution and marketing, as well as other friends in similar roles at other companies. I also know a lot of people who have been in the photographic media, including multiple people who have been blacklisted by various companies for leaking or facilitating leaks of new products. I, myself, am still blacklisted by Fuji for being part of the X-T2 leaks, and that was in 2016.
There is absolutely, categorically, no possibility whatsoever that Canon are giving away their plans to C-tier YouTubers, let alone directing them to publicize rumours and speculation for marketing. That is an insane suggestion. Canon have taken people to court for leaking plans and products.
Please stop believing, let alone pushing on others, the idea that anyone on YouTube knows anything more than any random forum users, other than the very top A-tier channels who sign NDAs and only publish information on or after the official announcements. I mean people like Chris & Jordan, Gordon Laing, those are the kinds of outlets who actually are given information ahead of the public. They're also the ones who don't report rumours as facts, you'll notice.
95% of what you see on YouTube is just people desperately speculating in order to have an excuse to upload something and get more clicks. Please don't try to give it any more weight or meaning than that.
edit: To be clear, Jan has, what, 70k subscribers? Canon don't even give the Northrups much info these days, and they've got 1.6 million subscribers. I can't imagine what marketing value you think there is in giving leaks to such a small channel.
Canon is a very conservative organization and I strongly doubt they'd leak a release to someone for a relatively inconsequential product such as a 200-800, let alone for any product. If someone at Canon USA took the 'initiative' to do so, it would risk the full weight and fury of Canon USA and Canon Japan coming down on them. It's not like Canon is some small player that needs such tactics to get attention.
juststeve wrote:
If a person actually studies the patent applications one finds the 200-800/5.6-8 is not a simple rehash of the ef 200-400/4. No built is teleconverter is involved. Without going back to the applications to quote the exact length, it is surprisingly compact. Of course, it is much larger and will be heavier than the 100-500. Even if it used both diffractive optics and fluorite that would be true. It is very highly corrected, and as such I suspect it would be an L lens, but because the lens elements are not huge, it may not be out or sight of the100-500, size wise, weight wise, and price wise.
The other lenses with the smaller f stops, one could definitely show up as a lower price lens meant to compete with the Sony 200-600 and the new Nikon and throw down a little extra focal length on them.
That Canon has put this much time and effort, perhaps three groups of engineers working on similarly specced lenses, indicates they plan on producing one, or possibly even two, with one being built to L level specs, lenses....Show more →
While I mentioned the 200-400, what I meant was that for light gathering power at that focal length and f/stop combination, a certain front element diameter is required, which whether 400/4 or 800/8, is the same. Yes, Canon could make it shorter by making it an extending design. DO would also help reduce length. But it won't do anything for diameter. They could cheat that a bit by calling it an f/8 lens while technically making it slightly slower, but it wouldn't significantly reduce diameter.
Canon routinely files patents for a whole host of things, many of which never come to fruition. Even if this lens is on the drawing board, it would likely take a significant amount of time to engineer and produce. Had the presentation been more journalistic than hyperbole, it would have been easier to afford Jan consideration.
