What about a Canon RF 200-500mm, f/4 vs f/5.6

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

txstone

txstone

Active member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery

I would be a lot more interested in a 200-500 f/5.6 than an f/4, just considering weight and cost. I’m not interested in carrying a monopod at this point in my young life.

But, in the Canon world with the well established and /as far as I know/ well loved 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L, is a 200-500 upgrade (constant aperture, but.. better through only part of the range, and likely to accept an extender throughout the range, unlike the 100-500 where the extender can be used 300-500), enough? I think it would be for me, but I don’t have a 100-500?
 
Member's gallery
It's hard to imagine a zoom lens I would like more than the RF 100-500. It's in one of my top 5 lens picks and I've owned basically every modern telephoto from every manufacturer.

200-500 f/5.6 would be appealing if it were the same size as the 100-500, but I doubt it will be.

The zooms I really wanted were a 100-300TC F2.8 + 200-500TC F4. I think they missed the mark bigtime by not including the TC on the 100-300.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
It's hard to imagine a zoom lens I would like more than the RF 100-500. It's in one of my top 5 lens picks and I've owned basically every modern telephoto from every manufacturer.

200-500 f/5.6 would be appealing if it were the same size as the 100-500, but I doubt it will be.

The zooms I really wanted were a 100-300TC F2.8 + 200-500TC F4. I think they missed the mark bigtime by not including the TC on the 100-300.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear an endorsement of the 100-500. I may go there yet.

Rumors for the 200-500 still seem be all over the place - no evidence of convergence yet.
  1. Will cost $15,999 in f/4 and will not include a TC to 'reduce size, weight and complexity'?
  2. In f/5.6 may be due to confusing the max aperture with bulit-in TC?
 
I have the 100-500 and really like it. Weight, size, the stable IS, the removable foot, and IQ makes it the choice for me over the 200-800. I'm thinking the 200-500 will be a different price category though. The 100-500 is a bargain at around $2700 as is the 200-800 around $1,900. I'm thinking this should be a $6-8k or more lens so wouldn't appeal to the same market segment.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
I think Canon missed the mark big time by not including the TC on the 100-300.
Click to expand...
There are rumours of a triple teleconverter (1x—1.4x—2x) that could be teamed with that lens, giving wildlife shooters instant access to:
  • 100–300 f/2.8
  • 140–420 f/4
  • 200–600 f/5.6
A frighteningly expensive, but irresistible, combo?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
David Berry said:
There are rumours of a triple teleconverter (1x—1.4x—2x) that could be teamed with that lens, giving wildlife shooters instant access to:
  • 100–300 f/2.8
  • 140–420 f/4
  • 200–600 f/5.6
A frighteningly expensive, but irresistible, combo?
Click to expand...
Good stuff - very interesting, I had missed that. Canon has a patent for a variable teleconverter with some proponents for including a variable on the 200-500. I see there is a Canon patent for some variable aperture super telephoto lenses too.
 
Member's gallery
txstone said:
I'm glad to hear an endorsement of the 100-500. I may go there yet.

Rumors for the 200-500 still seem be all over the place - no evidence of convergence yet.
  1. Will cost $15,999 in f/4 and will not include a TC to 'reduce size, weight and complexity'?
  2. In f/5.6 may be due to confusing the max aperture with bulit-in TC?
Click to expand...

The RF 100-500 is a phenomenal lens. I'm surprised Nikon and Sony haven't come up with a competitor. Sure, it has its quirks. I dislike the extending barrel (vs internal zoom) and the reduced TC functionality. but the IQ, size, and weight are incredible.

Often times a 100-400 is too short for me, and I don't find the IQ acceptable when adding a TC. and a 180/200-600 is too big and heavy. the 100-500 is the sweet spot currently.

bleirer said:
I have the 100-500 and really like it. Weight, size, the stable IS, the removable foot, and IQ makes it the choice for me over the 200-800. I'm thinking the 200-500 will be a different price category though. The 100-500 is a bargain at around $2700 as is the 200-800 around $1,900. I'm thinking this should be a $6-8k or more lens so wouldn't appeal to the same market segment.
Click to expand...

I would sure hope it wouldn't be $6-8K being that slow LOL

In my mind it would likely be aimed at competing with the PF lenses (due to the slow speed), so I'm guessing $4K-$6K max

David Berry said:
There are rumours of a triple teleconverter (1x—1.4x—2x) that could be teamed with that lens, giving wildlife shooters instant access to:
  • 100–300 f/2.8
  • 140–420 f/4
  • 200–600 f/5.6
A frighteningly expensive, but irresistible, combo?
Click to expand...

That rumor has been out for almost 2 years at this point. I don't see it ever materializing. Same with the 200-500 f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top