EB-1 wrote:
Well, Canon did replace their EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II with the RF 100-500/4.5-7.1, though the actual difference in working aperture is only about 1/3 stop at 400mm. Panasonic now has a similar 100-500/5-7.1 L mount lens so it may be a trend.
The 100-500 replaced my use of a 1.4x TC on the 100-400.
I can see a market for all three of those lenses, 100-400/4, 100-500/7.1 and 100-400/8.
EBH
Regarding the middle of those three, the trade-off with the RF is that it has an extra 100mm in its 100-500 form, and that sort of justifies the smaller maximum aperture at the long end. For example, putting a 1.4x TC on the f/5.6 max EF 100-400 gets you f/8 at 560. In that light, the f/7.1 at 500 seems like a decent trade-off.
I think you are right that a company with a big market like Sony probably could support three zooms in this range with different assets and prices.
As a counter to that, while snipping off 1/3 of a stop here and there really is trivial in and off itself, as a trend that eventually might multiply that decrease in maximum aperture it might not be so swell.
When I move to Sony (quite likely bordering on a near certainty when we find out what the A7rvi looks like) I'll certainly want a lens with this kind of range. I've be happy with a high quality 100-400, ideally no smaller than f/5.6 at the long end, or with a 100-500 like the R. (While a 100-400mm f/4 sounds like a very interesting and even fantastic lens, it wouldn't be the one I would want for my particular use.)
Oct 29, 2025 at 11:24 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16918106 « Rumored FE 100-400 F4 (?!) GM »
