The variable converter with 1x, 1.4x, and 2x would be a game changer. I will buy one for sure.

i cant get over how good the intro sequence is

Thanks for this video - finally someone is addressing what I think is the elephant in the room for Canon wildlife photographers... lenses. I'm someone who "dates the cameras, but marries the lenses" because over the past couple of decades I've learned that manufacturers leapfrog each other when it comes to their camera offerings. For me, lenses are more important because they're a bigger expense and can have a greater impact on the quality of my work. I've been on the fence for the past couple of years about my brand loyalty and have stuck with Canon so far only because I want to see what they bring out with this announcement. I know the R5II will be a fantastic camera for wildlife, that's a given. However, I want to see what lenses they bring out because without new lenses I will almost certainly pull the switch and move over to Nikon. In particular, I'm attracted to Nikon's 600mm f4 with the built in extender and their 800mm PF for flexibility. Canon's 600mm f4 is obviously superb but I don't enjoy swapping out teleconverters in the field so Nikon has an edge. But for lighter, walk-around lenses I think Nikon definitely wins with their PF range and their 180-600mm zoom. Canon's 100-500 is great, but I always seem to struggle with the slightly shorter reach - while the 200-800 kills me in anything other than good light (I'm in the UK so I often need faster lenses.) I think a 200-500 f4 and a variable teleconverter from Canon, combined with the expected features of the R5II, will redress the balance for me and keep me from jumping ship to Nikon...!

Ron Thanks for the thought provoking video. I pre-ordered the r5 ii the spec's check off most of my want list. I am a bit bummed by the lack any new lens or T.C. I wasn't considering another big lens until I listened to your thoughts on a 200-500 f4 coupled to a variable T.C. depending on weight & price that would be pretty sweet. I have the RF600 f4 very nice to shoot with but a real PITA to travel with. So with the 1.0-1.4-2.0 T.C. on a 200-500 you would get 200-500f4, 500-700f5.6 and 700-1000f8 very intriguing. Cheers

Wat a fantastic mood you have!

Hey Ron, I agree that the difference between adapting the ef 200-400 and a native rf 200-500 is very substantial. Especially at 2x, it's the difference between 800m and 1000mm of reach. Not to mention other advantages. Keep up the great videos!

Just remember a 200 - 500 f4 will probably be very heavy. I have the 200-400 1.4 tc and its not a lense you casually pick up and go for a walk with.

Hi Ron. I’m with you all the way. Currently use 100-500, great lense quality and weight. Also use 200-400 when I need F4 (recent Osprey shoot early morning). 200-500 F4 would really fit most of my requirements. Adding variable converter would be the cream on the cake

I'd also like to see something like the Sigma 60-600 (10x zoom) at an F4 in an RF mount (or even a 2.8, but it may be too expensive) - I wonder if the EF version would work with an adapter?

I feel like Canon puts out patents, ect. to get people excited with no plans to deliver the product

Great wish list. Nothing wrong with asking for RF200-500 f/4 which also includes the 1.4X and 2X capability!

The 200-500 RF F4, could be great. Probably expensive and quite heavy! But in case the variable teleconverter comes out, I do have a big reason to switch to a long RF lens. I would consider either the 400 RF, the 600 RF or the 200-500 RF. I would have to sell my current 500 mm F4 EF Type II, and I'm afraid that might be difficult. The choice in case the costs are not way higher I would prefer the zoom RF over the fixed RF 400 or 600. You even made me thinking of buying a second had RF 400 or RF 600, as long as the converter works with them. In case Canon comes on, it will definitely result in spending on gear!

I have a much harsher version of Come on Canon, which is to cut out all the hype and make stuff that isn't a compromise and get it out there. I've had an R5 for three years, and it's a great camera, but with a major flaw for stills shooting, which I do primarily. I shoot events and sports for work as well as wildlife and the rolling shutter makes it too risky to use in electronic shutter mode shooting sports in RAW. It might be okay for wildlife when you can use another close frame but it's an awful feeling when you get a key moment in a game with the ball on outstretched fingertips and it's an unrecognizable blob. It happened to me the first two games I shot so I will only use mechanical shutter whenever I shoot sports. I have an EF 500 f4 which works fine with an adapter but it's getting old and Canon will no longer service it. I'll never spend $10,000 + on a lens so I looked into the RF 100-500 but it too has what I consider a design flaw not being able to use a teleconverter through the full zoom range. The 200-800 looks interesting but it's been back ordered for many months. I'd be interested in an R7 crop sensor type camera as a less expensive second body but the rolling shutter makes it almost useless. Now the new camera bodies arrive, after being hyped for many months and it will probably be many months longer before you can actually get one. I realize it's early days in the mirrorless photography era, but I've been saying Come on Canon in a much more negative light for a while.

Thanks for the information

Hey Ron. I agree, come on already Canon. I'd like to get the R5II if it ever becomes available. I'm 65 and have been waiting for the 200-800 for ever it seems. At that rate, I may not be alive or able to get out and shoot when the R5II is actually available. Also, given the current economy we baby boomers will have to look hard at the new 200-500 F4. It will be a great lens, but >$13k will be a challenge for those of us that are enthusiast. I must admit, lugging around my 600 F4 MK III becomes more of a struggle each year. The compactness and lighter weight of a 200-500 F4 sure is intriguing. Woody

I would like to see the 200-500 F4 at an affordable price (3K?) - I would pay a little more for a 2.8, but not much more... (could they keep it under 5K?)

Personally, I'd rather see some "Prosumer" telephoto and zoom L lenses that are in the $3-6K price range. I'll never be able to afford a 600mm or 800mm F/4, but if they made something between the F/11 and the F/4 I'd probably bite. Same for the zooms. Same for the zooms, Id be willing to spend more for internal zoom that's maybe a stop faster or so faster, that wouldn't break the bank to buy.

You and I my friend are on the same wave length as usual. Variable TC's will live on my bodies, I will be getting R5 MK II's and yeah the 200-400 is the ultimate safari lens, so I will for sure get the 200-500 if it comes out. Will make a bag a lot easier to travel with. I will keep my 600's but for local use and the 200-500 for travel.

I feel like selling my EF 600 F4, which should get aprox $5 to 6 K, and get the RF200-500 F4,However I'm keeping my R5 which puts me in the dilemma of, How much will the new lens be? and also will the new lens work with the R5? If I knew these two things I think I would upgrade.

Like your channel bif is my favorite thing to shoot and I love the teleconverter idea, maybe if possible a variable like a zoom with infinite choices.

It's like you have been reading my mind, totally agree 200-500 4.0 plus a variable teleconverter would be a bird photographer's heavenly equipment. I will be happy if Canon come out with a 200-500 with a build-in 1.4. They invented this technology, but no more follow up. Nikon is doing great with 400 2.8 with 1.4, and 600 4.0 with 1.4. In my mind, a 200-500 4.0 with 1.4 will be better than anything out there.

Sooooooo, the week the TC variable rumors started circulating, folks on canon rumors said that patient is NOT for a new variable TC. This came up again on CR last week and was immediately shot down, again mentioning that patient is not for a TC. So I don’t even bring it up anymore, looks like a no go. My new trinity now consist of a RF 15-35, 24-105 2.8, and the 100-300. I’m hoping to acquire the R1 and the 200-500 F4 for outdoor sports. Come on Canon, if parts are hard to come by since Covid, open your own parts department 😂

I just sold my 200-400mm after testing out the RF 400mm f2.8 as I found it extremely sharp on my R7 with the RF 2x with stunning image quality unlike the 200-400mm. While sharp just want stunning and think that no zoom can match the stunning image quality of a prime and I bought the RF 400mm with the hope of them coming out with that variable tele-converter giving a high quality zoom lens in a relatively lightweight hand holdable lens. The prime is so sharp I can crop the hell out of it and have excellent image quality with an R7 no less! 😉 I also want the low light capability of 2.8 that the RF 400mm offers in addition to my EF 600mm.

oh, 15K - yikes! - I cannot justify that expense

I think I'd rather have one big prime, one small compact zoom (like the 100-500 because that like/need/want that MFD) and then a variTC that I could attach to either. The 2-800 seems a little big to pack in a bag, in comparison to the 1-500. And the 1-500 is a better lens. Perhaps they should have given the 2-800 the "L" treatment, then maybe I'd feel different. But yeah, COME ON Canon! Bring it now!

The zoom I really want is a 400-600 F4 with built in 1.4TC. I'm considering trading my 100-500 and 70-200 2.8 in on the 100-300 2.8 to go along with my RF600 F4 but I'm not sure if it would be worth it. I should probably see if it's available for CPS loan, it's been out long enough that maybe the list isn't to long anymore.

Ron l don’t know why these camera companies have never bought out something like a 500/800 or 300/600 so as it could be cheaper, lighter with constant aperture l mean when you get a long lens you don’t often use it at it’s shortest focal length. Nikon have been pumping out gear for wildlife while Canon sit on their hands they really need to bring out another affordable wildlife lens, if l could afford it l would switch back to Nikon simply for the variety of gear. My prime Tele lenses are f11 because l don’t have $13000 for a lens. We are far enough into the Rf system now to no longer adapt that is really just for the first few years till lenses become available. Yes Canon are a news sports camera company. Come on Canon!

I heard , but not confirmed, that the 200-500 may have a built in 1.4TC and will weigh under 6 lbs

Why don't you invite the Boss of Canon on to your show

News flash: Canon release event postponed. Seems they are working on another 24mpx camera to announce.😂 I think the variable tc would be a great product for most. But I have to disagree on the 200-500. If you look at Canon's recent history, it decided not to release an RF version of literally its best lens ever made - the EF 300 f2.8. At its release it sold for 6K. Now, not only do they not have a 300 f2.8 for the RF mount, they made it into a zoom and jacked up the price to $10K. So what will the RF 200-500 cost if the original EF 500 was around 9K? We are probably talking 14K!!! And it eliminates the primes for those that prefer them. On top of this, we still have no comparative lens to Nikons PF lenses. They abandoned the DO lens which was the best lightweight super telephoto that they had. They seem eager to give us gimmicky lenses like the 600/800 f11. How about Nikons 600 with built in tc? Another lens we have no comparative to. I prefer not to adapt either but give us some options that aren't zooms!!

The zoomable teleconverter patent was rejected because Canon chose not to go forward with it

Variable Teleconverter would cost 1.4x + 2x X 1.5 lol

when what year????????????????? what a joke they have become!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Canon does come out with this lens it needs to be a 200-600mm, like the Sony and the Nikon, everybody and their momma knows this...lol! Canon can't help but SHORT us some way, somehow, no matter what the product is...SMDH.