Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
But you forgot to mention the most important thing, which is that a hood will come with the lens.
Upvote
0
In the past, all 2.8 and faster lenses were sold with hood. I would strongly prefer this lens to be sold for $4-5K without hood.
The price is ridiculous. I can buy r5, 70-200 2.8, and 100-500 as a kit for less.
I guess Canon targets less price sensitive corporate sports and news photographers as more and more important market segment, i.e. this is where they see the most money to come from.
And the funny thing is they usually buy not at retail price but sign corporate agreements.
The price is ridiculous. I can buy r5, 70-200 2.8, and 100-500 as a kit for less.
I guess Canon targets less price sensitive corporate sports and news photographers as more and more important market segment, i.e. this is where they see the most money to come from.
And the funny thing is they usually buy not at retail price but sign corporate agreements.
Upvote
0
No. There’s a long list of non-L prime lenses that are f/2.8 or faster and ship without a hood included.
Whatever price it sells for, it will include the hood. I’m sure we’d all strongly prefer Canon give us lenses for free. Don’t hold your breath.
Upvote
0
Respect or panic?
Fortunately, I bought mine when they still were more "reasonably" priced.
But now, a simple glance at the price list favourably replaces the most gruesome horror novel.
Edit: the new Summilux 1,4/50 costs.......Euro 7500
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The case probably would cost about 450 bucks and...need its own case.
Upvote
0
I could find a lot of use for e.g. a 100-500mm with a built-in 1.4x or 2x extender. It would make a great one-lens solution for safaris when I'm in a vehicle photographing anything from elephants to cisticolas. Such a lens would be well out of my price range, but one can dream.
A built-in extender should be better optically than one designed as a bolt-on to be used with several lens designs. It's been concluded, I believe, that the 800mm and 1200mm big whites are actually just 400mm and 600mm lenses with 2x extenders "welded on", and I'd imagine that at the bonkers prices they sell for, they must be pretty damn sharp.
Upvote
0
Don't kid yourself, they are not pretty damn sharp - they are relatively soft. You can look at them on TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1599&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and I have downloaded Canon's own MTF charts for the RF 800/5.6 and RF 1200/8 to compare with the 400/2.8 and 600/4 where you can see a real loss on welding on the 2xTC.
Upvote
0
I think his point was not that a 2x TC doesn’t degrade optical performance, but that a built-in TC optimized for the lens would degrade performance less than the regular TC.
I haven’t seen tests with the RF lenses, but IIRC the EF 200-400 with 1.4x engaged was superior to the lens with the TC disengaged and the EF 1.4x III behind the lens.
Upvote
0
Maybe a specifically designed 2xTC is better than a generic one, it should be. But, the real points are that 1) TCs do degrade IQ and 2) those Canon lenses are not very sharp. Canon doesn’t post the MTF values of the RF 2xTC on the 400 and 600. However, TDP does compare the RF 600mm at 840mm with the 1.4xTC and it is slightly sharper than the 800mm https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1597&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Actually, the old EF 800 was not a very sharp lens and cognoscenti like you preferred the EF 600 II plus 1.4xTC. The EF 600 III took TCs worse than the II.
ps, The incredibly expensive RF 800/5.6 is hardly sharper than the el cheapo RF 800/11 according to TDP. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Glad you posted this- I feel the same way. I just don't see this lens at this price point as something I would want. Another consideration is weight. When going on the plane, there is a weight limit, which means we must limit what we can bring. For me, it is always what I have to leave behind rather than what should I bring. Hiking with a heavy load is another issue.
Upvote
0
Sweeeet
I'm a freelancer, and I photograph all sorts of different stuff, and a 100-300 f/2.8 would be a perfect lens for my needs. If it comes with a built-in 2x TC (though the rumors doesn't mention it), it would be my dream lens.
I photograph a lot of wildlife and landscapes in the mountains, and this kind of lens would be a perfect compromise between weight, focal range, and a large enough aperture.
Also, when shooting outdoor sports, I'm usually limited as to how much gear I can lug with me (and a lot of times it is not really convenient to swap lenses in the middle of an action shoot anyway).
So I'm really excited for this one. I can't wait to see how it looks when it comes out and how it performs.
I'm a freelancer, and I photograph all sorts of different stuff, and a 100-300 f/2.8 would be a perfect lens for my needs. If it comes with a built-in 2x TC (though the rumors doesn't mention it), it would be my dream lens.
I photograph a lot of wildlife and landscapes in the mountains, and this kind of lens would be a perfect compromise between weight, focal range, and a large enough aperture.
Also, when shooting outdoor sports, I'm usually limited as to how much gear I can lug with me (and a lot of times it is not really convenient to swap lenses in the middle of an action shoot anyway).
So I'm really excited for this one. I can't wait to see how it looks when it comes out and how it performs.
Upvote
0
With a 2x included and all the extra weight of glass and ramps necessary for the zooming, it won't be a light lens.
Can't wait to see how this lens is, because it sounds like a dream lens for me too, but I'm afraid there will be some down sides to it. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a really great lens in many ways, but it feels like working with a brick!
Upvote
0
I don't know how much experience you have with carrying lenses with you on longer hikes and working with them on difficult terrain. But I'm pretty sure that a lens like this (with the zoom range it covers and with its wide aperture) will prove to be lighter, take less space and will be easier to work with than alternatives. And by alternatives I mean multiple lenses and converters to cover this zoom range and be enable you to shoot at decent enough apertures.
Upvote
0
The lens will definitely be heavier than a fixed 300 mm f2.8. For me the advantages are that I generally speaking do not need a second camera body with a 70-200 mm f2.8 lens. This one lens basically replaces a 70-200 mm f2.8 and a 300 mm f2.8. Assuming this lens comes with a built-in 1.4x extender having a 100-300 f2.8 and and 301-420 mm f4 at your disposal basically gives you an all-in one lens for sports. The f4 aperture from 301-420 is not ideal, but decent enough in most situation.
Will be interesting to see what other big white lens Canon releases before the summer 2024 Olympics in Paris.
Will be interesting to see what other big white lens Canon releases before the summer 2024 Olympics in Paris.
Upvote
0
At first, I also thought this price was a bit high. But thinking about the combined cost of my 300 mk ii and 70-200 plus the teleconverter, then I’m in the ball park of this lens (using list pricing). For me, this lens would replace my need for a 70-200. I’m not thrilled with the extending design, but Canon has been addressing the ask for portability which an extending lens provides. I’d be surprised if they can get this lens to be as sharp as the 300 mk ii, but if they can (or close to it), I could see this lens in my bag. Pair this lens with both FF and crop sensors and you’d have a great combo for just about any type of shooting you do.
As for the case, I suspect it will come with a soft sided bag like the ef 100-400/70-200 do.
As for the case, I suspect it will come with a soft sided bag like the ef 100-400/70-200 do.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That was true for the EF MkIII great whites and all the RF supertele lenses so far, so I’m sure it will be true for this lens.
Upvote
0
I do have much experience on taking lenses on longer hikes, and this lens will be heavier and take up more space than my present mainstay, the RF 100-500, which has a longer range at probably half the weight of an RF 100-300mm. I have had a couple of years experience hiking with the EF 300mm f/2.8 II plus TCs on a 7DII, 5D3, 5DIV and 5DSR and while they were very good, I am doing better with the RF 100-500mm on the R5 and R7. However, that's for me and maybe a new 100-300mm would be better for you.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
