It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced

[AlanF]

Canon did an excellent job on keeping the weight down. Also glad to here that it will be available in May. Hopefully we are done with the 3-4 month waits after announcements.

According to Gordon Laing the lens takes 112 mm screw-in filters!! WOW!!

Below are the RF100-300 mm f.28 MTFs from Canon Japan:

View attachment 208595

View attachment 208596

View attachment 208597

For comparison is the RF 100-500 mm MTF charts:

View attachment 208598

Overall, I am very impressed by the MTF curves of the bare lens and with the 1.4x extender. IMO the 2x suffers a bit, but is still very useable.

Thanks for posting these - I hadn't found them. As I suspected, the RF 100-500mm will outresolve the RF 100-300mm at 420mm with the TC. The MTFs are similar but the 500 has 25% length advantage. It was the same when I compared directly in the past the 100-500mm with my EF 300mm f/2.8 II and my EF 400mm DO II. Add the 2xTC to the 100-500, and even though the MTFs are lower, the extra length will give it better resolution than the 300 with 2xTC.

 

[john1970]

Thanks for posting these - I hadn't found them. As I suspected, the RF 100-500mm will outresolve the RF 100-300mm at 420mm with the TC. The MTFs are similar but the 500 has 25% length advantage. It was the same when I compared directly in the past the 100-500mm with my EF 300mm f/2.8 II and my EF 400mm DO II. Add the 2xTC to the 100-500, and even though the MTFs are lower, the extra length will give it better resolution than the 300 with 2xTC.

No problem. Glad I could be of assistance.

 

[Tony5787]

Curious about this line in Adorama’s description:

“The Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens is the lightest f2.8 lens with a 300mm focal length at the time of its release.”

It’s just barely heavier than the 300 IS II, guess they meant to say “lightest f/2.8 zoom lens”. Seems like a cool lens but not for me, personally not thrilled if this is the direction Canon’s heading with their RF super tele’s. A 300mm f/2.8 DO with a built-in extender would have been a pre-order for me. Guess it’s time to think about switching to Nikon, bummer because I really love my R3.

 

[john1970]

112mm filter thread. Holy moly that‘s huge. If I would be in the market for a tele, it would be my choice, together with a 1.4 TC, but travelling with such a lens is quite the commitment. 100-500 is so much more versatile but 1 2/3 stops darker at 500 than the 300 with 1.4x TC at 420 and still 2/3 at 600 with 2x TC. everything has a price I guess, this one has two: price ans weight.

I am having the exact same thoughts for my summer travels. Do I take my RF 100-500 mm lens or rent the RF 100-300 mm f2.8. The extra stops of light are very very enticing.

 

[AlanF]

I am having the exact same thoughts for my summer travels. Do I take my RF 100-500 mm lens or rent the RF 100-300 mm f2.8. The extra stops of light are very very enticing.

If you are using them both at maximum focal length and cropping to the same size, the 100-300mm stop advantage is only 1.2; eg 500mm 7.1 vs 600mm 5.6 - which would be for my most use situations. That in no way makes it worthwhile for me regarding weight and size. If I was doing indoor sports at 300mm, then it would, but I don't.

 

[scyrene]

Gordon Laing is positive. Says that Canon states it is sharper than the EF300mm/2.8 and takes TCs. Doesn't mention if you can stack TCs though...
Yes, a hood is included
Length is the same with R mount adapter and lens hood.
Up 200gms on the EF300 (lighter with R mount adapter)
Looks like the same tripod mount as the EF300mm/2.8
No drop-in filters
It isn't clear how you would use the control ring which looks to me next to the body unless on a tripod.

Add a 2x TC and get a 200-600mm/5.6 which a lot of forum dwellers are waiting for but heavy on the wallet

Surely the design of the RF extenders(and EF III for that matter) precludes stacking? Regardless of the lens.

 

[dolina]

Sigma and Nikon came out with 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses about a decade ago.

With the 100-300/2.8... where is the 500/4.0 replacement?

 

[Viggo]

$14043 here so that’s a no for me, but the fact that it weighs less than the 200 f2 is astonishing.

 

[Del Paso]

Soft you now the fair GAS.
Zoom, in thy lenses be all my sins remembered.

 

[pzyber]

Canon:
(the first is Rudy Winston)

I find it funny that they showcase Sony camera and lens in a Canon video...

 

[mpmark]

Curious about this line in Adorama’s description:

“The Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens is the lightest f2.8 lens with a 300mm focal length at the time of its release.”

It’s just barely heavier than the 300 IS II, guess they meant to say “lightest f/2.8 zoom lens”. Seems like a cool lens but not for me, personally not thrilled if this is the direction Canon’s heading with their RF super tele’s. A 300mm f/2.8 DO with a built-in extender would have been a pre-order for me. Guess it’s time to think about switching to Nikon, bummer because I really love my R3.

Oh you’re gonna love the brick Z9 AF

 

[Del Paso]

$14043 here so that’s a no for me, but the fact that it weighs less than the 200 f2 is astonishing.

Not Canon's fault, I presume. But your country's taxes...

 

[dolina]

Not Canon's fault, I presume. But your country's taxes...

What some of us do here is fly to a country without sales tax, VAT or GST, buy it, enjoy an overnight holdiay then fly back home.

 

[Del Paso]

What some of us do here is fly to a country without sales tax, VAT or GST, buy it, enjoy an overnight holdiay then fly back home.

And hope customs don't check your luggage...
But if they do, it could become a horribly expensive lens.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I just have to be honest and voice my overwhelming disappointment with this lens. The lack of rear filters makes this lens dead on arrival to me without any question at all. With all the greatness of versatility this brings to the table as a high quality zoom, it's totally useless to me now because it lacks rear filters - something I use every single moment of daylight as a motorsports photographer.

I, like many others that use these big primes, like to shoot with a CPL or ND filter in order to creatively use aperture and shutter speed to blur motion or alter reflections in cars. I've honestly never used my EF 300mm f/2.8L II during the day without at least some kind of filter in mine. This is a MAJOR oversight and makes this entire generation of lens useless to me. I now have zero upgrade path at all with the RF system to replace my EF 300L because I honestly can't and won't use this lens ever, nor do I want to. I have no intention of purchasing and traveling with a new set of 120mm filters, removing the hood every time I need to adjust the polarizer, or handling massive filters in the field in adverse conditions, figuring out how to store and transport them around a track or through the desert, etc. This lens is also MASSIVE and heavier compared to the old EF Mark II model which I find a large negative as well....since I have to pack and travel with this lens every month. I can understand this tradeoff for the obvious benefits and introduction of zoom functionality, but it's just another attribute that I view as a negative.

This is my personal perspective looking at this lens and considering how I use my current 300mm lens or all of my other lenses for that matter. I believe this is a major blunder and design oversight. Looks like I'll be hanging onto my EF 300 f/2.8L II for a long time and I will never rent or buy this lens because it's just totally useless to me because of this.

 

[Copland]

Without a drop-in CPL (or at least a flap at front like 70-200/100-500) it is useless for almost any motorsport, automotive and many outdoor sport-photographers as canon presents this lens for. What the hell...

 

[Del Paso]

Kind of a large omission considering the size of the front element.

Maybe a drop-in filter could have altered the performance of this lens (being a zoom).
There certainly is a reason why the drop-in filter has been dispensed with. Just for $$$ isn't a convincing argument here.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe a drop-in filter could have altered the performance of this lens (being a zoom).
There certainly is a reason why the drop-in filter has been dispensed with. Just for $$$ isn't a convincing argument here.

The focusing lens group is where the drop-in filter would go.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]This lens is also MASSIVE and heavier compared to the old EF Mark II model[...]

The weight of the bare lens is, according to Canon 2650g and the EF300II, according to TDP is 2350g, but with the EF-RF adapter (110g) and a much larger hood (80g?) the weight difference is much less, a 100-ish grams. That does add up when using it all day, though. And like you say, the lens itself is much larger.

With the zoom function only adding a 100-ish grams in total, it makes me wonder what the weight for a prime would have been, I bet far, far lighter than the EF300II.

 

[AlP]

Maybe it was removed to allow the use of the TCs? They do poke into the lens, which is why the 100-500 loses zoom range with them.

There's a developer interview (the pdf can be downloaded at the bottom of the preorder page on usa.canon.com) with this statement:

The drop-in filter was omitted by pursuing a compact size, reduced weight, and an optical design where the lens group is placed close to the mount. As a result, the large diameter of the lens barrel, which was a concern in terms of lens strength, has been removed, and the thinner outer barrel also contributed to further weight reduction.