Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon

[Chaitanya]

Guessing marketing told them to merge (2) long overdue needs; to counter the Sigma and Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 and to upgrade the 13 year old EF 300mm f/2.8 II design. The price just means there will be a high expectation on sharpness and focus performance. Fingers crossed Canon stopped the external zoom nonsense with the RF 70-200 f/2,8

Canon will still have dedicated 300mm f2.8 but maybe they have postponed till release of R1 just before Olympics next year.

 

[vignes]

I was expecting the price nearer to RF 400mm... no surprise.
But is the hood and cap price is for spare list. I would expect the lens to come with hood and cap.

 

[SnowMiku]

I was expecting the price nearer to RF 400mm... no surprise.
But is the hood and cap price is for spare list. I would expect the lens to come with hood and cap.

To my knowledge all L lenses include the lens caps, hood and case/pouch.


I would like to have this lens but it's a bit out of my price range haha.

 

[john1970]

Yawn. Even if this isn't another false lead - and that is highly probable given the track record lately - it is not one I would jump on. The 300 f/2.8 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and it is unlikely a 100-300 could rival it. The zoom range is not all that practical for sports/WL except with limited applications. At $10k, I'd pass. Where is the lightweight, compact 500 f/4.5 DO?

You bring up a good point on the once rumored 500 mm f4.5 DO lens. I would buy such a lens in a heart beat. Maybe Canon is going to release it in parallel with the 100-300 mm f2.8? That would be a pleasant surprise. Honestly, at this stage I just want to see a modern and lightweight RF 500 mm f4-f4.5 lens DO or not.

 

[koenkooi]

To my knowledge all L lenses include the lens caps, hood and case.[...]

'Case' is stretching it a bit, the black L lenses tend to get a pouch.

 

[swkitt]

I don't think this pricetag is valid, unless it has a built-in extender.

 

[David - Sydney]

To my knowledge all L lenses include the lens caps, hood and case.

I think all the lenses come with a lens "cap" for both ends but the lens hood is a different story

 

[SnowMiku]

I think all the lenses come with a lens "cap" for both ends but the lens hood is a different story

Yes all of my lenses have at least had the front and rear lens cap included.

 

[AlanF]

Problem for me with built-in extenders is that I for most of the time I would use the 300mm at 420mm and, whatever is said, extenders do slightly degrade IQ. So, I would prefer a 140-400mm f/4 lens that was optimised optically for 400mm and would have a built-in 0.71x speed booster to lower to 100mm at the wide angle.

 

[The74]

Love the specs on this, but at nearly $10k, more if you buy a hood, you gotta ask yourself, is this why Canon banned 3rd party lenses, to make it inevitable that, even with godly specs, they can charge ungodly prices?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Love the specs on this, but at nearly $10k, more if you buy a hood, you gotta ask yourself, is this why Canon banned 3rd party lenses, to make it inevitable that, even with godly specs, they can charge ungodly prices?

Just to be clear, a hood will come with the lens. The hood price is the cost of a replacement hood, if you damage/lose the one that comes with the lens. Same with the case.

 

[JTM-77]

Repeating myself, but...

View attachment 208422

Yeah right and you have $9500 laying around then the hood etc come on mate.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah right and you have $9500 laying around then the hood etc come on mate.

How many times does it need to be said that the hood will be included, as it is with all L-series lenses? Canon sells replacement hoods for L-series lenses, because sh!t happens. If I ever need one for my 600/4 II, it will cost $700.

Not that it's your business, but my 'gear fund' bank account balance is more than sufficient to cover the $9.5K cost if accurate (even after the balance dips by $2K from my unfulfilled preorders for the EL-5 and R8). I'm fortunate that money is not much of a limiting factor for my purchases, as is evident from my gear list (which I'll need to update at some point, since I've sold the 1D X and EOS R, and bought an RF 100-400, RF 24/1.8 and a Vixia HF G60 camcorder since the last update; I also just bought an underwater photo/lighting setup for diving so perhaps I'll add that).

 

[mpmark]

EF traditionally had both types of zoom operation.

All of the big white RF models so far are extending zooms:

RF 70-200/2.8
RF 70-200/4
RF 100-500/4.5-7.1

It's certainly possible that internal zooming models could be launched (personally I prefer internal zoom and internal focus), but the trend is definitely towards extending zooms. Time will tell.

I definitely believe that a 200-500 with built-in TC is on the cards, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Canon go one better, and bang out a 200-600 with built-in TC, as it would appeal strongly to bird photographers - and there are *plenty* of them with enough money and enthusiasm to fork out whatever such a lens would cost.

Firstly, all these lenses you mention are NOT Big Whites, NON of the "big whites" have ever had external zoom, 200-400 has internal, rest are primes. Non of the lenses you mentioned are considered "big whites"

 

[EOS]

Dear Canon: I asked for lighter lenses, not a lighter wallet. LOL

 

[entoman]

Firstly, all these lenses you mention are NOT Big Whites, NON of the "big whites" have ever had external zoom, 200-400 has internal, rest are primes. Non of the lenses you mentioned are considered "big whites"

 

[GAOP]

Yeah right and you have $9500 laying around then the hood etc come on mate.

The "Big Whites" are designed more for the full time pros than the weekend hobbyist. It's like farmers who buying a 1/2 million dollar John Deere combine, maybe even buying more than one; It all depends on your business model. If you're a hobbyist, it's a lot of money. If you've 6 figures in annual photo sales, not so much. I usually setup with a 70-200, 300, 200-400, and 400 along with a pair of bodies. It gives customers gear envy until I tell them every year I have to sit with my eye against the viewfinder for over 1,000 hours, capturing and processing 1.5 million images to justify buying for all that glass. Most quickly "nope" out of the "I'm so envious" conversation upon hearing the work involved in paying for them.

 

[SonicStudios]

The price makes sense if there’s a built-in 1.4x TC. The 200-400/4 + 1.4x is $11K.

Ah, very cool, I'm starting to hear allot about the 200-400, did not realize how nice that lens was, so now I'm ready to pre-order the 100-300. Seems like from all the FB and Rumor comments that L verses a P at this level is not a concern surrounding sharpness.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The "Big Whites" are designed more for the full time pros than the weekend hobbyist. If you're a hobbyist, it's a lot of money. If you've 6 figures in annual photo sales, not so much.

I usually setup with a 70-200, 300, 200-400, and 400 along with a pair of bodies. It gives customers gear envy until I tell them every year I have to sit with my eye against the viewfinder for over 1,000 hours, capturing and processing 1.5 million images to justify buying for all that glass.

I think the market is changing. If you have $100K in photo sales per year, does it make sense to spend 10% of that on one lens? News agencies used to be major consumers of great whites, but those agencies have been contracting dramatically for several years.

Judging by the language Canon, Sony and Nikon use in their financial reporting, enthusiasts are becoming much more important for driving sales of high-margin products. Affluent enthusiasts don't have to justify an ROI for their gear purchases, to them it's disposable income.

FWIW, there are around 250,000 photography businesses in the US, and there are over 2.5 million households in the US that earn >$400K per year.

 

[Czardoom]

Love the specs on this, but at nearly $10k, more if you buy a hood, you gotta ask yourself, is this why Canon banned 3rd party lenses, to make it inevitable that, even with godly specs, they can charge ungodly prices?

Canon has never said anyhting about banning 3rd party lenses. They merely stopped 3rd parties from violating their patents. They did say they will look at negotiating licensing agreements with 3rd parties on a case by case basis.