Yes, but those are 'not-so-big' white lenses.
I like the extending zoom on my RF 70-200/2.8, and would be fine with an extending 100-300/2.8 especially with a built-in 1.4x.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I like the extending zoom on my RF 70-200/2.8, and would be fine with an extending 100-300/2.8 especially with a built-in 1.4x.
With my 100-500, I have the zoom on the loosest setting, and usually trombone it rather than twist the ring, as I find it easier to keep the subject centred that way.
I can see valid arguments for internal zooms and for extending types, and I wonder if it would have been possible to use a TC all the way down to 100mm if Canon had adopted an internal zoom design.
Upvote
0
The RF 70-200/2.8 is my favourite major-change lens. To me, the size and weight difference over the EF is very real, and well-worth the telescoping action. Probably the RF70-200/4 is a huge improvement in usability too, but I've never shot with it.
I like it even better than the RF100-500 vs the EF100-400.
Upvote
0
Truly glorious if I could afford it and if my arms were strong enough to hand hold it for extended periods. I'm pretty happy with the RF100-500mm, although I have to stretch the ISO further than I'd like when the light is poor, as it often is when photographing wildlife.It would be amazing if this lens worked unimpeded with the RF 1.4 extender. Ten we'd have a 140-420/f4. How glorious that would be
Upvote
0
Precisely, the 70-200, 100-500, etc... are great, but those are small (cost and size) compared to the real superteles.
I think this would be similar in design and weight (hopefully a bit lighter) to the Nikon 120-300 f/2.8G
Upvote
0
I can't imagine that it won't be compatible with the extenders. having the ability to create a 200-600 f/5.6 with the 2x extender sounds pretty decent to me as well.It would be amazing if this lens worked unimpeded with the RF 1.4 extender. Ten we'd have a 140-420/f4. How glorious that would be
Upvote
0
Not too surprised by cost. I was excited at first, but after thinking about, it really isn't too much different than having a 70-200 f2.8. Would be more excited about a 100-400 f2.8.
Upvote
0
I think that there would be a lot of disappointment/criticism if extenders couldn't be used.
That said, Canon has weathered that storm before and it prompted me to get the RF100-500mm vs the extenders I used with the EF70-200mm in the past. I haven't been disappointed with my decision so Canon increased their revenue from me
If Canon had the choice of collapsible/shorter lens (rear elements closer to the sensor) vs using extenders then hopefully the latter would prevail.
I believe that users would prefer a longer lens that takes extenders than a shorter/collapsible lens that couldn't. A built-in 1.4TC would be lush
That said, Canon has weathered that storm before and it prompted me to get the RF100-500mm vs the extenders I used with the EF70-200mm in the past. I haven't been disappointed with my decision so Canon increased their revenue from me
If Canon had the choice of collapsible/shorter lens (rear elements closer to the sensor) vs using extenders then hopefully the latter would prevail.
I believe that users would prefer a longer lens that takes extenders than a shorter/collapsible lens that couldn't. A built-in 1.4TC would be lush
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think it would be an internal focus model. The space savings of a collapsible 100-300 would be at best 10-12cm, and having to manual rack that big 130mm front end would be a lot of weight to shift on the zoom rails, making it easier to break; not to mention less robust weather resistance.
A built in 1.4x TC would be ideal, but seeing how the name and price seems set, it doesn't look like that will be in the cards.
A built in 1.4x TC would be ideal, but seeing how the name and price seems set, it doesn't look like that will be in the cards.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
At $9,500 It's out of my league. Kind of glad I've retired, I would have really loved having this lens for indoor sports and been frustrated by the cost. I do wonder about the extender compatibility. There will be lots of whining if it either isn't compatible with extenders or if they pull a 100-500 RF on us and limit the range of the zoom.
Upvote
0
Yea, somethings not right here ... 10,000 for a RF 300 Zoom ... HUH? I'm would just go 1 grand up for the RF 400 PRIME and drop the Mic.
Upvote
0
The price makes sense if there’s a built-in 1.4x TC. The 200-400/4 + 1.4x is $11K.
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
Similar threads
