Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Really great option, much more versatile compared to the 2.8 300 because of the 3x zoom ratio. If it is compact (e.g. size of current 2.8 300) and has a good closeup functionality (say 1:3 @ 300mm) ... I will buy one if I really need one and inflation hasn't eaten up my money.
Upvote
0
These are made from fibers woven by pink japanese cats during moonlight and glued together with resin made of fully organic grown plants during new moon.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Just to reinforce Neuro's point with some perspective.
People get a wrong idea about professional photography in general and sports photography in particular because they judge it by looking at elite sidelines photographers on television.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Median Pay for Photographers in 2021 was $38,950 annually/$18.73 per hour.
There are less than 100 teams in the NBA, MLB, and NBA combined. There are about 350 Division I schools in the NCAA. Of course there are other professional sports as well, but it's still not that large of a pool for elite sports photographers to draw from and most of these sports photographers cover more than one sport and more than one team.
On the other hand, there are about 4,000 colleges and 27,000 high schools in the U.S. Photographers serving these schools (either as freelancers, contract photographers or local newspaper photographers) represent the largest pool of photographers by far, and most of these photographers are buying their own equipment and earning closer to that median pay.
My point is simply this: Neuro is correct, the main market for high margin products is not professionals, it is affluent enthusiasts who don't have to pay for their equipment out of earnings and don't have to justify their expenses to anyone other than themselves and maybe their significant other.
Upvote
0
At least it comes with the lens. Canon charges $30-60 for the hoods that don’t come with non-L lenses. Those are just plastic (not even flocked), whereas the supertele hoods are carbon fiber.
Upvote
0
All carbon fiber lens hoods are extremely expensive, regardless of the brand. I am not saying they are not overpriced, but that is the market value.
Nikon HK-43
Canon ET-160
Sony ALC-SH155
Upvote
0
Actually, while I humorously agree with your post about the construction methods, in reality, I believe that Canon's top management has been taken over by "Bean Counters". Much as a number of American High Tech firms that died as they moved from Engineers to Bean Counters, Canon is looking solely at profit margin and doesn't care about who can and cannot afford their lenses. In a similar manner, they "say" that they are open to licensing the RF mount to other lens manufacturers, probably true... but what they don't say is they want $1000 per lens in a licensing fees to maintain keep the competitor's prices high and thus minimally hurt their sales and profit margins.
Upvote
0
This corroborates my own observations during my last visit to Yellowstone and other National Parks. About everybody using a big white I spoke to was an amateur. And I did speak to a lot of photographers owning (or maybe renting) from EF 300 to 800mm lenses or 200-400 zooms.
Upvote
0
Canon wanting $1000 licensing fee per lens is, I'm sorry, a most silly statement.
Or I might call it an invention...by a frustrated troll.
Welcome to fantasy world!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course they don't "care" who can and can't afford their lenses, they are a business and their primary objective is to put money in the pockets of their staff and their shareholders. This is a capitalist world.
Canon has no problem selling every lens they make, and are barely able to keep up with demand.
They are largely pitching themselves at the higher "prestige" end of the market, as that's where the money is.
They also produce an excellent range of budget lenses and cheaper bodies to entice people into the system.
There are literally millions of mint EF lenses out there that work flawlessly on RF bodies.
Nevertheless, like most people, I look forward to the time when Tamron and Sigma start producing RF lenses and filling a few of the more niche gaps not covered natively by Canon RF.
Upvote
0
Took the words off my keyboard....Holy moly, this would be absolutely game changing...for your wallet.
Upvote
0
I was replying to swkitt. Yeah of course 100-500mm is lighter, but it is not really comparable, is it? I also own the 100-500mm, but that is quite a different lens and the 100-300 2,8 will not replace mine, since I use it for a different purpouse. Hopefully it will replace the 70-200 2,8 and EF 400mm DO.
Upvote
0
Canon, along with Sony and Nikon and probably everybody else. I understand that people want a $10,000 lens to cost under $2000. I assume that people would like a $75,000 Car to cost the same as a Toyota Corolla, too, but when it comes to most luxery items, people accept that some things will be very expensive and not affordable to the vast majority of people. Why people don't understand this obvious reality when it comes to photo equipment is rather curious. It takes little research to see that it is not just a "Canon thing."
Sony 600mm f/4 $12,998 US
Nikon Z 600mm f/4 $15,496 US
Sony 400mm f/2.8 $11,998 US
Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 13,996 US
People whine and complain about the price of the Canon RF 100-500mm zoom, and yet the Sony and Nikon 100-400mm zooms are priced comparably ( a couple hundred dollars less) and have a smaller zoom range. Yes, top quality lenses are expensive, but there are very legitimate alternatives. As entoman mentioned a few posts earlier:
"They also produce an excellent range of budget lenses and cheaper bodies to entice people into the system.
There are literally millions of mint EF lenses out there that work flawlessly on RF bodies."
And, of course, a top quality lens may last a lifetime, if you are not a "gear-head" that needs to replace their lenses with each new generation.
So whine if you want to look like a fool.
Upvote
0
The poor man's version of this lens is a 70-200 on an APS-C body.
With a 1.6 crop factor, that's 112-320.
With a 1.6 crop factor, that's 112-320.
Upvote
0
The Sony equivalent of the RF 100-500mm is their excellent 200-600mm, f/6.3 at the long end. In the UK it is £1600 compared with £3000 for the RF. In the US the pricing is quite different, $2000 vs $2600. Just goes to show Canon will gouge the market for what it thinks it can bear. And Sony, but Canon has got bad in the UK.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No I didn't forget - I could hardly forget that lens as it was my main telephoto for a couple of years as I had posted here only yesterday!
I replied to the comment that the RF 800 and RF 1200 were darned sharp, which was the subject of the post as they had welded-on custom 2xTCs, and it was about whether 2x TCs degraded IQ and whether a custom designed one would be better. If you are interested, this is what the EF 2xTCIII does to the EF 300mm f/2.8 II.
Upvote
0
You are right, not only did he completely misread my post he also posted the wrong chart. Here is the correct one.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
