Agreed more focal length for birds is always useful. Why I also have a 400 mm f2.8 with 2x TC to give 800 mm f5.6 with very good results.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM: What to Expect and When It Might Land
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Of course, Canon has the 200-800 f/6.3-9 for under $2k USD.
Looking at the charts, the Sony is sharper at 800 mm but other focal lengths, it is pretty close. But, my expectation of the 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4TC costing $10k would be much more inline with the resolution of the 100-300 f/2.8 with 1.4TC, which is much better than either of those more consumer friendly lenses.
Upvote
0
Ladies and Gentlemen , I have to admit that I am a "Fred".
Yes, I'm Canon lover, have been since the last century (and I have the T-80 to prove it), but a Sigma lenses lured me to the darkside. The 14 mm f1.4 made me buy a Sony body.
This lense won't lure me back (well, I haven't left, I still mostly use Canon), but for my next trip (Falklands) I'll probably buy the Sigma 300-600 and live with the restricted shutter speed, after all Seals and Penguins aren't that speedy
This apeture of this lense just doesn't work for my feeble old mind, I know that I'm no longer shooting Kodachrome 64, that modern bodies are far more capable of converting low light into great images, but I'm an f stop elitist, f 5.6 doesn't cut it in a lense so expensive.
Yes, I'm Canon lover, have been since the last century (and I have the T-80 to prove it), but a Sigma lenses lured me to the darkside. The 14 mm f1.4 made me buy a Sony body.
This lense won't lure me back (well, I haven't left, I still mostly use Canon), but for my next trip (Falklands) I'll probably buy the Sigma 300-600 and live with the restricted shutter speed, after all Seals and Penguins aren't that speedy
This apeture of this lense just doesn't work for my feeble old mind, I know that I'm no longer shooting Kodachrome 64, that modern bodies are far more capable of converting low light into great images, but I'm an f stop elitist, f 5.6 doesn't cut it in a lense so expensive.
Upvote
0
If this zoom is similar size and weight and quality to the 100-300 f/2.8 then it's pricing will also be similar.
300mm f/5.6 is pretty dark too, I can't see why a constant aperture is popular after all you can set it to a constant aperture in camera, personally I'd prefer at least f/4 at the wide end and 300mm isn't very wide either.
Only a third of a stop faster than Sony's excellent 200-600 and far more expensive so why not make a 200-500mm f/2.8-4 instead as it wouldn't even be much more expensive and it'd be far more compelling and a true replacement for the EF 200-400mm f/4
Rather than make this 300-600mm f/5.6 lens based on the 100-300mm f/2.8 wouldn't it be better to make an RF 100-300mm f/2.8 mark ii with builtin 1.4x and 2x extenders for a 3 in 1 super zoom:
100-300mm f/2.8
140-420mm f/4
200-600mm f/5.6
300mm f/5.6 is pretty dark too, I can't see why a constant aperture is popular after all you can set it to a constant aperture in camera, personally I'd prefer at least f/4 at the wide end and 300mm isn't very wide either.
Only a third of a stop faster than Sony's excellent 200-600 and far more expensive so why not make a 200-500mm f/2.8-4 instead as it wouldn't even be much more expensive and it'd be far more compelling and a true replacement for the EF 200-400mm f/4
Rather than make this 300-600mm f/5.6 lens based on the 100-300mm f/2.8 wouldn't it be better to make an RF 100-300mm f/2.8 mark ii with builtin 1.4x and 2x extenders for a 3 in 1 super zoom:
100-300mm f/2.8
140-420mm f/4
200-600mm f/5.6
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Personally, any lens that is too heavy to hand hold is a an automatic pass, so I am always happy to see a lens that "sacrifices" a faster aperture for less weight. And f/5.6 is plenty fast enough. Canon's strategy appears to be to focus on zoom lenses, in some cases replacing primes, and lower weight. That is a huge plus in my book. A minority opinion on this forum, it appears, but I'm guessing a majority of regular non-"forum sophisticates" will agree. Zooms make it so much easier to get and compose bird and wildlife shots (and presumably sports shots as well). Plus, at the wide end, you get shots that you would miss entirely with a 600mm prime, for instance.
Upvote
0
Maybe Canon has the knowledge that the majority of people used the 200-400 f4 with the 1.4x engaged which would be a 280-560 mm f5.6?? Just a hypothetical question?
Upvote
0
And I often need to zoom out for BIF. This morning, I needed 800mm for far away birds and then 400-500mm for flying ones zooming past, sometimes the same bird. Nice bright day so 200-800mm was great. It's also about as heavy as I can manage to hike with and hand hold for an extended time.
Upvote
0
If it came with a T-90 and a converter I'd be interestedThe EF 1200mm was f/5.6 and resells for over $100k
There's a BNIB Bigma being offered by a reputable dealer in Australia for less than the price of a new (small) car, unfortunately it doesn't include the Gym fees (and steroid costs) to give me the strength to lift it
Upvote
0
Maybe. Probably. I use my Sigma 150-600 at 600 mm most of the time. Birds are small, and most species don't let you get very close.
My guess is that a flip in/out teleconverter is expensive to manufacture, and that they've done away with it for cost savings.
Upvote
0
I have fun with my 200-800mm, too, and like you I use it frequently more in the about 600 (+) mm range. The only reason to change would be for me to have an L zoom that can take a really harsh, rugged environment. In fact, I used already my 200-800 on a stormy sea shore, it survived w/o any problems. But the recent news about broken zooms and that flimsy plastic connection ring in its middle makes me a bit more cautious. This could drive me once to upgrade if I would need a really rugged and reliable pro lens - as I am used to with Canon L glass since many years.
Upvote
0
In my mind I keep going back and forth on this lens. I already own the RF100-300 mm f2.8. I use it for night time sports and with the 2x extender large mammalian wildlife (e.g. Bears in Alaska). I love the flexibility of that lens. Obviously, I would expect a native RF 300-600 mm f5.6 L to AF faster with better image quality than my RF 100-300 mm with the 2x TC . Lastly, with a 1.4x extender I could get out to 840 mm f8.
Will wait and see what the final specifications, price and weight are.
Upvote
0
Sorry to say this: You are old-fashioned. The modern experts are capable of rating camera’s and lenses by their rumored spec’s.Without having seen or tested this lens???
Upvote
0
Similar threads
