Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM: What to Expect and When It Might Land

[roby17269]

I didn´t even think about that. Now, the lens makes even less sense to me. Hmmm, with the 2x extender one gets a lot wider and is more flexible. And if the ominous new extender are really coming, it could even take away the hassle of taking of/ putting on the extender to switch the focal length.

The 2x has a non-trivial impact on image quality, so maybe the 100-300 + 2x would deliver less IQ than a 300-600 naked? and obviously you could use the 2x on the 300-600 to get a 600-1200 f11... If extenders were a free lunch, so to speak, a complete lens system would require less lenses.

But the fabled extender would likely be a 1.4x-2x, not a 1x-somethingX. You cannot not affect the focal length if you add glass and distance between a lens' back element and the camera mount. And I'd be surprised if a more complex extender would not have a worse impact on IQ compared to the current ones

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 2x has a non-trivial impact on image quality, so maybe the 100-300 + 2x would deliver less IQ than a 300-600 naked? and obviously you could use the 2x on the 300-600 to get a 600-1200 f11... If extenders were a free lunch, so to speak, a complete lens system would require less lenses.

Agreed. The 1.4x does very well, the 2x is ok but I'd expect a native 300-600/5.6 to have better IQ.

But the fabled extender would likely be a 1.4x-2x, not a 1x-somethingX. You cannot not affect the focal length if you add glass and distance between a lens' back element and the camera mount. And I'd be surprised if a more complex extender would not have a worse impact on IQ compared to the current ones

A major difference would be that the mythical 1x-1.4x-2x extender would affect IQ at 1x.

 

[frankchn]

Hoping for a new 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC.

I think a supertele prime refresh will come in 2028. They seem to update those every decade or so, and the EF IIIs came out in 2018.

 

[yankiefrankie]

The 2x has a non-trivial impact on image quality, so maybe the 100-300 + 2x would deliver less IQ than a 300-600 naked? and obviously you could use the 2x on the 300-600 to get a 600-1200 f11... If extenders were a free lunch, so to speak, a complete lens system would require less lenses.

But the fabled extender would likely be a 1.4x-2x, not a 1x-somethingX. You cannot not affect the focal length if you add glass and distance between a lens' back element and the camera mount. And I'd be surprised if a more complex extender would not have a worse impact on IQ compared to the current ones

Damn YOU physics!!!

Seriously, this new lens could be a winner if (compared to the 100-300/2.8) it is light and reasonably priced. However, it's hard to justify not getting a 100-300/2.8 instead of this if the latter is just a bit lighter and a bit less expensive.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I guess I can finally start looking for neat used EF200-400

 

[frankchn]

If the build quality and IQ is the same as the 100-300mm f/2.8L, then $8k-$10k sounds about right. If it is a Nikon 180-600/6.3 and Sony 200-600/6.3 competitor but a third of a stop faster, then it should be a lot cheaper.

 

[scyrene]

Funny, a lens like this interests me a lot more than the mythical 200-500. Of course I could never afford either, but adding TCs for 840 f/8 and 1200 f/11 would be excellent imo.

 

[roby17269]

A major difference would be that the mythical 1x-1.4x-2x extender would affect IQ at 1x.

I do not remember the discussion around that one - do you think that the 1x capability would be even feasible? I guess you'd need some glass to counter the extension tube effect?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do not remember the discussion around that one - do you think that the 1x capability would be even feasible? I guess you'd need some glass to counter the extension tube effect?

Remember the old FD-to-EOS adapter? It had minimal optics and was also a 1.26x TC. A 1x is theoretically possible, but a design incorporating that and one other TC would be very complex, and adding a second TC multiplier would be even more so.

The confusion around the mythical 1-1.4-2x TC came from misinterpretation of a Canon patent on a lens mount adapter. The design intent was matching an image circle to a sensor size, and the example was a tube with 2 groups of 2 elements each, one of which slid back and forth in the tube. That's not a teleconverter. But the image showed a slider on the tube labeled 1.0x - 1.5x - 2.0x (yes, 1.5 not 1.4), and that was interpreted as a teleconverter.

Separately, Canon patented a design for a 1.4x-2x switchable TC that was a bona fide TC, basically a 1.4x TC with optics for a second 1.4x TC that could be flipped out of the way.

 

[justaCanonuser]

As we published last month, the long-rumored Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM appears to have been shelved. In its place, sources tell us, Canon is working on a new super-telephoto: the RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM — a professional-grade zoom designed for wildlife and sports photographers who want the very best.

Read The Full Article

Hope this will not be a break-through (right in the middle) like the 200-800

 

[roby17269]

Remember the old FD-to-EOS adapter? It had minimal optics and was also a 1.26x TC. A 1x is theoretically possible, but a design incorporating that and one other TC would be very complex, and adding a second TC multiplier would be even more so.

no I did not know about that . Fascinating but then how would it be possible to have 1x without losing infinity focus?

The confusion around the mythical 1-1.4-2x TC came from misinterpretation of a Canon patent on a lens mount adapter. The design intent was matching an image circle to a sensor size, and the example was a tube with 2 groups of 2 elements each, one of which slid back and forth in the tube. That's not a teleconverter.

I see - yes you are right

Separately, Canon patented a design for a 1.4x-2x switchable TC that was a bona fide TC, basically a 1.4x TC with optics for a second 1.4x TC that could be flipped out of the way.

This one makes much more sense... although it does not solve the biggest issue of extenders in general (i.e. sometimes you need to take them off) - it'd still be useful I guess, assuming the IQ impact of the double 1.4x would be similar to the IQ impact of a single 2x

 

[justaCanonuser]

I checked the Sigma 300-600 f/4 specs. It weighs nearly 4 kg, not a surprise. Personally, I would prefer a much lighter 300-600 and happily accept f/5.6. But I shoot mostly free-hand (more flexible e.g. for BIF), and my EF 600mm f/4 III is my personal limit for longer shootings. Plus, Canon's EF Mk III/ RF MK I version is very well balanced thanks to Canon's latest design that moved most front lens elements backwards to about the middle of the lens (so they also could be made smaller and lighter). I am not sure that a similar design would be possible with a zoom lens, so I guess a f/4 zoom would be much more front-end heavy. But of course that's a matter of taste, most long lens users prefer mono- or tripods,

 

[justaCanonuser]

no I did not know about that . Fascinating but then how would it be possible to have 1x without losing infinity focus?

Canon's FD mount had a 2mm shorter flange focal distance than the EF mount (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance). 2mm for a simple ring adapter would be of course too short. But I guess a thicker ring with an integrated lens allowed to keep infinity focus, that's what Canon's 1.0x design achieved, I am pretty sure (never used this adapter).

 

[AlanF]

I checked the Sigma 300-600 f/4 specs. It weighs nearly 4 kg, not a surprise. Personally, I would prefer a much lighter 300-600 and happily accept f/5.6. But I shoot mostly free-hand (more flexible e.g. for BIF), and my EF 600mm f/4 III is my personal limit for longer shootings. Plus, Canon's EF Mk III/ RF MK I version is very well balanced thanks to Canon's latest design that moved most front lens elements backwards to about the middle of the lens (so they also could be made smaller and lighter). I am not sure that a similar design would be possible with a zoom lens, so I guess a f/4 zoom would be much more front-end heavy. But of course that's a matter of taste, most long lens users prefer mono- or tripods,

Tripods and monopods do get in the way for BIF and so a 4kg lens would not be the first choice for me as well as you. The RF 200-800mm is a really sharp 600mm f/8, and I would stick with that rather than get an RF 300-600mm f/5.6 as by far the most of my shots of birds are at 800mm. The 400-600mm range for me tends to be used for fast BIF.

 

[Del Paso]

If the build quality and IQ is the same as the 100-300mm f/2.8L, then $8k-$10k sounds about right. If it is a Nikon 180-600/6.3 and Sony 200-600/6.3 competitor but a third of a stop faster, then it should be a lot cheaper.

I do expect a very high optical quality, on par with the 100-300. And a high price...

 

[kaihp]

I guess I can finally start looking for neat used EF200-400

There are several for sale here locally, from USD5000 (equivalent) and up.
The lowest priced is from the pro shop, with privateers asking more money.

The pro shop also has an EF 200/2.0 that I'm lusting for, at USD3400.

 

[neuroanatomist]

no I did not know about that . Fascinating but then how would it be possible to have 1x without losing infinity focus?

Easy. Consider mounting a 0.71x focal reducer (aka speedbooster) behind a 1.4x extender. The two would cancel each other out optically, but position the lens several centimeters further away from the body and you’d still have infinity focus.

But combining that with extender functionality alone would be the opposite of easy. Simply flipping out the focal reducer optics would not work, the extender optics would either have to also move (not sure that’s a viable solution) or all of those optics would have to be flipped out of the way and a different set of extender optics (with a different design) would have to flip in.

The upshot is that the Internet saw the first diagram in a patent, ignored the second diagram in that same patent (#9 is the side view of the slider/switch), ignored the practical and technical realities, and embraced magic. A zoom TC with a 1x setting…yes, please!





Here’s the thread where this was discussed and this post in it has a link to the patent.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

This would be an interesting lens for my bird photography. Would really depend on size, weight and cost. I'm currently doing a lot of shooting at 600 f/5.6 in the form of my Sony 300GM and 2xTC. But I'm also doing a good amount of shooting at 300/2.8 and 420/4. Two things you won't be able to do with a fixed f/5.6 from 300-600. After owning the 300GM for just over a year now I checked my LR catalogue and found I used it at 600 50% of the time and then ~25% for each of the two shorter focal lengths.
This lens would have a front element approximately the same size as the 100-300/2.8. The 100-300/2.8 is an overly heavy and expensive lens for what it is. I would really hope Canon could reduce the weight and the cost of a 300-600/5.6 but maybe not.
I have a Test Drive of 100-300/2.8 with both RF TCs and the R1 coming next week from CPS Canada through my Platinum membership. I'm really interested to see if it can take the 2xTC as well as the Sony 300GM does. I'm also excited to try out the R1.
I really like Canon MILCs and owned the R5 and have shot the R5II briefly. But I just haven't found any lenses to really tempt me to invest in the system again. The 100-300 is the only one that has me intrigued so that is why I'm going to test it out.
I'll be watching with interest if this 300-600 comes to fruition. But I would have been more interested in the previously rumoured 200-500 f/4 with TC.

I'm curious, Arbitrage... The Sigma 300-600 would be interesting on your Sony body had it not been for the fps limitation. Is that why your using the 300 and the TCs, or do you think you get better image quality that way?

 

[frankchn]

I'm curious, Arbitrage... The Sigma 300-600 would be interesting on your Sony body had it not been for the fps limitation. Is that why your using the 300 and the TCs, or do you think you get better image quality that way?

The weight and handling is a big detriment to using the Sigma 300-600. You are likely going to use a monopod for the Sigma 300-600/4 (4kg lens), but you can definitely handhold the 300/2.8 GM (1.4kg -- it is the same weight as the old EF 70-200/2.8Ls).

 

[AlanF]

I'm curious, Arbitrage... The Sigma 300-600 would be interesting on your Sony body had it not been for the fps limitation. Is that why your using the 300 and the TCs, or do you think you get better image quality that way?

@arbitrage is a BIF whizz. The Sigma 300-600 is 4kg behemoth which is highly unsuitable for catching small fast birds for which the very light Sony 300mm +/- extenders is very well suited.