Canon RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Coming Shortly

[Exploreshootshare]

I do like that the R8 has no IBIS because it removes wobble and makes the camera less prone to mechanical failure in that regard.

Good point. When I was at the photokina in cologne in 2019, I had several people tell me that one of the most common reason why Sony camera have to get repaired, were broken IBIS units. A couple of mechanics even provided some stats/ numbers, but I honestly can't recall them.

Since the R8 isn't as rugged and sturdy built as some other cameras in the line-up, I´d actually appreciate it not having IBIS. One less thing to worry about.

 

[deebatman316]

No, I was talking about the hamster-driven wheel (HDW) focus motor. Sadly, you seem unaware of that critically important and innovative development by Canon. Your implication is that HDW motors were used only in cheap lenses, but that’s wrong. They were used in select L-series lenses as well.

I suspect they were phased out because of the difficulty when HDW lenses were sent in for service of noisy focusing issues. Here’s an image from the Canon Technical Repair Manual for the 70-200L, demonstrating the proper way to lure the hamster out of the lens so hamster-safe lubricant could be applied to the wheel.

View attachment 223647

Canon had a few L lenses that used Arc Form Drive. Those were the EF 20-35mm F/2.8L, EF 50-200mm F/3.5-4.5L, EF 100-300mm F/5.6L & EF 80-200mm F/2.8L lenses. Canon has NEVER used Micro Motor in an L lens. They either used Arc Form Drive or USM AF motors in the EF Mount. Now in the RF Mount we've seen STM & VCM AF motors in L lenses. The real reason Arc Form Drive was phased out was because the lens was LIMITED to 3-4 fps in Servo AF. This is because the AF & Aperture control happen sequentially instead of at the same time. Micro Motor didn't have any of these limitations and many of these lenses added a focus distance encoder for E-TTL. NO Arc Form Drive lens ever had a focus distance encoder for E-TTL.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon had a few L lenses that used Arc Form Drive. Those were the EF 20-35mm F/2.8L, EF 50-200mm F/3.5-4.5L, EF 100-300mm F/5.6L & EF 80-200mm F/2.8L lenses. Canon has NEVER used Micro Motor in an L lens. They either used Arc Form Drive or USM AF motors in the EF Mount. Now in the RF Mount we've seen STM & VCM AF motors in L lenses. The real reason Arc Form Drive was phased out was because the lens was LIMITED to 3-4 fps in Servo AF. This is because the AF & Aperture control happen sequentially instead of at the same time. Micro Motor didn't have any of these limitations and many of these lenses added a focus distance encoder for E-TTL. NO Arc Form Drive lens ever had a focus distance encoder for E-TTL.

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that apparently Generative AI gets the joke but a human doesn't...



(But 'well-known within the Canon community'? )

 

[deebatman316]

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that apparently Generative AI gets the joke but a human doesn't...

View attachment 223659

(But 'well-known within the Canon community'? )

In the Canon Rumors website but not Canon Community. I also use Canon Community and never heard it used there before.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In the Canon Rumors website but not Canon Community. I also use Canon Community and never heard it used there before.

I coined the term in this very thread. Yesterday.



In furtherance of humorless pedantry, I will point out that Google’s AI did not capitalize the word community in ‘Canon community’, so it was not referring to the forums hosted on Canon’s website, but rather the broader community of Canon users.

 

[David - Sydney]

It is almost laughable to read the comments from such sophisticated camera enthusiasts! No IS, so it will be almost impossible for people to get decent results!! Yes, I guess the millions of photos taken before IS was even a thing were all crap. Do all you sophisticates even know how to take a photo with a lens without IS? Not really hard. And, yes, this is the cheapest consumer zoom, but I used one for years and have photos I sold using it. I recall renting the mark I version of the EF 70-300 (non-L) and taking comparison shots with the 75-300...and there was not much difference, so I didn't buy the 70-300. What is most amazing to me is how many people are totally ignorant about what most people can afford, and how any lens can take excellent shots. If sharpness is your only criteria, then good for you. Have fun, but don't pretend you know what photography is about for many, if not most people.

I believe that users have a higher expectation of keeper rate and quality of images than has been in the past. Of course it was quite possible to get good results from a skilled user.
I can't imagine a beginner doing a comparison between 2 lenses for instance. Few countries actually have a reasonable lens rental market... only the US/Canada as far as I know and the lens isn't being released there. A beginner is not likely to know about rental options in any case.

Mobile phones do an amazing job of sharp(ish) images in low light and hand held through computational algorithms. The same can't be said for a MILC setup without IS at 300mm.
The one thing that is significantly better now is the high ISO performance of sensors but it will need post processing to reduce noise. Beginners are likely to use jpgs straight out of the camera.

 

[scyrene]

No wonder that there was no leak/rumour in advance!
The big question is whether the super cheap lens will encourage beginners to upgrade or leave the whole system on the shelf with a poor impression of MILCs.
Without IS, it is unlikely to get a good keeper rate at 300mm though

Depends on the person, I expect. My second lens was a Tamron, something like 70-300 without IS and it was bad, but it pushed me to go further, to upgrade and chase better images (of birds especially). At least current bodies have better high ISO to allow faster shutter speeds, I was shooting on a 300D with that.

 

[deebatman316]

I coined the term in this very thread. Yesterday.

View attachment 223661

In furtherance of humorless pedantry, I will point out that Google’s AI did not capitalize the word community in ‘Canon community’, so it was not referring to the forums hosted on Canon’s website, but rather the broader community of Canon users.

I see Neuro, it was just a broad term meaning a forum with users who use Canon cameras.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Sales at 1499 Yuan in China mainland.
Equal to about 200 USD.
Too cheap to refuse.
As a comparison, RF 100-400 USM usually sales at 4500 Yuan (about 600USD).
Not just half, but one third the price.

But RF100-400 does have 3times the performance of this fossil. 5.5 stops IS, nano USM, 300~400mm.....

 

[Surab]

Since the R8 isn't as rugged and sturdy built as some other cameras in the line-up, I´d actually appreciate it not having IBIS. One less thing to worry about.

I consider it to be a very intriguing addition to my R6II as an always on me camera which might be take more hits and shakes in the day bag, hence no IBIS sounds decent (particularly when Canon doesn't park them in place). I still have to pull the trigger though, but adding a second body is still difficult to justify for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But RF100-400 does have 3times the performance of this fossil. 5.5 stops IS, nano USM, 300~400mm.....

The attitude seems to be that the RF 100-400 is 'not much more expensive' than the RF 75-300. That might be your perspective, but it has a 2-3x higher cost and that makes a big difference to many people.

Compared to the RF 100-400, the RF 100-500L has better IQ, faster aperture, Dual Nano USM, 400-500mm... From my perspective, I would say that the RF 100-500 is 'not much more expensive' than the RF 100-400 because the 4x higher cost doesn't make a big difference to me. You and other people may feel differently.

The key point here is that the target market for the RF 75-300 has very little overlap with people who post in these forums.

 

[Jethro]

The key point here is that the target market for the RF 75-300 has very little overlap with people who post in these forums.

Is it also likely to be a kit lens? Maybe in the multi-lens kit versions?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it also likely to be a kit lens? Maybe in the multi-lens kit versions?

I suspect that’s the primary intent for the lens, to make the lowest priced two-lens kit feasible. Reusing this lens makes that possible at an increased profit margin.

 

[mpb001]

I think it's a horrible idea not to include IBIS in this lens given the target use which is most likely R8 users. It's a 75-300 lens!

 

[David - Sydney]

I think it's a horrible idea not to include IBIS in this lens given the target use which is most likely R8 users. It's a 75-300 lens!

IBIS won't be as much help at longer focal lengths compared to lens IS. IBIS is more effective for wider angles. Both is best of course!
Clearly the lens is for the lowest cost to hit a price point in the market replacing "rebel" level kits in the past.

 

[koenkooi]

IBIS won't be as much help at longer focal lengths compared to lens IS. IBIS is more effective for wider angles. Both is best of course!
Clearly the lens is for the lowest cost to hit a price point in the market replacing "rebel" level kits in the past.

From context, I think the poster meant 'ILIS' and you both are actually in agreement

 

[WoodyWindy]

Although a correction has been pointed out multiple times in the comments, the main article still calls the DC motor a \"new\" thing. That really should be updated. Canon uses the exact same terminology to describe the motor in the old 75-300 III it has been selling forever.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I don’t hear the mouse squeaking

Perhaps this is in fact an updated DC motor

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-75-300mm-f4-5-6/

It’s definitely being aimed at the lower end camera models.
No control ring by the way.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps this is in fact an updated DC motor

I doubt it. This is Canon, remember?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I suspect that’s the primary intent for the lens, to make the lowest priced two-lens kit feasible. Reusing this lens makes that possible at an increased profit margin.

Just to put some numbers on this, a kit with a Rebel T7/2000D, EF-S 18-55 and EF 75-300 costs $600. The 75-300 in the 2-lens kit adds $120 to the price of the T7 kit with just the 18-55.