Is A Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM The New Big Zoom That’s Coming?

[Bob Howland]

Frankly, I am not quite sure I understand this lens. If the 300-600 mm f5.6 L becomes reality I suspect a similar price to the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L.

I own the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L and have used it extensively with the 2x TC with excellent results. Unless the new lens is vastly superior I would be hard pressed to buy

I love the idea of the 100-300 f/2.8 but not the price. I very much want Sigma to introduce an updated version of their 120-300 f/2.8 for $4000 to go with the 300-600 f/4. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't be available in RF mount.

 

[john1970]

Or could it be one of the 300-600 mm lenses in this patent

Canon Patent Application: Some Amazing Super Telephoto optical designs

In this patent application (2024-101302), Canon discusses some unique telephoto lenses. Most of the lenses in here would be eye-watering priced, so hold onto y

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Exploreshootshare]

But if true, weight and size o.k., I could sell the 100-500 and replace it with the 300-600...

I´m curious: Why would you want to do that? You'd lose 200mm on the wide end and you can easily crop from 500mm to 600mm. So, what's the point or what is your intention in switching those two lenses?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

When paired with the 100-300mm this lens could make a lot of sense. Looking at the lens separately, especially at the focal length, the lens seems kind of odd to me. You're missing quite a lot on the wide end and at the same time it doesn't give one an extensive telezoom reach. I kind of like what Sony did with the 400-800mm. Skip the wide end/ wide telephoto part altogether and give it extra reach. I´d go that way.

 

[mpmark]

Quote"and a lot of people simply don’t want to pay $10,000+ for a lens like the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM."

I must be weird to own one lol

 

[digigal]

Frankly, I am not quite sure I understand this lens. If the 300-600 mm f5.6 L becomes reality I suspect a similar price to the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L.

I own the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L and have used it extensively with the 2x TC with excellent results. Unless the new lens is vastly superior I would be hard pressed to buy.

Completely agree with you. Unless there's a big price difference or weight difference, the benefit to owning the RF 100-300 +/- the 2x extender is enormous.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Just have this out ASAP so someday the Sigma 300-600 is available in RF....

 

[LuckyOne]

Make it a 200-600 f4.5 to f5.6 L internal zoom lens for $5,000, weighing around 2.75 kg up to 3kg, and I would buy it on the day that it was announced.

I want something faster than my 100-500 that is cheaper than the 100-300 f2.8 or the 600 f4.

I am just a hobbyist with some, but not unlimited, resources. I don't want a 100 mm gap between my 70-200 and the max focal length of 600.

The difference between f7.1 at 500 m and f5.6 at 600 mm is probably something like 15 minutes after sunrise and before sunset on safari which is the gap that I would like to close. The extra 100 mm in reach would also be appreciated.

I am just one consumer and my wishes are irrelevant to Canon's strategy but I really feel that Canon has a big gap between $2,000 wildlife lenses and $10,000 to $15,000 wildlife lenses.

I love my Canon cameras and I am not going to switch but Nikon and Sony both have a broader range of lenses for wildlife photographers. I wish that Canon would catch up.

 

[john1970]

I love the idea of the 100-300 f/2.8 but not the price. I very much want Sigma to introduce an updated version of their 120-300 f/2.8 for $4000 to go with the 300-600 f/4. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't be available in RF mount.

The RF 100-300 mm f2.8 is an expensive lens. I also wished the Sigma 300-600 mm f4 was available in the RF mount.

 

[Navism]

If Canon can have 100-300 2.8, they can make 200-600mm f5.6 easily.
Just make 100-300 f2.8 build-in 2x.

The other question is why Canon doesn't want to release 35mm f1.2, 70-150mm f2 or 200-500mm f4?
It seems Canon doesn't want to make a big and expensive in these few years.
All f1.4 lens are small and light.

 

[Mothernature]

The problem with Canon and Canon Rumours is that they don’t deliver. Very tired of waiting … time to enjoy Nikon’s and or Sony’s latest releases addressing needs and wants of wildlife photographers. The recent releases of Canon in that regards are either underwhelming or loaded with bugs and problems.

 

[SonicStudios]

Lens Weight? Sorry folks, IMO, If this is your concern, get back to a gym. The 200-500 F4 would be amazing. REALLY good Monopods and Tripods in the field, for these type of lens, is always the better choice. IMO Canons niche has always been their lens and as far as Canon’s glass, they have always been THE LEADER in producing incredible lower F stop lens. Canon’s amazing lower F stop glass is why I got into Canon’s ECO system, and as far as cost concerns for something like the 200 - 500 F4, Really? IMO, that train left the station a long time ago!!!

 

[DhlcadR6]

The problem with Canon and Canon Rumours is that they don’t deliver. Very tired of waiting … time to enjoy Nikon’s and or Sony’s latest releases addressing needs and wants of wildlife photographers. The recent releases of Canon in that regards are either underwhelming or loaded with bugs and problems.

The problem with Trolls and self-claimed hybrid/landscape/wildlife shooters is that they don’t touch some grass. Very tired of seeing them around here/dpreview/youtube comments… time to go out shooting with the FD-EF-EFM-RF, which has all the focal lengths needed for all kinds of photographers. The recent releases of Nikon are either underwhelming(Z50ii) or 2+ years late(Z5ii). And for Sony they are lame(ZVE-10ii a1ii) or just follow the concept of Canon/3rd party lens manufacturers(28-70, 16/1.8, 400-800).

 

[Del Paso]

I´m curious: Why would you want to do that? You'd lose 200mm on the wide end and you can easily crop from 500mm to 600mm. So, what's the point or what is your intention in switching those two lenses?

1: I almost always have a 70-200 on one camera when travelling, the 15-35 on the second one
2: I noticed that I rarely used focals between 200 and 300
3: 600 mm instead of 500 mm, and, when using 1,4 X extender, f/8....
But it is just an idea that still needs "ripening" in my little GAS driven brain.

 

[EricN]

Nobody said, "Canon 5.6 is too slow, but Nikon 6.3 exactly what I need," yet?

 

[EricN]

1: I almost always have a 70-200 on one camera when travelling, the 15-35 on the second one
2: I noticed that I rarely used focals between 200 and 300
3: 600 mm instead of 500 mm, and, when using 1,4 X extender, f/8....
But it is just an idea that still needs "ripening" in my little GAS driven brain.

Slightly faster and the extra 100mm doesn't sound like a negative thing, either. Weight and cost must be the only disadvantage.

 

[AlanF]

Lens Weight? Sorry folks, IMO, If this is your concern, get back to a gym. The 200-500 F4 would be amazing. REALLY good Monopods and Tripods in the field, for these type of lens, is always the better choice. IMO Canons niche has always been their lens and as far as Canon’s glass, they have always been THE LEADER in producing incredible lower F stop lens. Canon’s amazing lower F stop glass is why I got into Canon’s ECO system, and as far as cost concerns for something like the 200 - 500 F4, Really? IMO, that train left the station a long time ago!!!

If you are doing birds in flight or other fast moving small creatures, tripods and monopods are certainly not always the better choice in the field - they restrict the angles you can rapidly reach or even reach. You are free to choose whatever is best for you but for others lightness and the ability to move quickly and freely is paramount. If you want to go to the gym just to heave a lens around or spend on a lens what is 6 months earnings for some, then bully for you.

 

[EricN]

If you are doing birds in flight or other fast moving small creatures, tripods and monopods are certainly not always the better choice in the field - they restrict the angles you can rapidly reach or even reach. You are free to choose whatever is best for you but for others lightness and the ability to move quickly and freely is paramount. If you want to go to the gym just to heave a lens around or spend on a lens what is 6 months earnings for some, then bully for you.

I once decided to try using a tripod for birds during blue hour. A complete waste of time. As you said, angles were limited.

 

[SteB1]

It'd be an interesting lens, but not if it was ridiculously expensive and heavy. Really, Canon should be aiming for something like the Nikon Z 600mm f6.3 PF. A lens very much envied by Canon using wildlife photographers.

 

[john1970]

Lens Weight? Sorry folks, IMO, If this is your concern, get back to a gym. The 200-500 F4 would be amazing. REALLY good Monopods and Tripods in the field, for these type of lens, is always the better choice. IMO Canons niche has always been their lens and as far as Canon’s glass, they have always been THE LEADER in producing incredible lower F stop lens. Canon’s amazing lower F stop glass is why I got into Canon’s ECO system, and as far as cost concerns for something like the 200 - 500 F4, Really? IMO, that train left the station a long time ago!!!

Agreed. I am still hopeful that Canon releases the 200-500 mm f4 lens, but at this stage no one really knows. Maybe we get both a RF 200-500 mm f4 and a 300-600 mm f5.6?