It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced

[LSXPhotog]

Just looked at your site, and you have excellent work. I especially appreciated your opening image from turn one at Sebring at dusk. I was the track photographer for the 12 hour race in 2016, and I know that image is so important. I am curious about your usage of a CPL filter with cars, especially panning. As a car passes by your position, the reflections move about, plus with the use of multiple tear off front windshield screens on most race cars, they can create additional problems. I have found opening up these areas of the car in post works pretty well. Lastly, using a CPL on a stationary car, reveals too much of the interior (roll cage, etc) which I find distracting. This new lens is primarily designed for indoor sports, and it will have great sales just for that. BTW, for the 1960 Olympics in Toyko, Nikon produced a handful of 300mm F2.0 lenses. I can't imagine shooting with that manual focus monster and pushing ISO 400 film as well.

Thank you for the kind words, that image in particular has landed me several jobs and actual lead to my current position working with an off road team whose driver used to race a road race car - long story there, but it all started with that photo being seen by the road race team owner.

But you bring up an incredibly important fact about using a CPL shooting racing. It needs to be turned often depending on the angle of the shot you're trying to capture. I enter a corner and watch the behavior of the cars to see the shot I want and position myself accordingly. Tracking the cars I make the slight rotation of the CPL to get the look down the side or the front of the car (depending on the time of day). Having quick and easy access to a rear CPL and being able to rotate it easily is wonderful. The new lens design would require me to loosen and remove the hood every time I need to do this. (the window on the 70-200/100-500 is very useful!)

I take it that you are not a fan of CPLs? haha For stationary cars I typically composite because of my lighting technique. I will rotate the CPL for the windshield for one shot and rotate for the side of the car for the remaining shots. The goal is to eliminate reflections or bring out the most desired crisp horizon line. Being able to remove reflections when and where you want is important when you're essentially shooting a reflective surface.

I see that Canon is now describing this lens as an indoor sports lens on their website. That's a major bummer for me. Having a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6 in one lens has proven to be the best investment in my lens collection at any track I find myself at.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Having quick and easy access to a rear CPL and being able to rotate it easily is wonderful. The new lens design would require me to loosen and remove the hood every time I need to do this. (the window on the 70-200/100-500 is very useful!)

Or just leave the hood off. It’s not going to be very effective away from the wide end anyway, it’s half the depth of the 300//2.8 hood to accommodate the zoom.

 

[David - Sydney]

Odd that the B+W 112mm UV filter is $210, the Käsemann CPL is $270 and the clear filter tops the list at $290. A fraction of the lens cost, but still.... Guess I better put a LensPen FilterKlear in the cart, too.

Given no front filter threads on the other big whites (as far as I know), what is the rationale for a clear/UV filter for the RF100-300? Weather proofing/physical protection without the hood on?

 

[David - Sydney]

But you bring up an incredibly important fact about using a CPL shooting racing. It needs to be turned often depending on the angle of the shot you're trying to capture. I enter a corner and watch the behavior of the cars to see the shot I want and position myself accordingly. Tracking the cars I make the slight rotation of the CPL to get the look down the side or the front of the car (depending on the time of day). Having quick and easy access to a rear CPL and being able to rotate it easily is wonderful. The new lens design would require me to loosen and remove the hood every time I need to do this. (the window on the 70-200/100-500 is very useful!)

Having only used the EF300/2.8 myself a couple of times, is there a need for the hood for shooting racing? Do you put the hood against the fence to minimise the fence being visible in the image (as I was using it in a zoo)?
I'm guessing that without the hood, you would be able to rotate the front CPL filter by hand but it isn't clear to me if there would be other issues like flare or rain without the hood. It will be interesting to read how well the lens controls flare without the hood compared to the EF300

 

[David - Sydney]

When you need to get the shot, you need to get the shot.
Sometimes worse image quality is better than no image at all.

Absolutely and also better to have grain than lose sharpness. Which is why I under-expose for indoor sports with poor lighting to get the aperture (if 2 people are sparring) and shutter speed to freeze the action. What is possible in post is revolutionary for our industry given the current sensors!

The SW capabilities for AI sharpening and upscaling now allow severe cropping and still have a reasonable final image as long as it is sharp (if that is what you want). Diffraction limitations aside, there is a lot of benefits for high density sensors (R5/R7 etc) without having to resort to TC stacking for instance.

 

[AlanF]

Absolutely and also better to have grain than loose sharpness. Which is why I under-expose for indoor sports with poor lighting to get the aperture (if 2 people are sparring) and shutter speed to freeze the action. What is possible in post is revolutionary for our industry given the current sensors!

The SW capabilities for AI sharpening and upscaling now allow severe cropping and still have a reasonable final image as long as it is sharp (if that is what you want). Diffraction limitations aside, there is a lot of benefits for high density sensors (R5/R7 etc) without having to resort to TC stacking for instance.

Absolutely my experience too. Stacking TCs puts more pixels on the subject but it’s negated by the blurring of the image and you can do better by upsizing a smaller, sharper image using Topaz. AI software is revolutionary.

 

[mermaidkiller]

112mm filter thread. Holy moly that‘s huge. If I would be in the market for a tele, it would be my choice, together with a 1.4 TC, but travelling with such a lens is quite the commitment. 100-500 is so much more versatile but 1 2/3 stops darker at 500 than the 300 with 1.4x TC at 420 and still 2/3 at 600 with 2x TC. everything has a price I guess, this one has two: price ans weight.

Indeed, why not a rear 48 or 52mm filter thread like the other Canon big whites ? But anyway, it is a nice lens, including for astrophotography, despite its price. Less than 3kg for a lens that size is amazing ! Dedicated astronomical telescopes of 100mm aperture are much heavier, despite having less glass.

 

[john1970]

Given no front filter threads on the other big whites (as far as I know), what is the rationale for a clear/UV filter for the RF100-300? Weather proofing/physical protection without the hood on?

For me the purpose is physical protection and it prevents one from accidentally scratching the front element. Last year I managed to physically scratch the front element of one of my large big white lenses. $950 and 3 months later I got the lens returned from Canon. I would rather replace a $300 filter in a couple of days than the alternative.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given no front filter threads on the other big whites (as far as I know), what is the rationale for a clear/UV filter for the RF100-300? Weather proofing/physical protection without the hood on?

Protection, and to make cleaning less nerve-wracking. Older big whites had a meniscus lens in front that was easy and relatively cheap for Canon to replace, but those were omitted starting with the EF MkII lenses in the quest to reduce weight.

 

[entoman]

How? The gap between a standard zoom and 100mm is small to nonexistent.

True, typing fingers engaged before brain

 

[jeffa4444]

RF 50mm f/1.8, $170
RF 16mm f/2.8, $250
RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3, $300
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1, $400
RF 35mm f/1.8, $400
RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3, $500
RF 24mm f/1.8, $500
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8, $550
RF 85mm f/2, $550
RF 600mm f/11, $800
RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3, $900
RF 800mm f/11, $1000

RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3, $300
RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1, $350
RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3, $500

Except for an RF-S UWA zoom, what 'low end lenses that most people could consider' are missing from the current offerings? Plus, at 6-8 lenses per year no doubt there will be many more <$1000 lenses released in the future.

I suspect that like many people what you feel is missing are not low end lenses, but high end lenses at low end prices, e.g. f/2.8 standard zooms. The problem is not that Canon does not offer such lenses, but that you cannot afford them.

The consumer end is covered, so are most of the high end zooms. Whats missing is the mid-ground like the f1.4L primes such as 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85mm.
After five years its NOT unreasonable to have at least one or two of these delivered the cheap lenses have the STM motors (except the RF 100-400mm) and the f1.2L primes are big & heavy. Canon sold the EF 50mm f1.4 in big numbers and latterly likewise with the EF 85mm f1.4L. The 1.4L lenses are ideal for video but to date are totally missing from Canon lineup which is strange by comparison to Sony or Nikon.

 

[jeffa4444]

So without VAT the lens would be 10.000 €‎, which is ~$10,970 compared to the $9500 US pre-tax cost. Hopefully your point was not that the EU vs. US Canon pricing is fair if taxes aren't considered.

In the UK minus the 20% VAT its £ 11,600 or $ 14,000 US. So a significant premium over the US price of $ 9,500

 

[entoman]

If I were a beginner bird photographer with a very tight budget I'd probably go with a combination like that. I used worse back when I was starting out over 10 years ago. (Even now I'm using the 800 f/11 + 1.4x and it's more usable than I expected).

Until recently I had the RF800 F11, and it was fine for shots of perching birds in the bright sunlight of Africa, but in the UK on a typical cloudy day I ended up with a lot of throwaways due to poor focus or subject movement. The poor focus was because the 800/11 is slow-focusing and has difficulty even keeping up with ducks swimming slowly towards the camera. AF is also limited to the central large square zone with this lens which makes it difficult to track subjects across the frame. Then to freeze even minor subject movement I need to increase the ISO to undesirable levels to maintain a decent shutter speed.

The effective F16 at 800mm with a 2x on a RF100-400 (and your 800/11 with 1.4x) must be even harder to deal with, and would make it virtually unusable for me, in anything but the brightest sunlight.

Someone may now post a great image that defies what I've just said, but my point is that to get sharp bird photos consistently, you need a lens or lens/extender combo that lets in a lot more light than F16.

For a beginner bird photographer on a tight budget, the sort of setup I'd recommend would be a 90D or R7 (for extra reach and high MP) fitted with an EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L 11. There are stacks of them available secondhand for between £1000-1400, which compares very favourably with the price that someone would have to pay for a RF100-400 (£650) and RF 2x extender (£719).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The consumer end is covered, so are most of the high end zooms. Whats missing is the mid-ground like the f1.4L primes such as 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85mm.

I’m not sure we’ll see a ‘mid-range’ as you envision it.. People argue there’s not much difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, but the same argument applies between f/1.4 and f/1.8. STM-driven AF is faster and quieter than the old micromotor-driven AF of the low-end lenses.

As others have pointed out, from a price standpoint lenses like the 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/2 are already mid-range. From an aperture standpoint, those lenses are also in the mid-range. The 50mm focal length is an exception – the 50/1.8 has always been cheap compared to other non-L primes, and there was a non-L 50/1.4 while for the other focal lengths (24/35/85) the f/1.4 aperture was found only in the L-series. That’s an important point, because it means what you’re really asking for are lenses with L-series attributes at non-L prices. Don’t hold your breath.

What you suggest is ‘missing’ from the RF lineup are lenses that either didn’t exist for EF (non-L f/1.4 except 50mm) and/or were lenses made in the 90s and never updated.

A more accurate interpretation of what’s missing is the real low end primes from EF, lenses like the 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 (micromotor with old EF 50/1.8 II super-cheap build) and 135/2.8 SF (but again, those are very old lenses and it seems Canon has moved on). As stated, those lenses were the low end, the f/1.8 wide EF primes were the mid range (and we have RF f/1.8-2 lenses), and the f/1.4L were the high end.

I believe most people complaining about the ‘lack of a mid range’ are really just asking for L-series lenses at non-L prices, albeit they’re willing to forego weather sealing and truly robust build. It’s the same reason people complain about the lack of Sigma/Tamron RF lenses – they want constant aperture zooms and fast primes, but don’t want to pay L-series prices. The thing is, Canon makes the system (and holds the patents), and they want customers’ L-series margin money.

 

[Czardoom]

I understand that Canon can do a lot of things except defy physics. (At least not yet). My point though is that a lot of trade-offs had to be made (apparently) to accommodate the limitations of the RF mount. Yes, we wouldn't miss those trade-offs if we hadn't had decades of practical experience with the EF mount....

I disagree. I don't think there are any inherent limitations to the RF mount that is causing these design decisions. I think Canon has made a decision - perhaps a gamble - that consumers will want smaller, lighter lenses. These smaller, lighter lenses may in fact be possible because of the RF mount, not a limitation of the RF mount. I'm sure at some point in their design of the 100-500 lens, they had a decision to make: either let's make this lens as small and light as possible, (for an L lens) but still compatible with TCs or make it bigger and heavier but able to use the TCs at full range. Personally, the 100-500 is just about at the limit of what I would buy to hand hold and carry. So, for me, I would not have bought it if it was any bigger or as heavy as the EF 100-400 mark II. The same "gamble" is being made with the 70-200 and even this 100-300. Priority is smaller and lighter than could have been done with the EF mount. So, no drop in filters. No TCs for the 70-200. My guess is Canon had the data that most users of the 70-200 do not get TCs, as even at 400mm with the loss of image quality that a 2x TC gives, it is not really a good option compared to many other of their lenses with longer reach. Only time will tell of the gamble pays off. Nobody here, nor at Canon, knows. For me, personally, I am very happy with their decision to go smaller and lighter.

 

[Czardoom]

Canon releases an evolutionary lens in terms of fast f2.8 aperture, zoom range and weight and everyone complains. Rough crowd. ...

Don't forget where we are. A gear site. I doubt there are any Facebook groups for this lens yet, but my guess is that on a more "photography" oriented site (as opposed to a gear site) and with only people who are actual users or potential buyers of the lens as members, the tone of the comments will be far more positive and far less complaining. Over the last few years, Canon Rumors has become "Canon Whiners" much to the dismay I'm sure of a lot of us who actually like photography and are amazed at what cameras can do today.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't forget where we are. A gear site. I doubt there are any Facebook groups for this lens yet, but my guess is that on a more "photography" oriented site (as opposed to a gear site) and with only people who are actual users or potential buyers of the lens as members, the tone of the comments will be far more positive and far less complaining. Over the last few years, Canon Rumors has become "Canon Whiners" much to the dismay I'm sure of a lot of us who actually like photography and are amazed at what cameras can do today.

Much (but not all, of course) of the whining (or whinging, for you folks across the pond) is from people who have no intention of ever buying such a lens.

 

[juststeve]

I can imagine it quite easily, since I often handhold my 600/4 II, which is about the same diameter as a 300/2 but longer.

My brother worked for a newspaper which had the Nikon 300/2. He said it was not hand hold friendly, It was built back in the day when my FD 400/2.8 L weighed over 13 pounds. I think the Nikon weighed something like 15 pounds.

 

[entoman]

Much (but not all, of course) of the whining (or whinging, for you folks across the pond) is from people who have no intention of ever buying such a lens.

It's still possible for those who don't intend (or simply can't afford) to buy this highly desirable lens to make analytical comments - I wouldn't describe it as whinging or whining, just constructive criticism.

 

[AlanF]

It's still possible for those who don't intend (or simply can't afford) to buy this highly desirable lens to make analytical comments - I wouldn't describe it as whinging or whining, just constructive criticism.

Quite. Most of the discussion here is not whingeing but pretty rational analysis.