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

[neuroanatomist]

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

Granted. But at the end of the day, the only actionable point of such analyses is whether or not to buy the lens. Canon isn’t going to redesign it with a drop-in filter slot, and although they could release a redesigned hood with a CPL/vND adjustment window, even that seems highly unlikely.

I do wonder if this means a 300/2.8 prime will not be coming soon. I suspect that’s the case.

 

[Marphoto]

Gordon Laing is positive. Says that Canon states it is sharper than the EF300mm/2.8 and takes TCs. Doesn't mention if you can stack TCs though...
Yes, a hood is included
Length is the same with R mount adapter and lens hood.
Up 200gms on the EF300 (lighter with R mount adapter)
Looks like the same tripod mount as the EF300mm/2.8
No drop-in filters
It isn't clear how you would use the control ring which looks to me next to the body unless on a tripod.

Add a 2x TC and get a 200-600mm/5.6 which a lot of forum dwellers are waiting for but heavy on the wallet

Not only is it heavy on the wallet, as a 200-600/5.6 it is impractical compared to the Sony 200-600/6.3 in terms of size, weight, and expense. It would be interesting to see how it would compare optically.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not only is it heavy on the wallet, as a 200-600/5.6 it is impractical compared to the Sony 200-600/6.3 in terms of size, weight, and expense. It would be interesting to see how it would compare optically.

What is impractical is using the Sony 200-600 on a Canon body.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Not only is it heavy on the wallet, as a 200-600/5.6 it is impractical compared to the Sony 200-600/6.3 in terms of size, weight, and expense. It would be interesting to see how it would compare optically.

Impractical or not, an indoor sports photographer is not going to use the 200-600, so they will need this for the focal length and brightness.

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

In this case I disagree. I prefer the weight saving of 1.4 over 1.2 I’m more than prepared to pay L prime prices always have always will. Canon produced the EF 24mm f1.4L, 35mm f1.4L and the EF 85mm f1.4L, yes the 50mm 1.4 was not an L lens but this gave a basic prime set for video as well as stills and Canon produced T1.5 primes for professional video we used these at Panavision. Many wedding photographers moved from the EF 85mm f1.2L because the EF 85mm f1.4L was faster focusing, sharper into the corners and lighter.
I’ve tried the RF 85mm f2 STM lens and like many STM lenses it’s loud, slower to focus and optically weak on an R5 I was not impressed with it and yes currently the only option is to either buy the RF 85mm f1.2L or stick with the EF 85mm f1.4L which currently I’m doing. I’m not refusing to buy the RF 85mm f1.2L on cost but purely on weight & size. It is why I chose the RF 24-70mm f2.8L over the 28-70mm f2L purely on size & weight. If Canon do not produce f1.4 lenses as you predict then the gap WILL be filled by third parties Im sure.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In this case I disagree. I prefer the weight saving of 1.4 over 1.2 I’m more than prepared to pay L prime prices always have always will. Canon produced the EF 24mm f1.4L, 35mm f1.4L and the EF 85mm f1.4L,

Makes sense. From what most people hoping for a ‘mid-range’ in the RF lineup have stated, they’re not talking about $1500-1800 lenses.

If Canon do not produce f1.4 lenses as you predict then the gap WILL be filled by third parties Im sure.

That presumes they can do so with Canon’s permission or without infringing on Canon’s IP. So far, that hasn’t happened.

 

[jeffa4444]

Makes sense. From what most people hoping for a ‘mid-range’ in the RF lineup have stated, they’re not talking about $1500-1800 lenses.


That presumes they can do so with Canon’s permission or without infringing on Canon’s IP. So far, that hasn’t happened.

It’s already looking like after the backlash on social media that Canon is softening its stance on third party suppliers. Frankly I would rather buy Canon optics that’s why I’ve been in their ecosystem for 50 years. I do however feel at times Canon is NOT listening to its customers and I listened to Canon U.K. rep being chastised by a very well known professional photographer about the lack of what he called “working glass” in the RF mount. He is a food photographer for large brands and wants RF T/S lenses which as we know don’t exist yet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It’s already looking like after the backlash on social media that Canon is softening its stance on third party suppliers.

Lol. A ‘backlash’ against something Canon never did or said. Their ‘stance’ was to block one 3rd party maker (Viltrox) from infringing on their IP. No one has said why Samyang stopped making their RF AF lenses, but likely they were also infringing on Canon’s IP. If you’re referring to the Meike 85/1.4, so far that’s vaporware.

I listened to Canon U.K. rep being chastised by a very well known professional photographer about the lack of what he called “working glass” in the RF mount. He is a food photographer for large brands and wants RF T/S lenses which as we know don’t exist yet.

Someone at a trade show clamoring for niche RF lenses? I’m sure that will have a big influence on Canon HQ. Lol.

 

[entoman]

Granted. But at the end of the day, the only actionable point of such analyses is whether or not to buy the lens. Canon isn’t going to redesign it with a drop-in filter slot, and although they could release a redesigned hood with a CPL/vND adjustment window, even that seems highly unlikely.

I do wonder if this means a 300/2.8 prime will not be coming soon. I suspect that’s the case.

They're not going to redesign it, but it might give them food for thought when considering future designs - that's why people make criticisms, at least in my case. Canon clearly listen to feedback from pros, rental companies, reviewers and agencies. The criticisms will almost certainly be considered when Canon produces a Mkii version, although that clearly will be a few years down the line.

Yes, it's pretty unlikely that they'll produce a redesigned hood with a filter window, but if enough people want it, perhaps some enterprising company in China will produce one, and at a more reasonable price? There are, e.g. Chinese companies knocking out excellent lens hoods for the 600/11 and 800/11 for a fraction of what one would pay for a genuine Canon product (that could well originate from Taiwan or HK anyway).

I too would be extremely surprised if Canon launch a 300/2.8, as the 120-300.2.8 is undoubtedly intended as it's replacement.

 

[entoman]

It’s already looking like after the backlash on social media that Canon is softening its stance on third party suppliers. Frankly I would rather buy Canon optics that’s why I’ve been in their ecosystem for 50 years. I do however feel at times Canon is NOT listening to its customers and I listened to Canon U.K. rep being chastised by a very well known professional photographer about the lack of what he called “working glass” in the RF mount. He is a food photographer for large brands and wants RF T/S lenses which as we know don’t exist yet.

They'll appear pretty soon I think. Meanwhile why doesn't this guy use T/S-E with an adaptor. The upcoming T/S-R lenses are supposedly going to have AF, but a food photographer would presumably be using manual focus, as the subjects are effectively "still life".

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon clearly listen to feedback from pros, rental companies, reviewers and agencies. The criticisms will almost certainly be considered when Canon produces a Mkii version, although that clearly will be a few years down the line.

What makes you think they didn’t solicit and consider such input during the design process for the just-launched version? More likely they did, and this is the lens they designed after considering that input.

 

[entoman]

What makes you think they didn’t solicit and consider such input during the design process for the just-launched version? More likely they did, and this is the lens they designed after considering that input.

Undoubtedly they did, but perhaps the people they asked just assumed that they'd either allow drop-in filters, or provide a hood with an access door? It would be a logical assumption because the EF300/2.8 does take drop-ins, and folk would expect Canon to continue the practice, or to provide a hood with a door with the 120/300 for ND/CPL users.

Or perhaps you think that a large number of those providing feedback specifically stated that they didn't use ND or CPL filters, and that's why Canon chose not to cater for a minority who do?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Or perhaps you think that a large number of those providing feedback specifically stated that they didn't use ND or CPL filters, and that's why Canon chose not to cater for a minority who do?

Perhaps. But also, I’m sure based on sales and registration records they have a good estimate of the numbers of drop-in filters they’ve sold relative to the number of 300/2.8 lenses, the number they’ve lent out along with a 300/2.8 at an event, etc. If only a small fraction of 300/2.8 owners ever bought a drop-in filter, perhaps Canon felt it could be omitted.

If they have data suggesting only a very small minority of 300/2.8 users use a CPL, that’s also a reason to omit the window on the hood. Some find it beneficial, but I’ve heard complaints that it’s too easy to open when that’s not wanted. IIRC, Bryan/TDP even mentioned in one review he considered permanently closing it with epoxy.

Personally, I use a CPL with long lenses only very, very rarely. I don’t think I’ve ever mounted one on my RF 70-200/2.8 or 100-500. However, I have learned to mount the hoods on those lenses with the window down because it does frequently end up open if I’m walking around with the lens mounted. I won’t miss the window on the 100-300/2.8.

 

[AlanF]

Granted. But at the end of the day, the only actionable point of such analyses is whether or not to buy the lens. Canon isn’t going to redesign it with a drop-in filter slot, and although they could release a redesigned hood with a CPL/vND adjustment window, even that seems highly unlikely.

I do wonder if this means a 300/2.8 prime will not be coming soon. I suspect that’s the case.

I think it is a great lens but not for my particular requirements but could be perfect for others. A 300mm f/2.8 would be too short for me, and a longer one could be right if light enough.

 

[Mountain Dave]

I don't understand the complaints about lack of "mid range" RF lenses. This is really a great time to be a Canon user. You can have a great R mount camera and use hundreds of previous model EF lenses on it seamlessly. I would think the latest EF L glass bought used would be more desirable than a "mid range" RF lens. There are great deals: 100 2.8 or 135 2.0 for 500-600? How about 35 1.4 or 85 1.2 for under 1000.? Not to mention zooms. And they all perform better on mirrorless than they did on DSLRs. What's not to love?

 

[scyrene]

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).

Well it's worked for me, I don't know what else to say. And I don't live in sunny Africa!

Fair point about secondhand lenses, although you can get some RF ones that way now, including the extenders now, though only in small numbers.

 

[AlanF]

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).

I’d recommend for the beginner bird photographer an RF 100-400mm on an R10 or R7 or R50 without a TC.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It’s already looking like after the backlash on social media that Canon is softening its stance on third party suppliers.

We have no idea what Canon's stance on third-party autofocus lens suppliers was.
All we know right now is that Canon stated that ii is on a case-by-case basis.
It is possible that it always was and Viltrox just did not fit the case.

 

[LSXPhotog]

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.

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

Since you both asked about the hood:

The hood being super short is something I'm also not very fond of. I can't speak for others, but I was always trained to hold the bring primes at the top or bottom of the hood for best balance and ability to move the lens - especially when using a monopod and panning. So over the years I developed a strong habit of shooting this way because that's how I was taught and it was how everyone else around me was using them...holding the 300 f/2.8 from the bottom of the hood is how I shoot with that one, as I don't use a monopod with it every time.

I also like to stand the camera up on the rubber lip of the hood and enjoy the protection it provides to the MASSIVE front element. So I don't believe I would ever take it off and shoot with it that way. The additional benefit of having less glare is welcome too, but hoods are something I use on everything I own unless I'm shooting hockey or out of a plane...or a super fast car. haha

Geeze, the more I think about this lens and talk about it with colleagues the more disappointed I am. It would have been nice to eventually upgrade the 100-500 and 300 to a single lens and use teleconverters. Oh well. I am certainly happy with the lens I have now, it's just highly frustrating to know the direction they took with this lens and what that means for me down the line.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I’d recommend for the beginner bird photographer an RF 100-400mm on an R10 or R7 or R50 without a TC.

I picked a refurbished 100-400 up from Canon a year ago and it may be a dark aperture, but the glass in there is truly excellent and the image quality is impossibly crisp at this price point. I keep it in my bag just in case I find myself working near a nice nature preserve trail and want to have a nice walk around. PREFECT lens for walking around on trails with because it's so light.