Upvote
0
It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I call it a major blunder because that’s what I feel it is. I’ve already discussed this with several colleagues and we’re all pretty upset by it because it seems like a major oversight. The use of a rear circular polarizer is beyond common, but routine in motorsports. I was ready to pull the trigger on this if it was compatible with teleconverters. I’m very pleased to discover that it is. However, I never expected it to not accept rear filters. The arguement that “I don’t use them, so it’s not a mistake” is no different than me saying “Canons made a mistake and reduced the effectiveness of this lens for my needs and many others” except what I’m saying is tangible…they really have greatly reduced the effectiveness of this lens while adding the utility of a zoom.
It’s a big disappointment knowing that when I do inevitably look to update my EF 300 f/2.8L II, Canon doesn’t make that lens for me anymore. I’ve been teasing the idea of switching to Nikon and this honestly makes me one step closer.
Upvote
0
Gosh, with set of Tcs this could be the one big white to rule them all. 100-300 2.8 - 140-420 4.0, 200-600 5.6. Dang appealing. But I'm on a Sigma budget. Maybe a few used ones will hit the market after this hits the streets.
Brian
Brian
Upvote
0
It is a valid opinion.
The question is how many people are unhappy with it not having a drop-in filter vs how many people would be unhappy if it was a little bigger and heavier.
We will never know the answer but the possibility exists that Canon chose incorrectly.
Personally, I am going to stick with my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport because I can use it with a drop-in filter adapter.
Upvote
0
Guys, thats the same discussion as the 200-400 came out ~10 years ago.
Toooo expensive, Nikon half the price etc., Better buy a 300/400 2.8 with extender!
The thing is: when you need a zoom, you have to buy a zoom! Not a (in fairness insane) 400 with extender.
When you need a fast zoom, you have to buy a fast zoom, not at 5.6-7.1 one.
Toooo expensive, Nikon half the price etc., Better buy a 300/400 2.8 with extender!
The thing is: when you need a zoom, you have to buy a zoom! Not a (in fairness insane) 400 with extender.
When you need a fast zoom, you have to buy a fast zoom, not at 5.6-7.1 one.
Upvote
0
Except Nikon is the same price this time, also lacks drop-in filters, and has the same front filter size.
Upvote
0
Nice looking lens, but I was a bit surprised to see how long that lens is compared to the 300 Mk II. I was really expecting an extending lens design. The zoom range would help me out for the subjects I shoot (high school sports/band, rodeo, etc.), but I'm not ready to part with the cash at this time. Looking forward to seeing some image quality comparisons to the Mk ii prime.
Upvote
0
I was in the market for a 300mm, but at $10,000, it just doesn't makes sense anymore. I get they are selling you on versatility, but that's a significant price and weight bump for a feature that I, personally, didn't feel was necessary. Oddly, the group of people who need this lens the most, may be the most split. The indoor sport photog is given a very specific and optimized position to shoot from, so some would argue why increase the price and weight by a significant amount when focal length is largely not an issue. But some will love that its taking the place of the 70-200 and a 300 2.8 (or potentially a 400 2.8). IMO, this seems like a high risk hedge. Honestly, I feel like a better setup would have been a 200-400 f2.8, where a $16,000 price tag is easier to stomach (for relative value). Also feel like that lens would simply make more sense to the target audiences. Either way, I know this lens will be polarizing.
On a side note, IMO, this lens sheds a little light on the decisions they made with the RF 70-200 2.8. An extender compatible 70-200 would definitely infringe heavily on this lens.
On a side note, IMO, this lens sheds a little light on the decisions they made with the RF 70-200 2.8. An extender compatible 70-200 would definitely infringe heavily on this lens.
Upvote
0
Someone complained that the 112mm filters are too expensive. I don't really understand that feeling, because you're already spending nearly 10,000 and I guess you're using an R3, so that's 6,000. Is another 1000 really going to kill your bank account?
Also, about the lens hood, couldn't you or someone you know cut out an area to use a polorizer or variable nd?
Also, about the lens hood, couldn't you or someone you know cut out an area to use a polorizer or variable nd?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
It is not but a drop-in filter is so much cheaper and I have my doubts adding one to the design would have added $1K in cost.
Canon was just trying to save on size and weight.
Upvote
0
B+W Master High-Transmission Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter (112mm), $270
Canon PL-C 52WII 52mm Drop-In Circular Polarizing Filter, $230
Yes, $40 cheaper...a whole 0.42% of the cost of the lens.
Upvote
0
But do keep in mind that in various places in Europe VAT is 20-22%
Among the many things I miss about living in Italy, that is not one of them
Upvote
0
But that wasn't my argument. I just presume they know what they're doing. Sometimes they make decisions that disadvantage certain users, and that sucks, but they can't please everyone. I can only imagine that this lens is not aimed at people like you - or they expect users in your position will buy a front filter *shrug*.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
300 gram (2/3 of a pound) bump is the same difference in the R3 and Z9. Its significant.
Basically the prime is almost 5 pounds (5.1) and the zoom is almost 6 (5.8).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
