It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
This lens should have never been released without a drop-in filter. It's a glaring omission and oversight for outdoor sports and motorsports. I'm seriously so mad about this...it's a joke that they expect us to walk around with 120mm filters. On any given day I'll use a CPL and at least 2 ND strengths. So that's 3 massive, expensive filters that I have to worry about and keep clean because they're now exposed externally, and I have to remove the lens hood every time I want to rotate the CPL or change the filter. I'm just astonished they thought this was a good trade off. It makes the lens totally useless for me.
Upvote
0
This is one of the most insane miscalculations and mistakes I've ever seen. This is far worse than the 100-500 not being able to use extenders unless it's zoomed out to 300mm. No, that's a strange compromise. This is a totally absent-minded choice that ruins the functionality of a lens for an entire demographic of photographer. It's 100% an unusable lens for motorsports and automotive or anyone that wants to creatively use ND filters for shutter/aperture control. This is nothing more than a $9500 indoor sports lens now.Without a drop-in CPL (or at least a flap at front like 70-200/100-500) it is useless for almost any motorsport, automotive and many outdoor sport-photographers as canon presents this lens for.What the hell...
Upvote
0
I've just received a newsletter from a German retailer stating the weight at
2.590 g (+ hood), confirmed by the German Canon Website
Price in Germany:
11.999,00 € incl. VAT
Upvote
0
Canon is positioning this as a lens for indoor sports.Without a drop-in CPL (or at least a flap at front like 70-200/100-500) it is useless for almost any motorsport, automotive and many outdoor sport-photographers as canon presents this lens for.
The EF 100-400 f/4 x 1.4 is the outdoor sports lens.
Upvote
0
The hood is smaller (shorter) to accommodate the wide end of the zoom, and thus as with most zoom lenses it’s not terribly effective at the long end…which for this lens is where it will likely be used most.
Of greater concern to me is that the zoom adds 7.5 cm / 3” in length. Not that such a lens is ever going to be unobtrusive, but that’s a big add over the EF prime.
Upvote
0
...or the 70-200 without any Extender usability.
If this lens would be an all in all more flexible successor of the 300/2.8 and would cost around 7.5k $ okay, but ~12k all incl. here in europe I´m not in the mood for compromises of things generations and generation before have it.
For now I have ordered one and I will test it (hopefully with at least a 120mm front-thread), but I´m not really happy to spend 12k for a compromise.
Upvote
0
Granted the difference doesn’t matter in the abstract, but to be clear the lens takes 112mm filters, not 120mm. Just so you don’t order the wrong size.
Upvote
0
For the price of one 120-300 lens you can get the EF300 f/2.8, two R8s and the RF100L lens! And have money left to take your family out to dinner....or the 70-200 without any Extender usability.
If this lens would be an all in all more flexible successor of the 300/2.8 and would cost around 7.5k $ okay, but ~12k all incl. here in europe I´m not in the mood for compromises of things generations and generation before have it.
For now I have ordered one and I will test it (hopefully with at least a 120mm front-thread), but I´m not really happy to spend 12k for a compromise.
Upvote
0
The EF 300/2.8 II new was out of stock everywhere until recently. It seems B&H has stock, though it’s a bit unclear since searching the lens in their app shows this for the first two results:Great news - more 300 2.8L IS II will appear second hand
Upvote
0
Surprised that I seem to be one of the few people truly excited for this lens
Most of my work for newspapers would really benefit from this lens in different capacities. While I love having the 300 2.8 for basketball and football, it's not super practical to need to use three cameras to cover 24-70, 70-200, and 300. I see this lens as basically replacing the 70-200 and 300 for most sports, since I won't miss the 70-100mm range between the 24-70 and 70-200. That saves me from needing to use 3 cameras to cover the same range, and will definitely be a big plus for not having to switch cameras.
Same thing goes for breaking news--this will be an excellent news lens for a lot of breaking news and event photography where 300 2.8 is a really nice bonus when it's dark and you're needing range.
For me, add to the fact the 2x makes this a 200-600 F/5.6, and things only get better from there. I often use the 100-400 with a 1.4x for a 140-560mm F/8 on field sports, so having the option to make it into a 200-600mm F/5.6 will be excellent for that use. Even better, instead of having to swap the 140-560 combo for a 70-200 2.8 when it gets darker, I'll just toss off the extender at halftime and keep shooting.
Another bonus is wildlife, it's tough using the 140-560 F/8 combo when things get into the shade or later into the evening, so 200-600 will be a really nice range at f/5.6 for those uses too.
I personally never use CPs or NDs, so I'm not hugely bothered by that omission
Most of my work for newspapers would really benefit from this lens in different capacities. While I love having the 300 2.8 for basketball and football, it's not super practical to need to use three cameras to cover 24-70, 70-200, and 300. I see this lens as basically replacing the 70-200 and 300 for most sports, since I won't miss the 70-100mm range between the 24-70 and 70-200. That saves me from needing to use 3 cameras to cover the same range, and will definitely be a big plus for not having to switch cameras.
Same thing goes for breaking news--this will be an excellent news lens for a lot of breaking news and event photography where 300 2.8 is a really nice bonus when it's dark and you're needing range.
For me, add to the fact the 2x makes this a 200-600 F/5.6, and things only get better from there. I often use the 100-400 with a 1.4x for a 140-560mm F/8 on field sports, so having the option to make it into a 200-600mm F/5.6 will be excellent for that use. Even better, instead of having to swap the 140-560 combo for a 70-200 2.8 when it gets darker, I'll just toss off the extender at halftime and keep shooting.
Another bonus is wildlife, it's tough using the 140-560 F/8 combo when things get into the shade or later into the evening, so 200-600 will be a really nice range at f/5.6 for those uses too.
I personally never use CPs or NDs, so I'm not hugely bothered by that omission
Upvote
0
Canon says: "...the lens primarily appeals to professionals and enthusiasts who specialise in sports photography – from indoor sports to motorsports."
I know, but then I still don't have any fast zoom lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
