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

[Maximilian]

Gaaaasp !

Did you expect less? Me not.

 

[scyrene]

I just have to be honest and voice my overwhelming disappointment with this lens. The lack of rear filters makes this lens dead on arrival to me without any question at all. With all the greatness of versatility this brings to the table as a high quality zoom, it's totally useless to me now because it lacks rear filters - something I use every single moment of daylight as a motorsports photographer.

I, like many others that use these big primes, like to shoot with a CPL or ND filter in order to creatively use aperture and shutter speed to blur motion or alter reflections in cars. I've honestly never used my EF 300mm f/2.8L II during the day without at least some kind of filter in mine. This is a MAJOR oversight and makes this entire generation of lens useless to me. I now have zero upgrade path at all with the RF system to replace my EF 300L because I honestly can't and won't use this lens ever, nor do I want to. I have no intention of purchasing and traveling with a new set of 120mm filters, removing the hood every time I need to adjust the polarizer, or handling massive filters in the field in adverse conditions, figuring out how to store and transport them around a track or through the desert, etc. This lens is also MASSIVE and heavier compared to the old EF Mark II model which I find a large negative as well....since I have to pack and travel with this lens every month. I can understand this tradeoff for the obvious benefits and introduction of zoom functionality, but it's just another attribute that I view as a negative.

This is my personal perspective looking at this lens and considering how I use my current 300mm lens or all of my other lenses for that matter. I believe this is a major blunder and design oversight. Looks like I'll be hanging onto my EF 300 f/2.8L II for a long time and I will never rent or buy this lens because it's just totally useless to me because of this.

Your use case/objection is valid but "a major blunder" because they prioritised something that you personally find impossible to work with?

Maybe a better fit for you will be released at a future date. Is the RF 400mm f/2.8 too long? I think it has a drop in filter slot?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Your use case/objection is valid but "a major blunder" because they prioritised something that you personally find impossible to work with?

Agreed. Seems rather likely that Canon solicited input from motorsports photographers before finalizing the lens design. The lack of a drop-in filter slot does not bother me, personally. Lack of a rear filter option is the reason I probably will not buy an RF 10/11-24 to replace my EF 11-24, and if they bring out a TS-E wider than 17mm, that will be a tough decision.

I have the drop-in CPL for my EF 600/4L IS II, but I have only used it once or twice.

 

[pzyber]

They just took down the video on YouTube lmao! I guess someone’s getting fired for that.

I guess some marketing person is having a bad day As a Canon person I immediately spotted that was not a Canon camera or lens and had to pause the video, couldn't believe my own eyes.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Whoopee! Just what we need - another $10,000 lens that maybe 1 in 10,000 Canon users will even consider buying. It's nice to have an optical showpiece, but where are the low end lenses that most people could consider? No wonder Canon is scared of what Tamron, Sigma and others could do to the margins on
"reasonably priced" lenses.

 

[dolina]

And hope customs don't check your luggage...
But if they do, it could become a horribly expensive lens.

Ditch the box and show photos of wildlfie you've taken during your trip. ;-)

 

[Fischer]

Interesting. Its a cheaper in the US than anywhere else I've seen so far (did not check China yet). Even in Japan its like 11.5K USD.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Whoopee! Just what we need - another $10,000 lens that maybe 1 in 10,000 Canon users will even consider buying. It's nice to have an optical showpiece, but where are the low end lenses that most people could consider? No wonder Canon is scared of what Tamron, Sigma and others could do to the margins on
"reasonably priced" lenses.

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.

 

[InchMetric]

Almost double the weight and more than triple the price of the 100-500 will limit this to those with a real need for speed.

The 400 2.8 might be a better companion to the 100-500 for many.

But looks terrific if you need it.

 

[Ian K]

Canon says that you can't.

You cannot stack RF extenders in any way. Both the 1.4x and 2x have protruding front elements and a "flat" back to them, there is no way of mounting one RF TC to another without using something like an extension tube.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Importantly, the RF 100-300/2.8 is fully compatible with the RF extenders.

 

[Maximilian]

Interesting. Its a cheaper in the US than anywhere else I've seen so far (did not check China yet). Even in Japan its like 11.5K USD.

While making such comparisons, please keep in mind, that in the US the VAT is not included, but in many other countries it is.

 

[Berowne]

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

This is insane. It is twice the price for an entry level Super-Telephoto-Lens compared to the EF-Superteles. Remember the 200/2L, 300/2.8L and 400/4L DO were in the range of 6000€.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While making such comparisons, please keep in mind, that in the US the VAT is not included, but in many other countries it is.

True, but from B&H with my sales tax included the cost is $10,093...at today's exchange rate that's 9.201 €, which is far less than the 12.000 € for the lens from Canon Germany.

 

[Maximilian]

This is insane. It is twice the price for an entry level Super-Telephoto-Lens compared to the EF-Superteles. Remember the 200/2L, 300/2.8L and 400/4L DO were in the range of 6000€.

We've seen huge price raises with the R/RF system.
It's a zoom lens, so I wouldn't compare it to the primes.
And I wouldn't compare street prices to MRSPs (the EF 300/2.8L II had a MRSP of 7.625 € in 2017)
And when it comes to primes, my personal guess for an RF 300/2.8L is about 8.500 €.

That doesn't mean that I like or accept that.
And that's why I'm still running around with a 5D4.
But I'm already saving money - but not for that lens, for sure

 

[koenkooi]

This is insane. It is twice the price for an entry level Super-Telephoto-Lens compared to the EF-Superteles. Remember the 200/2L, 300/2.8L and 400/4L DO were in the range of 6000€.

It’s the same price as the Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 in the USA, so the pricing isn’t unexpected. Still not a price I’m willing to pay for a single lens, though.

 

[Del Paso]

Ditch the box and show photos of wildlfie you've taken during your trip. ;-)

Don't underestimate the Customs' officers, they are not naive.
If they check the serial number, or just ask for a receipt (better to take them along, as copies, of course), they'll quickly know you're smuggling.
And besides, it is NOT legal!

 

[Del Paso]

It’s the same price as the Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 in the USA, so the pricing isn’t unexpected. Still not a price I’m willing to pay for a single lens, though.

I happily would, if I needed the lens.
And if I could...

 

[photographer]

True, but from B&H with my sales tax included the cost is $10,093...at today's exchange rate that's 9.201 €, which is far less than the 12.000 € for the lens from Canon Germany.

The higher price is also due to the longer warranty in Germany.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The higher price is also due to the longer warranty in Germany.

2800 € for a longer warranty? Lol. For an extra $535 (488 €), Canon CarePak can be added for 4 years of warranty and coverage for accidental damage to the lens (which AFAIK is not part of the EU warranty).