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

[Czardoom]

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.

You have a lens that you use and like. You don't like this one and just saved $10,000. So keep whining!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

The weight of the bare lens is, according to Canon 2650g and the EF300II, according to TDP is 2350g, but with the EF-RF adapter (110g) and a much larger hood (80g?) the weight difference is much less, a 100-ish grams. That does add up when using it all day, though. And like you say, the lens itself is much larger.

With the zoom function only adding a 100-ish grams in total, it makes me wonder what the weight for a prime would have been, I bet far, far lighter than the EF300II.

Incidentally, the hood weights are not very different – 159 g for the 100-300 hood, 170 g for the 300/2.8 II hood.

 

[roby17269]

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.

No, just that differences are less than what immediately appears. Still unfortunate for Europeans

 

[miketcool]

I think everyone is missing that the EOS R1 will have built-in filters…

 

[Tahoejr]

DPReview surprisingly quiet about this announcement . . .

 

[neuroanatomist]

DPReview surprisingly quiet about this announcement . . .

Not surprisingly at all, since Amazon shuttered them on 10-April.

 

[mpmark]

Sigma and Nikon came out with 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses about a decade ago.

With the 100-300/2.8... where is the 500/4.0 replacement?

Yeah I have the 500L II and I’m patiently waiting as well for the new 500/4. Taking forever, the II was released in 2012 for Pete sakes

 

[Del Paso]

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

Unless you live in Livigno...

 

[wsmith96]

Hmm... Odd. There's nothing on TDP about this announcement or any partial review. Hope things are okay over there...

 

[Copland]

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?

Its not the price, its the usability.

Also, about the lens hood, couldn't you or someone you know cut out an area to use a polorizer or variable nd?

Yeah, on a 10k lens.

 

[roby17269]

Unless you live in Livigno...

eh eh I used to go to ski in Ponte di Legno!

 

[xps]

12.000 Euro in Germany. Puuh. I think I stay with my old 300mm 2.8L II. Would have ordered it under 10.000€

 

[Hubert Multana]

12800 EUR currently in Poland, EU.

BTW, I have a copy of first youtube add with sony G-master attached, they took it down.

 

[Del Paso]

eh eh I used to go to ski in Ponte di Legno!

And I used spend many hours in the mountains, and a few at Foto Gino's... Still have some malts and grappas from there.

 

[photographer]

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).

I'm not saying that the price difference is only due to the longer warranty, but it certainly has an effect. I'm also not saying that the price difference for a longer warranty period is worth it to European consumers. I think a lot of them would take a lower price for a shorter warranty period.

 

[photographer]

 

[SonicStudios]

Outstanding, and so it begins, just called B&H and ordered, now Canon just release the R1 and I can drop the mic and ride out into the sunset, to take pictures of course

 

[unfocused]

Not complaining about this lens, as I have no interest in it (at least not at this price point) but I do wonder about all the compromises that Canon is making with RF lenses, when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and necessary for them to offer exciting new options.

A few cases in point:

• RF mount design precluded using drop in filters on this 100-300 lens.
• RF design severely limits the zoom range of the 100-500 RF lens when using extenders.
• RF design prevented the use of any extender with the 70-200 F2.8 zoom.
• Focus breathing issues with the 100mm macro (may not be an issue with the RF mount, but it does seem to make the lens less desirable than the EF macro for many buyers).
• Heavy reliance on computer-based interpolation for wide-angle lenses (This doesn't really bother me, but it seems to offend some users).
• Then there are "lazy" bolt-on mount adapters and extenders for certain very expensive super-telephotos. (Again, if I could afford the RF 600 mm I really don't care if its just the EF version with a mount adapter and if the results of the 800 and 1200 RF lenses are good, I don't really care if they got there by using extenders.)

I understand that there are always compromises and you can't defy physics, but still, it seems like there have been a lot of compromises made and I wonder if a little more thought/design had gone into the R system (especially since Canon took their time designing the system) they might have avoided or minimized some of the issues.

I love my R bodies (R5 and R3) and love my R lenses, but it just seems like they didn't plan well for some of these challenges.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not complaining about this lens, as I have no interest in it (at least not at this price point) but I do wonder about all the compromises that Canon is making with RF lenses, when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and necessary for them to offer exciting new options.

A few cases in point:

• RF mount design precluded using drop in filters on this 100-300 lens.
• RF design severely limits the zoom range of the 100-500 RF lens when using extenders.
• RF design prevented the use of any extender with the 70-200 F2.8 zoom.
• Focus breathing issues with the 100mm macro (may not be an issue with the RF mount, but it does seem to make the lens less desirable than the EF macro for many buyers).
• Heavy reliance on computer-based interpolation for wide-angle lenses (This doesn't really bother me, but it seems to offend some users).
• Then there are "lazy" bolt-on mount adapters and extenders for certain very expensive super-telephotos. (Again, if I could afford the RF 600 mm I really don't care if its just the EF version with a mount adapter and if the results of the 800 and 1200 RF lenses are good, I don't really care if they got there by using extenders.)

I understand that there are always compromises and you can't defy physics, but still, it seems like there have been a lot of compromises made and I wonder if a little more thought/design had gone into the R system (especially since Canon took their time designing the system) they might have avoided or minimized some of the issues.

I love my R bodies (R5 and R3) and love my R lenses, but it just seems like they didn't plan well for some of these challenges.

The extender limitation on the 100-500 is the one that bugs me. Lack of extender compatibility on the 70-200 doesn’t bother me personally, but I can see it being an issue for some.

Having said that, the issues you raise all concern telephoto designs, where I would not expect the shorter flange distance to be a big benefit. Perhaps they’re fighting the perception that the lenses should be shorter because of that shorter flange distance, and they’re responding by making the lenses shorter in other ways that don’t contravene physics.

 

[danfaz]

The extender limitation on the 100-500 is the one that bugs me.

Just out of curiosity, is it the annoyance of having to extend barrel to 300 in order to use the extenders? I only ask because from 100-250mm, they don't exceed 500mm, so aren't really useful until you're at 300mm (well, 251mm).