Sorry, I am not sure about what you are commenting on. Is it the design of the RF 100-500m? If Canon deliberately hog-tied its TC capabilities for market segmentation, then I am not impressed. If they did it to optimise optical quality, then I wish they would explain so.
The Canon 600mm F4.0 weighs 7 lb. The Nikon 300mm F2.0 weighed 17 lb. Can we get a video of someone hand holding it ?
The Nikkor AI-S 300/2.0 was released in 1981, and it came with it's own dedicated 1.4x teleconverter that had optics designed specifically for this lens. It would work with other Nikon super-teles from the era and was generally considered to be Nikon's best 1.4x TC for manual focus lenses. The lens itself was huge and very heavy.
The TC designs, with the protruding optics. They could have extended the outer part of the TC to make the end flush with the optics (with appropriate design changes to those optics). Applies to EF and RF.
Yikes! That's down to Canon's engineering and modern technology, then. 600/4 = 300/2 = 150mm front element.The Canon 600mm F4.0 weighs 7 lb. The Nikon 300mm F2.0 weighed 17 lb. Can we get a video of someone hand holding it ?
No video of someone shooting with it, but a dealer has a video showcasing it. You can see the front element to scale vs person.The Canon 600mm F4.0 weighs 7 lb. The Nikon 300mm F2.0 weighed 17 lb. Can we get a video of someone hand holding it ?
That's better, I thought you were easily hand holding 17lb and you were the 800lb gorilla here.
I am surprised and pleased as well, but would not be surprised if there are some delays. According to Canon USA the expected availability is May 31, 2023. I might not have the lens for my July trip, but hope to have it for my August trip.
But the resulting 200-800mm F11-16 isn't going to be a whole lot of use to anyone. The net result of diffraction and a mediocre resolution-destroying 2x extender and being forced to use slow shutter speeds or high ISO in anything but bright sunlight, isn't going to encourage anyone to slap a 2x extender on the RF100-400mm.
I would. I was wondering about an RRS foot for the new lens. I did a Photoshop overlay (as best I could, I couldn’t find product images with the exact same orientation), of the tripod foot of the RF 100–300 with that of the RF 400/2.8, and it appears to be the same tripod foot.
Odd that the B+W 112mm UV filter is $210, the Käsemann CPL is $270 and the clear filter tops the list at $290. A fraction of the lens cost, but still.... Guess I better put a LensPen FilterKlear in the cart, too.
I agree that adding TCs don’t do much when you are above the diffraction limited aperture, and have lots of posts on this in the past. They are actually pretty good on the 100-400 on low resolution sensors like the R6 but pretty hopeless on the R7. What I was pointing out was that Canon could easily make the TCs compatible if they wanted. I got good results with the 1.4 on the 100-400mm when I had the R6 and I am sure it will be the same on the R8 and R6 II. (The RF 100-400mm + 1.4xTC on the R6 was very similar to the bare lens on the R7 For resolution).
If I were a beginner bird photographer with a very tight budget I'd probably go with a combination like that. I used worse back when I was starting out over 10 years ago. (Even now I'm using the 800 f/11 + 1.4x and it's more usable than I expected).
How about the fact I work with these lenses for a living and actually OWN the EF 300mm f/2.8L II. I'm sharing what literally every single motorsports photographer that actually knows what they're doing is going to say about it - we all use CPLs and we all use ND filters. They are essential items for (good) motorsports photography without any question at all.
