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

[David - Sydney]

For me the purpose is physical protection and it prevents one from accidentally scratching the front element. Last year I managed to physically scratch the front element of one of my large big white lenses. $950 and 3 months later I got the lens returned from Canon. I would rather replace a $300 filter in a couple of days than the alternative.

So.... it is a good thing to have a 112mm front filter thread? Have any other big whites had a front filter?

 

[David - Sydney]

The consumer end is covered, so are most of the high end zooms. Whats missing is the mid-ground like the f1.4L primes such as 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85mm.
After five years its NOT unreasonable to have at least one or two of these delivered the cheap lenses have the STM motors (except the RF 100-400mm) and the f1.2L primes are big & heavy. Canon sold the EF 50mm f1.4 in big numbers and latterly likewise with the EF 85mm f1.4L. The 1.4L lenses are ideal for video but to date are totally missing from Canon lineup which is strange by comparison to Sony or Nikon.

We will. never know just how many ef50/1.4 were sold but Canon do know this. We do know that the EF50/1.4 wasn't a great lens though. Let's hope that an eventual replacement is better

 

[David - Sydney]

Until recently I had the RF800 F11, and it was fine for shots of perching birds in the bright sunlight of Africa, but in the UK on a typical cloudy day I ended up with a lot of throwaways due to poor focus or subject movement.

There is only one solution and that is to move to a sunny country
I keep asking my daughter why she lives in London with the weather and she doesn't have a good reason... she knows not to complain about it now.

 

[David - Sydney]

Since you both asked about the hood:

The hood being super short is something I'm also not very fond of. I can't speak for others, but I was always trained to hold the bring primes at the top or bottom of the hood for best balance and ability to move the lens - especially when using a monopod and panning. So over the years I developed a strong habit of shooting this way because that's how I was taught and it was how everyone else around me was using them...holding the 300 f/2.8 from the bottom of the hood is how I shoot with that one, as I don't use a monopod with it every time.

I also like to stand the camera up on the rubber lip of the hood and enjoy the protection it provides to the MASSIVE front element. So I don't believe I would ever take it off and shoot with it that way. The additional benefit of having less glare is welcome too, but hoods are something I use on everything I own unless I'm shooting hockey or out of a plane...or a super fast car. haha

I use hoods rarely eg only in the rain/dust etc. I obviously can't use them underwater and I haven't found them useful for UWA landscapes/seascape/astro landscapes. As you say, they make it harder to hold in strong wind.
The heavier the lens, the more likely that you need to rest it on the floor but I don't need to do this with my RF70-200 or RF100-500 whereas I did rest my 5Div+EF70-200 on the floor... or maybe I have gotten stronger

I guess my point is whether you are prepared to change to suit this lens if it would make a big enough difference to you ie no hood/front CPL and rotate by hand at the front vs the need to switch lenses (and bodies?) when 300mm isn't ideal.
The CPL/ND front filter would also provide protection to the front element.
Only you can determine this and maybe rent/borrow to check but it would be interesting to hear from you as a learning experience.

Can you get a combined CPL/ND drop in filter or are they always separate like the control ring drop-in filters?

 

[David - Sydney]

If they have data suggesting only a very small minority of 300/2.8 users use a CPL, that’s also a reason to omit the window on the hood. Some find it beneficial, but I’ve heard complaints that it’s too easy to open when that’s not wanted. IIRC, Bryan/TDP even mentioned in one review he considered permanently closing it with epoxy.

I read Bryan's comment and yes, it is easy to accidentally open the window but at least it is an option for the 70-200 and 100-500. The best part is that I have a 77mm filter system so it is easy use the same filters on wide to telephoto lenses. Whale watching above water will have a lot of reflections so I would definitely use it in those situations.

I won’t miss the window on the 100-300/2.8.

The for some (most?) but it is a strange decision when the drop-in filter option has been removed. It would be good to have a different locking mechanism for the window so that it doesn't accidentally open.

The other option is for Canon (or maybe a third party?!?) to produce a hood with a window. I am sure that a carbon fibre one with a window could be sold for less than the Canon spare price of USD650

 

[David - Sydney]

Quite. Most of the discussion here is not whingeing but pretty rational analysis.

So, what have we learnt?
Price is equivalent to the Nikon version but lots more than the EF300mm/2.8
The hood comes with the lens but no window for CPL movement.
EU/UK etc pricing sucks
Drop-in filters out and front filters in => pros and cons. Prices for both in same ballpark.
Compatible with TCs. MTFs showing differences including RF100-500mm for comparison.
Most of us won't buy it (can't afford or no need).

Have I missed anything?

 

[scyrene]

There is only one solution and that is to move to a sunny country
I keep asking my daughter why she lives in London with the weather and she doesn't have a good reason... she knows not to complain about it now.

Not to worry, London's climate will be like Sydney's in a few decades...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Can you get a combined CPL/ND drop in filter or are they always separate like the control ring drop-in filters?

They do exist.
The shortcoming of rear drop-in filters is that they can't be stacked.
That means I either have to buy a bunch of combined filters or combine them with front filters.
If I am going to need to use front filters anyway then the value of having a drop-in filter diminishes.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The other option is for Canon (or maybe a third party?!?) to produce a hood with a window. I am sure that a carbon fibre one with a window could be sold for less than the Canon spare price of USD650

It is a bit of a niche lens but the expense of a replacement hood should be enough to entice third parties.
I can excuse Canon for leaving off drop-in filters in order to keep the size of the lens close to the EF 300 f/2.8.
I still wish they had included drop-in filters though.
What I can't really excuse is then having a lens hood without a side window.
I was assuming they used an existing hood but it looks like it is brand new for the RF 100-300 f/2.8.
No excuses for that.

 

[Del Paso]

Much (but not all, of course) of the whining (or whinging, for you folks across the pond) is from people who have no intention of ever buying such a lens.

Same people who drive Ladas and criticize the latest Ferrari.
Social envy, quite often...

 

[entoman]

If they have data suggesting only a very small minority of 300/2.8 users use a CPL, that’s also a reason to omit the window on the hood. Some find it beneficial, but I’ve heard complaints that it’s too easy to open when that’s not wanted. IIRC, Bryan/TDP even mentioned in one review he considered permanently closing it with epoxy.

Well that's one point we agree on - I find that the doors on hoods (e,g, EF100-400, RF100-500) are too easy to open accidentally, and it is an irritation. Closing it permanently with epoxy seems a drastic solution - especially if the owner may at some stage want to use a CPL or variable ND...

I don't use either, I just fit a camo cover and that stops the door from being accidentally nudged open.

As we've noted, only a small minority of users would want to fit a CPL or ND to a telezoom, and that may be the reason for Canon's choice. Unfortunately they can't satisfy everyone, and never will.

 

[koenkooi]

Same people who drive Ladas and criticize the latest Ferrari.
Social envy, quite often...

The latest Ferrari lacks dynamic range, the in-body stabilisation makes corners wobble, it overheats and doesn't support 3rd parties!

 

[koenkooi]

Well that's one point we agree on - I find that the doors on hoods (e,g, EF100-400, RF100-500) are too easy to open accidentally, and it is an irritation. [...]

With the door at the bottom, what is exactly irritating you when it opens?

 

[entoman]

With the door at the bottom, what is exactly irritating you when it opens?

Dust and sand. On safaris, it very easily finds its way through an open door and coats the front element (or filter). Also of course, when the camera is used in portrait mode, the door is on the side, not on the bottom...

 

[Kit.]

Closing it permanently with epoxy seems a drastic solution - especially if the owner may at some stage want to use a CPL or variable ND...

Black electrical or gaffer tape could help.

 

[entoman]

It is a bit of a niche lens but the expense of a replacement hood should be enough to entice third parties.
I can excuse Canon for leaving off drop-in filters in order to keep the size of the lens close to the EF 300 f/2.8.
I still wish they had included drop-in filters though.
What I can't really excuse is then having a lens hood without a side window.
I was assuming they used an existing hood but it looks like it is brand new for the RF 100-300 f/2.8.
No excuses for that.

It would be nice if Canon responded by offering an alternative hood with a door, for those who need it, but if they did, it would be ridiculously expensive, even more than the standard hood, as there would be additional design and manufacturing costs, and only very limited sales.

But there's an easy answer to the problem. Take a hacksaw to the existing hood, and *cut* a door in it. Or 3D print a version with a door.

 

[AlanF]

Not to worry, London's climate will be like Sydney's in a few decades...

You are optimistic. It could be just a few years at the present rate.

 

[john1970]

So.... it is a good thing to have a 112mm front filter thread? Have any other big whites had a front filter?

The other big whites (500 mm f4, 400 mm f2.8, 600 mm f4, 800 f5.6) are all larger in diameter than the 300 mm f2.8 and 112 mm is the largest commercially available threaded filter (based on my searches at B&H). Hence, the 300 mm f2.8 would be the only big white compatible with a threaded filter. It is interesting that Canon made this decision because to my knowledge the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 is the first 300 mm f2.8 lens to ever use a threaded front filter.

 

[entoman]

Not to worry, London's climate will be like Sydney's in a few decades...

I'd move to a sunny country (probably India) if I could, but with a family and a lot of close friends here, it's not on. Luckily (or rather, by a combination of hard work and making sacrifices elsewhere) I'm able to travel to warmer and more photographically interesting (to me) places quite often.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It would be nice if Canon responded by offering an alternative hood with a door, for those who need it, but if they did, it would be ridiculously expensive, even more than the standard hood, as there would be additional design and manufacturing costs, and only very limited sales.

But there's an easy answer to the problem. Take a hacksaw to the existing hood, and *cut* a door in it. Or 3D print a version with a door.

Canon has offered alternative hoods before.
This one would make sense.
That being said, I would be more willing to bet on a third party coming up with that.