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

[SHAMwow]

What amazes me is seeing people out shooting with the hood on the lens, but mounted in reverse.

That drives me nuts! Like, take it off or put it on. I know it doesn't affect me but it does hurt me soul haha.

 

[SHAMwow]

My wife used to do that with the old 100-400 EF. She had used the 100-400 I, which was a push-pull lens and liked to zoom that way. With the lens hood reversed on the II version, she could grab the hood and quickly zoom using push-pull. Worked for her. Taught me not to judge insignificant things like how people use or don't use hoods. Judge by the pictures they get.

I think its just a light hearted observation. Plenty of excellent photographers shoot with the hood reversed. Still is strange to me either way.

 

[unfocused]

With long lenses such as my RF100-500, or the 800/11 (that I've just sold), instead of supporting the lens in the traditional way by cupping the barrel mid-way, I grip the hood with my left hand, with fingers gripping the inside of the hood. It's a tip I picked up from ace bird photographer Jan Wegener. With most hoods, if you grip them this way, your fingers don't intrude into the frame. It makes the set-up much more stable.

Actually that’s what she does now. I always think she’ll have have a finger in the frame but it seems to work.
Honestly I’m about a 50/50 user of lens hoods and I can’t really see a lot of difference most of the time.

 

[entoman]

Actually that’s what she does now. I always think she’ll have have a finger in the frame but it seems to work.
Honestly I’m about a 50/50 user of lens hoods and I can’t really see a lot of difference most of the time.

It surprised me. I thought I'd get away with it at full aperture, but I expected to see evidence of my fingers at the edge of the frame when stopped down.

I normally use lenses no more than 2 stops smaller than maximum aperture, but just for the hell of it I took some shots at F16, at 100mm and 500mm. None of them showed any sign of fingers intruding into the image. I'd estimate that I can shoot at about 2 shutter speeds slower with this technique, compared to cupping the lens midway.

 

[entoman]

"Up to 5.5 stops correction with in-lens Optical Image Stabilization and up to 6.0 stops correction with in-body coordinated Image Stabilization"

Which pretty well proves what most of us already knew, i.e. with telephotos IBIS is pretty useless - providing just a half-stop of extra stability with this lens.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Would you have purchased an RF version of your 300mm? Or were you staying put no matter what? Assuming you own an R body of course.

Had it just been an RF 300, I probably wouldn't have rushed out to get it until the EF one died on me...but if it had a built in 1.4 TC, as some patents suggested, I would have potentially bought it sooner or at launch.

Once I discovered it was a zoom, I planned to sell the 100-500 and 300 if it turned out the new lens was compatible with extenders (I previously didn't believe it would be). Once I watched my second or third announcement video about it and discovered it didn't have a drop-in-filter, I was flabbergasted. Canon made no mention of this in their video! I was ready to purchase the day of the announcement until then. Traveling with one lens that can do the job of 2 was exciting - a 200-600 f/5.6 zoom still sounds so NICE!

I am fully mirrorless now with two R3 bodies, an R5, and R6 Mark II. Only four EF lenses remain in my stable; the 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 300mm f/2.8L II, and a pair of Sigma Art Primes that I seldomly use but got them so cheap used (under $800 total) that I have no real motivation to sell them with RF versions one day.

 

[danfaz]

I think its just a light hearted observation. Plenty of excellent photographers shoot with the hood reversed. Still is strange to me either way.

Also, for some lenses, it blocks the zoom ring. I read a review once where a guy gave a 4 star review instead of 5 because he couldn't access the zoom ring with the hood on...backwards!

 

[kaihp]

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.

Except that it's 70mm longer than the EF 300/2.8 II. That's not "close to the size" in my book (hood is irrelevant in this context, IMHO).

At 98.000DKK, I'm not in the buyer audience of this lens, even though I am decidedly in the 'long lens camp' having the EF300/2.8 II, EF 200-400mm and now the RF 100-500.

I can only echo the puzzlement over Canon's decisions of no drop-in filter when the previously released RF Big Whites have it together with longer length and higher weight.

 

[AlanF]

It surprised me. I thought I'd get away with it at full aperture, but I expected to see evidence of my fingers at the edge of the frame when stopped down.

I normally use lenses no more than 2 stops smaller than maximum aperture, but just for the hell of it I took some shots at F16, at 100mm and 500mm. None of them showed any sign of fingers intruding into the image. I'd estimate that I can shoot at about 2 shutter speeds slower with this technique, compared to cupping the lens midway.

Maybe I have missed something. I know you can stick things on the middle of the lens at wide aperture and they don't have much effect on the image other than losing light but if you stop down the bad effects will increase. But, in this case when you stop down, you are not using the outer circumference region of the lens where your fingers are so even less of your fingers are going to interfere with the image?

 

[kaihp]

Maybe I have missed something. I know you can stick things on the middle of the lens at wide aperture and they don't have much effect on the image other than losing light but if you stop down the bad effects will increase. But, in this case when you stop down, you are not using the outer circumference region of the lens where your fingers are so even less of your fingers are going to interfere with the image?

Not necessarily. Think 2:3 rationed rectangle vs a circle. Especially the top and bottom have a good distance from the edge of the glass to where it's actually being used for the image sensor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also, for some lenses, it blocks the zoom ring.

For the RF 70-200/2.8 and RF 100-500, the reversed hood blocks the zoom ring.

 

[entoman]

Maybe I have missed something. I know you can stick things on the middle of the lens at wide aperture and they don't have much effect on the image other than losing light but if you stop down the bad effects will increase. But, in this case when you stop down, you are not using the outer circumference region of the lens where your fingers are so even less of your fingers are going to interfere with the image?

'Tis a mystery.

Maybe it's *me* that's missed something. I would have thought that the depth of field was so shallow at full aperture, that if a finger intruded slightly at the edge of the frame, it would be unnoticeable (as with shooting with the lens up against a wire fence). And I would have thought that by stopping down to F16 the finger would be better defined, and any intrusion therefore more obvious (again, as with shooting through a wire fence).

Either way, regardless of the "optical mechanics" involved, with the RF100-500mm, in practice I could see no evidence at all of my fingers intruding into the image, at any focal length or aperture. Same with the fixed aperture 800/11 - no evidence of incursion in any image - and I've used that lens for hundreds of images.

 

[David - Sydney]

I also use B+W, except for the aforementioned Wonderpana 145 setup. I likely no longer need that, the drop-in adapter is much more convenient. I’ll likely hang onto it in case there’s a compelling RF TS lens that ends up taking those filters, e.g., the rumored 14mm.

Similar to your previous point, can you get combined CPL/ND filters for the control ring?

How a RF TS 14mm would handle filters will be similar as the RF100-300. Some will love it and others can't use it without filters CPL (real estate?) or ND (waterfalls) or maybe combined CPL/ND for outdoor architecture (assuming CPL would play havoc with blue skies at those focal lengths)

 

[David - Sydney]

I think its just a light hearted observation. Plenty of excellent photographers shoot with the hood reversed. Still is strange to me either way.

For me the debate about how to hold the camera body is similar...
- Support the weight of the body/lens with your left palm and twist the zoom/focus rings with your left fingers leaving your right hand to just push the shutter button, or
- Use your left hand to twist the zoom from above and your right hand supports the weight and shutter button.

The latter bugs me for some reason but it is all about the end result.

 

[David - Sydney]

Maybe I have missed something. I know you can stick things on the middle of the lens at wide aperture and they don't have much effect on the image other than losing light but if you stop down the bad effects will increase. But, in this case when you stop down, you are not using the outer circumference region of the lens where your fingers are so even less of your fingers are going to interfere with the image?

I think that we assume that drop-in filters need to be at the back of the lens but they could also be located further up the lens. Structural integrity may be an issue though
Having them at the back means that the filter size is smaller and hence cheaper. I can't comment on whether rotating the CPL drop-in filter is easy or not eg the control ring is moved further up the lens to make it easier to use.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe it's *me* that's missed something. I would have thought that the depth of field was so shallow at full aperture,

Consider the MFD of the lens, and how extremely defocused something a few cm from the front element must be.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Similar to your previous point, can you get combined CPL/ND filters for the control ring?

It’s one reason I asked, I highly doubt anyone would have made one for the supertele lenses (tiny segment of a already tiny market), but one might come in handy for the adapter drop-in. I had a look, Kolari doesn’t, but Breakthrough makes ‘dark CPLs’ (3, 6 and 10 stops) drop-in filters for the RF adapter. Given past history with Breakthrough, I’ll never buy from them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think that we assume that drop-in filters need to be at the back of the lens but they could also be located further up the lens. Structural integrity may be an issue though
Having them at the back means that the filter size is smaller and hence cheaper. I can't comment on whether rotating the CPL drop-in filter is easy or not eg the control ring is moved further up the lens to make it easier to use.

@AlanF was talking about holding a lens with fingers inside the hood, and whether or not stopping down would affect their visibility in the image. Nothing to do with drop in filters or the location of the slot.

 

[David - Sydney]

@AlanF was talking about holding a lens with fingers inside the hood, and whether or not stopping down would affect their visibility in the image. Nothing to do with drop in filters or the location of the slot.

Sure, I get that but I was doing some blue sky thinking and asking how big white users of the CPL drop-in actually rotate them whilst holding the lens

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, I get that but I was doing some blue sky thinking and asking how big white users of the CPL drop-in actually rotate them whilst holding the lens

Personally, with my left hand reaching up from underneath. But that’s with the 600 II on a gimbal head, I have not and have no intention of trying it while handholding the lens.