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

[Elgogo]

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.

why everyone keeps talking about the lens hood? Its included correct ?? Why the lens hood is a big topic here? Just because the cost of replacement if you loose it ?

 

[David - Sydney]

why everyone keeps talking about the lens hood? Its included correct ?? Why the lens hood is a big topic here? Just because the cost of replacement if you loose it ?

We understand that it is included and that the replacement cost is high.
The issue is that the rear drop-in filters have been removed and a 112mm front filter thread added. If you want to use ND filters then that is okay. If you want to use a CPL filter then you cannot rotate it without removing the hood. The RF700-200 and RF100-500 provide a window in the hood for this purpose but this is not a feature on the included hood for the RF100-300mm. It appears to be an oversight although the window on the smaller lens hoods can come open inadvertently.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF700-200 and RF100-500 provide a window in the hood for this purpose but this is not a feature on the included hood for the RF100-300mm. It appears to be an oversight although the window on the smaller lens hoods can come open inadvertently.

Very, very unlikely that it was an oversight. Rather, Canon made a declarative choice to omit the window. We can speculate on the reasons for that omission, but 'oops, we forgot' is not going to be among them.

 

[Tom Raymond]

Thank you for the kind words, that image in particular has landed me several jobs and actual lead to my current position working with an off road team whose driver used to race a road race car - long story there, but it all started with that photo being seen by the road race team owner.

But you bring up an incredibly important fact about using a CPL shooting racing. It needs to be turned often depending on the angle of the shot you're trying to capture. I enter a corner and watch the behavior of the cars to see the shot I want and position myself accordingly. Tracking the cars I make the slight rotation of the CPL to get the look down the side or the front of the car (depending on the time of day). Having quick and easy access to a rear CPL and being able to rotate it easily is wonderful. The new lens design would require me to loosen and remove the hood every time I need to do this. (the window on the 70-200/100-500 is very useful!)

I take it that you are not a fan of CPLs? haha For stationary cars I typically composite because of my lighting technique. I will rotate the CPL for the windshield for one shot and rotate for the side of the car for the remaining shots. The goal is to eliminate reflections or bring out the most desired crisp horizon line. Being able to remove reflections when and where you want is important when you're essentially shooting a reflective surface.

I see that Canon is now describing this lens as an indoor sports lens on their website. That's a major bummer for me. Having a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6 in one lens has proven to be the best investment in my lens collection at any track I find myself at.

Your scenario of using a 300 2.8, with 1.4X and 2.0X converters in your pocket/fanny pack tells me that you would really enjoy using Canon's 200-400mm F4 zoom with built in 1.4X. The speed you will gain, plus no more chance of dust getting in every time you add or remove a TC will
help immensely. Also, your techniques with CPLs at motorsports venues tells me that you are there to primarily capture individual cars, esp. those teams that have hired you. On the other hand, if you are trying to capture racing action involving several cars at once, messing with a CPL would serve only to slow me down, and possibly miss important images.

 

[David - Sydney]

Very, very unlikely that it was an oversight. Rather, Canon made a declarative choice to omit the window. We can speculate on the reasons for that omission, but 'oops, we forgot' is not going to be among them.

OEMs have often had oops moments.

Live announcements seem to be particularly prone to oops moments, Since we are talking about "windows", Telsa breaking the Cybertruck windows was notable - twice!

Canon's R5 release with unprecedented video capabilities in a hybrid body was seen to be an oops as they used a timer instead of actual temperature measurements.
Canon releases firmware and then minor updates to fix the oops in the original firmware.

I agree that hardware is less likely to have an oops than SW but still... all it took was a couple of days in a gear forum to query why the window wasn't included. Maybe their focus groups didn't include shooters of reflective surfaces like cars and hence limiting a marvelous bit of new kit to an even smaller audience.

 

[Mountain Dave]

Adapted glass is not a great solution, especially not for pros. Adapters are annoying to deal with unless you buy one for each adapted lens and leave it permanently attached. Since Canon doesn't seem to want 3rd party glass on RF to fill the gaps, it's not unreasonable for people to want Canon to hurry up and release at least the key lenses.

Despite what Canon says, you can leave an adapter on the camera and just change lenses. If you are switching to a RF lens, just remove the EF lens with the adapter. This is really a non sequitur.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Despite what Canon says, you can leave an adapter on the camera and just change lenses. If you are switching to a RF lens, just remove the EF lens with the adapter. This is really a non sequitur.

Also, a good autofocus adapter is $50.
That is cheap enough to get one for each lens and keep on the lens permanently.

 

[AlanF]

I agree that hardware is less likely to have an oops than SW but still... all it took was a couple of days in a gear forum to query why the window wasn't included. Maybe their focus groups didn't include shooters of reflective surfaces like cars and hence limiting a marvelous bit of new kit to an even smaller audience.

A couple of days in a forum was how they started off designing a horse and ended up with a camel...

 

[entoman]

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

Oh, I have. But consider that if you fit a lens hood that is slightly too long/narrow, it causes vignetting, so even objects intruding into the field of view at extremely close distances, and totally out of focus, can appear in the image. That's why it surprised me that fingers inside a lens hood didn't appear in the image.

 

[neuroanatomist]

OEMs have often had oops moments.

Live announcements seem to be particularly prone to oops moments, Since we are talking about "windows", Telsa breaking the Cybertruck windows was notable - twice!

Canon's R5 release with unprecedented video capabilities in a hybrid body was seen to be an oops as they used a timer instead of actual temperature measurements.
Canon releases firmware and then minor updates to fix the oops in the original firmware.

I agree that hardware is less likely to have an oops than SW but still... all it took was a couple of days in a gear forum to query why the window wasn't included. Maybe their focus groups didn't include shooters of reflective surfaces like cars and hence limiting a marvelous bit of new kit to an even smaller audience.

Lol. Sure. And the design team picked a 112mm filter thread arbitrarily, it’s just luck that it happens to be the largest size B+W makes and the next step up from 105mm.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh, I have. But consider that if you fit a lens hood that is slightly too long/narrow, it causes vignetting, so even objects intruding into the field of view at extremely close distances, and totally out of focus, can appear in the image. That's why it surprised me that fingers inside a lens hood didn't appear in the image.

Have you tried holding the hood on the side, where the edge of the frame is closer to the circumference of the image circle?

 

[entoman]

Have you tried holding the hood on the side, where the edge of the frame is closer to the circumference of the image circle?

Yes, that's how I always hold it, for the reason you state.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, that's how I always hold it, for the reason you state.

I’m confused, are you saying you always hold the hood at the side in landscape orientation? that’s where the edge of the frame has the least clearance. And that you still don’t see fingers in the image? Even at 100 mm?

The last point is one that I don’t recall having been raised in this discussion. Hoods for zoom lenses must accommodate the AoV of wide end of the zoom (except in the case of reverse zooms like the 24-70/2.8L MkI). As you zoom to longer focal length, the AoV gets progressively narrower relative to the edges of the hood. It’s for that reason that a mis-mounted hood shows vignetting at the white end of a zoom, but not toward the long end. It would be interesting to know if the fingers in hood method works at the wide end of the range.

Edit: just tried with my 100-500. Fingers at the side and corner of the image can be seen as a shadow up to ~250mm.

 

[entoman]

I’m confused, are you saying you always hold the hood at the side in landscape orientation? that’s where the edge of the frame has the least clearance. And that you still don’t see fingers in the image? Even at 100 mm?

The last point is one that I don’t recall having been raised in this discussion. Hoods for zoom lenses must accommodate the AoV of wide end of the zoom (except in the case of reverse zooms like the 24-70/2.8L MkI). As you zoom to longer focal length, the AoV gets progressively narrower relative to the edges of the hood. It’s for that reason that a mis-mounted hood shows vignetting at the white end of a zoom, but not toward the long end. It would be interesting to know if the fingers in hood method works at the wide end of the range.

Edit: just tried with my 100-500. Fingers at the side and corner of the image can be seen as a shadow up to ~250mm.

Yes, when shooting in landscape orientation I always grip the hood by the side, with my fingers curled inside the hood and pressing tightly against the inside. I find this gives me better stability than cupping the lens from below. I don't see any evidence of my fingers in the image, even at 100mm. I do have quite thin fingers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, when shooting in landscape orientation I always grip the hood by the side, with my fingers curled inside the hood and pressing tightly against the inside. I find this gives me better stability than cupping the lens from below. I don't see any evidence of my fingers in the image, even at 100mm. I do have quite thin fingers.

Interesting. I found the shadow was subtle, and easier to see if I slid my hand around the hood than just holding still.

 

[entoman]

Also, a good autofocus adapter is $50.
That is cheap enough to get one for each lens and keep on the lens permanently.

When I was using EF lenses (all sold now) I kept the adaptor on the camera at all times, and never had any issues. Part of the reason was that I figured that it would make it less likely that I'd accidentally touch the shutter curtain. I'm still wary of doing so, so with my RF lenses I change them with the sensor exposed.

 

[AlanF]

Oh, I have. But consider that if you fit a lens hood that is slightly too long/narrow, it causes vignetting, so even objects intruding into the field of view at extremely close distances, and totally out of focus, can appear in the image. That's why it surprised me that fingers inside a lens hood didn't appear in the image.

As I pictured in my mind, vignetting should get less as you stop down, not worse. Just googled and this is confirmed by TDP: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Vignetting.aspx

Mechanical or physical vignetting is caused by an physical obstruction preventing light within the lens' field of view from reaching the camera's image sensor. Mechanical vignetting is perhaps the easiest form of vignetting to understand. The physical obstruction can be caused by the lens barrel, a filter, lens hood (improperly designed or misaligned) - or anything else in the way - preventing light from reaching the lens. Try looking through your viewfinder and blocking the light from reaching the edge of your lens (you can use your hand). The effect of mechanical vignetting is typically a strong, dark circular darkening most apparent in the corners of an image and it goes away as the lens is stopped down (narrower aperture). This is the easiest form of vignetting to understand.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

When I was using EF lenses (all sold now) I kept the adaptor on the camera at all times, and never had any issues. Part of the reason was that I figured that it would make it less likely that I'd accidentally touch the shutter curtain. I'm still wary of doing so, so with my RF lenses I change them with the sensor exposed.

I use a drop-in filter adapter.
My sensor does not get exposed when I switch EF lenses.
My only concern is when switching filters.

 

[whothafunk]

I'm confused as to why there isn't a single word about this lens on any official Canon websites. It has been officially announced, right? Canon USA has only 1 post on instagram.

 

[candyman]

I'm confused as to why there isn't a single word about this lens on any official Canon websites. It has been officially announced, right? Canon USA has only 1 post on instagram.

That is confusing. The Dutch Canon site does not offer information on this lens either. But it now can be pre-ordered from resellers for a <sarcasm> great </sarcasm> price of 12.199 euro.