No they're not. It's a very high quality, high performance piece of equipment and will sell in huge numbers to affluent hobbyists, sports and wildlife professionals, and lens rental companies. Just because you can't afford it (neither can I) doesn't mean it's poor value.
A very factual reply. Thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I have actually pre-ordered this lens. Not only is is great for low-light fast action photography. It is also a manageable superzoom with a 2x TC on the back. Once Canon releases a RF 500 mm f4 replacement I could see a 100-300 mm f2.8 and 500 mm f4 being a relatively compact two lens solution for wildlife photography.
One could also use the R7 and RF 100-400mm for a wildlife setup on an even more modest budget. Having options is good!
I certainly couldn't manage the weight for anything other than brief periods of handheld photography, but if I owned this lens, I'd be using it either in a hide or in a vehicle, with a beanbag. Others such as sports photographers, would probably use the lens on a sturdy monopod. I don't imagine many users would be carrying it around for long periods.
For me, the 100-300/2.8 will be primarily for indoor events and night-lit outdoor sports/performances. But then, I hike and shoot handheld with the 600/4 II that weighs 3.9 kg so I don't foresee any issues with the lighter 2.7 kg of the 100-300/2.8.
Don't worry about maximum aperture. AI has already sorted that out for portraits on phones. You'll just have to say to your computer: Hey Topaz, selectively blur the background. You can basically do that already in PS and I guess very soon it will be done much better as they improve subject selection- see your post on AI.
I agree that within 5 years or so that may well be the case. Examples I've seen up until now have been pretty unconvincing, applying an overall blur. But distance data transmitted from the lens, combined with AI, should allow for more realistic and progressive blurring of foreground and background. Whether it will compare favourably with the combined effects of depth-of-field and bokeh, to provide aesthetically pleasing blurring remains to be seen.
Am I silly if I prefer using hand tools (planes,chisels, gouges) for woodworking, even if powertools could achieve the same or often better results in a fraction of time?
It's something I imagine will find its way into cameras before long. AI will detect whether there is a building in the image, and offer the option to "correct" the perspective. I have to admit that in many cases I find that shots in which I've "corrected" converging verticals, actually look rather unnatural, as our brains expect verticals to converge when we look up. But of course, there are many situations, such as interior photography with ultra-wides, that "correction" is virtually essential.
We think alike. Much of the appeal of photography for me is about making the choices myself, whether it be exposure settings, composition, appropriate lens choice, lighting, or of course how I want to portray the subject. There are many cases where a degree of automation is hugely valuable (e.g. AF and subject detection), but I would never e.g. "fake" a sky, or use a trip camera. To me, photography is about being there, recognising the potential of a subject, and using what skills I possess to produce a pleasing and truthful image.
Tilt-shift lenses, huge lenses etc will be looked upon in future as we look upon the mechanical gear of yesteryear but will be continue to be used by those who get satisfaction from using classic gear and relish the heritage and personal input. Wide apertures are important today for narrow depth of field, lowering noise by collecting more light and giving better resolution but AI will be used for mimicking bokeh and background defocus, noise cancellation will improve by more non-classical means and AI, and the effects of diffraction can be negated by computation and is done in scientific applications (Richardson Lucy deconvolution - and Clark has used it for several years for photography https://clarkvision.com/articles/image-restoration1/) if not by AI. And, I think some of these could come in less than five years.
Topaz does sharpening on jpgs without knowing the lens or aperture so it can't be using methods that compute diffraction or lens aberrations. I doubt if DxO uses them. It's possible that Canon's DLO does this as they know the lens characteristics, and this is discussed here https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...s-canon-digital-lens-optimizer-dlo-do-exactly
(Although it might serve as a decent self-defense weapon). The market for this lens is small and totally niche- (1) indoor fast action, and, (2) people with a crap ton of Bitcoin. In today's world, that probably means it'll be a screaming success. But... I'll wait for a good used copy, for sure.Think we all get them. Companies like all the feedback they can get. That's why the greatest losers when it comes to the closure of dpreview is the camera industry. / PS: my - standing - request as a globetrotter is some kind of global warranty/CP scheme as cameras are a key travel kit item.
I somewhat regret selling my 300mm f/2.8 IS L II - on the original rumor that the RF version of that lens would be one of the first to arrive. Can hardly believe it has not happened yet - and now maybe never will. At least I got a good price.
In terms of reach, the 600mm on the R7 is 1.37x600mm , ie 820mm, on the R5 as its sensor has more Mpx. I've often pointed this out and TDP now illustrates it nicely. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...an-APS-C-Format-Imaging-Sensor-Increase-Reach
