Canon will soon announce the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM, which will be the first of its kind from Canon. Sigma does have an EF 120-300mm f/2.8, but it was never that highly regarded, mostly due to autofocus performance when compared to Canon L lenses.

We are told that the new lens will be “remarkably light” for a lens of its kind. Optical performance will be better than the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II and there are new autofocus improvements built-in for the Canon EOS R3 and other future Canon EOS R cameras.

The Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM will retail for $9499 USD.

Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

Go to discussion...

Share.

161 comments

  1. A better optical performance than the prime ????
    These would be great news if true !
    What I don't see on this picture is a device, lever, switch etc. to engage an extender...
  2. Damn 10k… Canon you’re killing us bro. 7 grand more than the 70-200mm?? Come on man…
    Don't treat it like the typical "70-200 plus"... It's made to be unique and keep pros not switching to other brands because others don't have it.
  3. Don't treat it like the typical "70-200 plus"... It's made to be unique and keep pros not switching to other brands because others don't have it.
    Like Nikon and Sigma :) Although I guess that the Canon version being very light would make it unique.
  4. A better optical performance than the prime ????
    These would be great news if true !
    What I don't see on this picture is a device, lever, switch etc. to engage an extender...

    I have seen two angles of the lens, there is no built-in TC that I can see in either, nor do the related patents suggest there is one. If weight is a selling feature, a built-in TC would be an obvious omission.
  5. I have seen two angles of the lens, there is no built-in TC that I can see in either, nor do the related patents suggest there is one. If weight is a selling feature, a built-in TC would be an obvious omission.
    The question is: will it handle and how will it handle a TC (mfd, sharpness et cetera.)?
  6. B&H retails the Nikon 120-300/2.8 for 9,500 USD, while the discontinued Sigma 120-300/2.8 was more moderately priced at 3,600 USD. Both weighing in at a whopping 3.3 kg.
    So Canon's pricing is at least in line with the 1st-party competition of Nikon, albeit way more expensive than Sigma's 3rd-party lens.

    I am not interested in the lens at all, but curious about the weight.

    For me an internally zooming 200(ish)-600 like the Sony version would be high on my wishlist, complementing my 500/4 and 800/11 with a somewhat light(ish), unobtrusive(ish) and affordable(ish) middle ground.
  7. The question is: will it handle and how will it handle a TC (mdf, sharpness et cetera.)?

    Canon's latest prime TC's are exceptional, that said. There is another TC coming later this year. It won't be cheap, but it will be convenient and designed for uses such as this lens.
  8. Canon's latest prime TC's are exceptional, that said. There is another TC coming later this year. It won't be cheap, but it will be convenient and designed for uses such as this lens.
    I suspect that this is the TC with positions 0 (the normal focal length), 1.4 (1.5) and 2. You can then put this TC on and you do not have to remove it.
  9. It's going to be great for those filling the frame at 300mm or shorter and needing a wide aperture. For my birding and nature, a 2xTC wuld be on it 99% of the time and it would be a 200-600mm f/5.6, quite nice but its extra weight, size and price and not being able to extend to 1000mm makes it less useful for me than the 100-500.
  10. Canon's latest prime TC's are exceptional, that said. There is another TC coming later this year. It won't be cheap, but it will be convenient and designed for uses such as this lens.
    Hmmm, will this new TC be fully compatible with the 100-500? If there is a new TC coming out that has a shorter protruding front element then it makes me believe this new 100-300 will not be compatible with the current 1.4X TC…which would honestly make it a deal breaker. If I couldn’t use my 300mm f/2.8L with teleconverters then I would have probably never purchased it. Having a 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 makes it extremely versatile for me.
  11. B&H retails the Nikon 120-300/2.8 for 9,500 USD, while the discontinued Sigma 120-300/2.8 was more moderately priced at 3,600 USD. Both weighing in at a whopping 3.3 kg.
    So Canon's pricing is at least in line with the 1st-party competition of Nikon, albeit way more expensive than Sigma's 3rd-party lens.

    I am not interested in the lens at all, but curious about the weight.

    For me an internally zooming 200(ish)-600 like the Sony version would be high on my wishlist, complementing my 500/4 and 800/11 with a somewhat light(ish), unobtrusive(ish) and affordable(ish) middle ground.
    While I appreciate the size of the Canon RF 100-500, the price, aperture value, and performance of the Sony 200-600 is incredibly appealing. I still can’t understand the pricing of the 100-500 at all…Canon gave us 100mm, a slower aperture, and reduced weight for an $800 premium over the fabulous EF 100-400. That is still one of the best lenses I ever owned and I’m still hesitant to say the 100-500 is an improvement.
  12. Canon's latest prime TC's are exceptional, that said. There is another TC coming later this year. It won't be cheap, but it will be convenient and designed for uses such as this lens.
    a new one?! how? MK2?

    To sad it won't have a 1.4TC build in :'(.

    And sharper then my 300 2.8L IS II?! holy shit...how?! But I m also hoping for a 1,5kg version of the EF prime <3!...
  13. Like Nikon and Sigma :) Although I guess that the Canon version being very light would make it unique.
    And, if the statement is true (better than the EF 300 L), it would also be optically better than Nikon's and certainly much better than Sigma's.
  14. [..] I still can’t understand the pricing of the 100-500 at all…Canon gave us 100mm, a slower aperture,[...]
    The aperture is the same size between the EF100-400II and the RF100-500L: 70mm.
  15. Too bad about the lack of a built-in TC. I do hope it’s fully compatible (i.e., throughout the zoom range) with the current TCs. Lack of that compatibility might make me reconsider my preorder.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment