|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Richard and I decided to do one of those “Best of 2023” lists for Canon's new gear that was announced in 2023. As most of you know, Canon had a pretty busy year product-wise, while they didn't make every segment of our community happy, they did release a lot of great products.
Craig's #3: Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
The Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM is an astounding achievement for Canon. Taking the much loved and classic EF 300mm f/2.8L, giving it a zoom range while maintaining the legendary image quality and keeping the weight nearly the same (only 200g heavier).
I have used the lens extensively for basketball and have found it to perform just as well as the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and it gives me a bit more versatility when it comes to venue differences and where one is allowed to shoot from.
Performance with both the RF 1.4x and RF 2.0x teleconverters is fantastic. Autofocus speed and image quality are both consistent in the real world.
My one knock on this lens is the tripod collar. Why does Canon still refuse to put an Arca mount on their feet? Plates aren't overly convenient and have their own quirks. It's a small thing, but I wish it was something Canon would get on board with.
In the end, the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM is both a technical achievement as well as a product that checks all the boxes for its intended shooters.
The Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM is available in limited quantities.
Richard's #3: Canon RF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
I have a slightly different list than Craig, so we are adding both our opinions and letting you all scrap it out in the forums on who's right, meaning, of course, me. For those who have followed me on CanonNews, you'd appreciate that I tend to value travel and utility over Canon's bigger and more breathtaking L lenses. So my picks will certainly have that bias.
I had a little trouble organizing my picks into a ranking, but I'm going to put the RF-S 10-18mm as third on my list.
This lens was necessary for the RF-S mount especially because, unlike the EF-M mount, there is no 15-45mm kit lens, only an 18-45mm. This means that before this lens you could only go as wide as 29mm on the RF-S system without resorting to full-frame lenses, or the adapted EF-S lens. While Canon has always treated APS-C rather poorly, this lens was critical for the RF-S system to have any sort of credibility against its competitors.
Don't get me wrong the Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8L is a marvelous lens, but it doesn't define the usefulness of a fairly well-rounded RF system that the 10-18mm may and can do for those using APS-C camera bodies on the RF system. I'm sure that the RF-S 10-18mm isn't on Craig's list in the #1 or 2 spot because it reminds him too much of the EOS-M system ;)
The Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM is available globally.
Does any manufacturer put an Arca mount on their tripod mounts? The Nikon lenses I've owned never had them. The mounts are generally replaceable in the higher end lenses with companies like Kirk Enterprises make replacement Arca
mounts, which work better than attaching a plate. I see Kirk make the replacement mounts for the new Nikon Z S-Line superteles as well which I'm guessing don't come on even their $15,000+ lenses.
I wish I could be enthusiastic about the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. I'm an APS-C shooter, and impatiently waiting for Canon to release their first interesting RF-S lens. But for ultra-wide I will so far be sticking to EF-S options, while looking at Sigma and wishing Canon was thinking more like them (For just 100g extra weight they made a 2 stops faster 10-18mm f/2.8).
My top 3 would be:
1) Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM
This is a lens I can dream of, and though it is not ordered yet, it is not completely out of my range. The main reason (besides investment price) I haven't ordered this yet, is the transport length and size. I have the 800mm/f11 and it is only JUST possible to fit in my bags. The new zoom is 3cm longer than the 800/11, and that will force me to also look into new types of bags. Or the zoom would be something I would carry only at very very rare occasions...
2) Canon RF 10-20mm F4 L IS STM
If I was a fullframe shooter, I would lie sleepless at night thinking about this lens. Eventually crying because I didn't feel I could justify using that much money on such a "small" lens ;-)
3) Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Yes, I'm impressed.
Unfortunately no RF-S lenses on this APS-C shooter's list this year (or yet at all) :-(
Though the 100-300 is fascinating somehow I don‘t like it. I offen favour the small and cheaper lenses.
So Richards choice seems closer to what I like.
That‘s why I wrote
😉
I thought Jan Wegener’s review was pretty decent:
My knock is that I’d prefer the collar to be removable.
Yes. Oly/OM does.
"RF 200-800mm on FF versus RF 100-500mm on R7A
nice review as always from you, so thank you. The 100-500mm on the R7 is equivalent to 160-800mm on the R5/R6/R3/R8, and conversely the 200-800 on FF equivalent to 125-500mm on the R7. The effective reach of the R7 at 500mm is slightly less than that of the R5 at 800mm but better than the R3/R6/R8.
So, so how do they compare in practice? First, IQ. What is the IQ of the R5 at 800mm f/9 like compared with the R7 at 500mm f/7.1? Secondly, AF. You point out that the AF of the 200-800 on the R5 isn't as good as with the RF 100-500mm, but the R7 AF isn’t as good as that as the R5. So, how does the R5 at 800/9 compare with the R7 at 500/7.1 for fast moving birds, not just easy slow ones at a distance?Thirdly, you are not enthusiastic about the use of extenders on the 200-800 but you show some good images. However, how do the images at 1120mm and 1600mm compare with that at 800mm in terms of additional real resolution. I would guess not much in practice."
All of these reviews are bland and point out what the lenses can do and sometimes can't. Before I finally buy, I want to know how it compares with alternatives. Will I find, for example, as for my questions above, can I get the same reach and IQ with the lighter and sharper RF 100-500mm on the R7? Or, if I am going somewhere I'll need 800mm can I get sharper images with the lighter RF 800mm f/11? How does it compare for reach vs the RF 100-500 + 2x TC? There are pros and cons of having a longer heavier and larger zoom versus the alternatives and there's not enough information out there yet.
I have been playing with RF 200-800 for a week now. As far as I could evaluate it subjectively so far, the AF speed and image quality are comparable to RF 100-500 on R3 (with extender) and R7 (without extender). Roughly, it has equivalent image quality and AF speed when using 100-500 with 1.4x extender.
Some con of the lens so far, are its long twist to go from 200 to 800mm and it is a bit front heavy when fully extended. On R7, my copy is surprisingly sharper at 800mm than 100-500 at 500mm. I did not expect this. Of course, the inconsistencies in AF are there in R7 but when it is in focus, it is almost perfect.
We all know him...😉
PS: his pseudo begins with "A"
Yes. Wimberley's AP-601 replacement foot works very well.