Close Menu

    Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM will start shipping on May 31, 2023

    By 116 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens News
    canonrf10030028 728x364 - Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM will start shipping on May 31, 2023

    We have confirmed with multiple retailers that Canon will begin shipping the brand new Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM to retailers in the next couple of weeks and will be in customers hands on May 31, 2023.

    Initial stock of the lens will be pretty good, and currently allocation will meet preorder demand at a couple of retailers.

    Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM

    • Full-Frame | f/2.8 to f/22
    • Fast L-Series Telephoto Zoom
    • Dual Nano USM AF System
    • 5.5-Stop Image Stabilization
    • Floating Focus Design
    • Internal Zoom and Focusing Design
    • Function/Focus Preset Selector Switch
    • Fluorite, UD, and Aspherical Elements
    • ASC, SSC, and Fluorine Coatings
    • Weather-Sealed Design

    Preorder: Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM $9499

    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.

    Related Posts

    116 comments

    1. This is very good news. I am glad to hear that initial stock will be very good and meet preorder demand at a couple of retailers. My local retailer placed my order at 9 am the day it was released and I was the first order that was placed by them. With this news, I expect to have the lens in early June.
    3. Looking forward to the first real - comparative - reviews. And many more samples. It will have to be absolutely convincing for me to commit.
      Jared Polin has already posted a video review of this lens, do watch it.
    5. Yeah, bummed out on the price too, I am consider to get the Sigma135mm art 1.8, Canon 200mm F2.0L, and Canon 300mm 2.8L IS II. Its 3 lenses instead of one, but those are all good performers and faster optically.
    7. Same here in France, what a bummer ! I was expecting à rf 300mm f2.8 at more or less 8000eur. Well i got an almost new ef300mm f2.8 mkII instead at a much cheaper price
    8. Jared Polin has already posted a video review of this lens, do watch it.
      I looked at all the pre-reviews (I think). But without real samples and side-by-sides and a proper review its not anything solid to work with. Jared does not even say one word about how sharp the lens is compared to the EF300 f/2.8 - or show any side-by-sides because Canon won't let him or anyone else do so.
    9. I looked at all the pre-reviews (I think). But without real samples and side-by-sides and a proper review its not anything solid to work with. Jared does not even say one word about how sharp the lens is compared to the EF300 f/2.8 - or show any side-by-sides because Canon won't let him or anyone else do so.
      EF 300/2.8L II vs. RF 100-300 @ 300:
      1683736800590.png

      Essentially, Canon has made a zoom lens that is just as sharp as the corresponding prime lens, only in this case that prime lens is among the sharpest lenses available.
    12. Should i buy this and get a 2x tc or wait for the possible 200-500 rumored to be on the way? When do you guys think the 200-500 will be released
      Always best to base purchase decisions on lenses available today, not what might come sooner, later or never.
    13. Should i buy this and get a 2x tc or wait for the possible 200-500 rumored to be on the way? When do you guys think the 200-500 will be released
      It depends on if you'd mind the extra weight.
      The lack of a filter tray on the 100-300mm kind of blows, but, looking at the optical cross-section, I guess there was nowhere to put one.
    14. Should i buy this and get a 2x tc or wait for the possible 200-500 rumored to be on the way? When do you guys think the 200-500 will be released
      I'm in the same Dilemma, I have one on order, rethinking, just cracking up that Canon for weight reasoning did not make the TC 1.4 part of the lens ... I guess convenience was not part of the development plan, yet they added it back into the 200-500 f4 which they claim is lighter than the 500. I don't see the upside to anyone, you, me, Canon, to have left the TC out. I'm also concerned about sharpness with an on board TC vs one you added on, I would figure being part of the lens would yield better results.
    15. …just cracking up that Canon for weight reasoning did not make the TC 1.4 part of the lens ... I guess convenience was not part of the development plan, yet they added it back into the 200-500 f4 which they claim is lighter than the 500. I don't see the upside to anyone, you, me, Canon, to have left the TC out. I'm also concerned about sharpness with an on board TC vs one you added on, I would figure being part of the lens would yield better results.
      Sorry, but your post is a bit cracked.

      First off, about the 100-300/2.8 Canon stated, “We also considered a lens with a built-in extender, but we decided to achieve 3x zoom without a built-in extender as it offered the best balance between size, performance, and spec.” It was about more than weight. I’d guess it was mostly about length, the lens is already significantly longer (75 cm / 3”), a built-in TC would have added significantly to that difference.

      Second, they haven't 'added it back to the 200-500/4' nor have they 'claimed it's lighter than the 500/4'. Canon has said nothing about a 200-500/4. You seem to be confusing rumors with reality. Yes, Canon patented a 200-500/4 + 1.4x. They also patented a 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x, but they made the lens without the TC. As for the upside of leaving out the TC, it's obvious that Canon saw one, since they did just that even though they obviously considered (and patented) a design with it.

      The claim of 'lighter than the 500/4' is something stated by CRguy. Certainly just making the prime into a zoom is likely to increase the weight, as we saw with the 300/2.8 II (which is the same design age as the 500/4 II). Adding a TC would only increase that difference. Not sure why CRguy claims that, but he's arguing with physics and that's never a good idea.

      Regarding the TCs, @john1970 previously posted the MTFs of the 100-300 w/ TCs, along with the 100-500. I suspect you're right that an internal TC would be optimized and result in less of an IQ detriment than the external version. However, the resulting 140-420/4 bests the 100-500, and the 200-600/5.6 is not much worse. As the MTFs above show, the bare 100-300/2.8 is as sharp as the EF 300/2.8 II prime, which is truly impressive given that the prime is one of the sharpest lenses made.
    16. Regarding the TCs, @john1970 previously posted the MTFs of the 100-300 w/ TCs, along with the 100-500. I suspect you're right that an internal TC would be optimized and result in less of an IQ detriment than the external version. However, the resulting 140-420/4 bests the 100-500, and the 200-600/5.6 is not much worse. As the MTFs above show, the bare 100-300/2.8 is as sharp as the EF 300/2.8 II prime, which is truly impressive given that the prime is one of the sharpest lenses made.
      I have a slightly different take on those MTFs from my perspectives of use. The RF 100-500 does have at 500mm slightly better MTFs than the 100-300 at 600mm, but its 20% extra focal length means it will outresolve the 500mm when focussed on the same target at the same distance. Conversely, the 500mm will outresolve the the 300 at 420mm - I found the 100-500 did outresolve the old EF 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTCIII.
    17. I have a slightly different take on those MTFs from my perspectives of use. The RF 100-500 does have at 500mm slightly better MTFs than the 100-300 at 600mm, but its 20% extra focal length means it will outresolve the 500mm when focussed on the same target at the same distance. Conversely, the 500mm will outresolve the the 300 at 420mm - I found the 100-500 did outresolve the old EF 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTCIII.

      Resolution is one thing, but background separation is another. 420mm at f/4 (300+1.4x) is going to give you much nicer bokeh than the 100-500 will at 420mm at whatever that f/value is... 6.3 or thereabouts?
    19. Resolution is one thing, but background separation is another. 420mm at f/4 (300+1.4x) is going to give you much nicer bokeh than the 100-500 will at 420mm at whatever that f/value is... 6.3 or thereabouts?
      I was writing about the 100-500mm at 500mm, not at 420mm. Read it: the 600mm outresolves the 500mm because of the 20% extra focal length outweighing the slightly inferior MTFs; and conversely 500mm outresolves a sharper 420mm because of the extra focal length. No way would the 100-500mm zoomed out to 420mm outresolve the 300 with a 1.4xTC on it.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment