neuroanatomist said:

That wording seems to derive from the prices of the RF 100-500L and the RF 600/4L, which seem like reasonable bookends for a L series lens covering 400-600mm. Of course, I'd argue that the RF 100-300/2.8 + RF 2x TC at $11,300 currently (though I paid $10,100 for the combo) falls right in that range and can be bought today.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Unless Canon wishes to pull another one of their "non L" suprise stunts like the RF 200-800, this lens is likely to be priced around the RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS. I really can't imagine that Canon pouring all their best tech, design, manufacturing and top tier excellence into a zoom lens like this and then sell it at a loss and make it a cheapie. The RF 100-300/2.8 tells us the rpice range to expect. Anyone who thinks this is going to be in the RF 100-500/f7.1 price range are in for a big shock.
Considering how sharp their latest white zooms have been (RF70-200/2.8 VCM and RF100-300/2.8), one can only image how stunning this lens will be on a R7ii....with its very high resolving sensor. You might be able to put a 1.4x TC on this thing (on a R7ii) and still be tack sharp wide open. Considering the focal length and extra reach....that's a sweet combo. I hope Canon does go with the roumoured variable aperture f4-f5.6 version. On a 1.6x crop camera this would make an effective 500mm f5.6 - 1000mm f9, pretty versatile and an amazing reach.

neuroanatomist said:

[blah blah blah ... angry man yells at cloud]

Click to expand...

Let's keep comparisons apples to apples.

We'll see how Canon does long term. If Sony chooses to develop garbage tier cameras like the R50 and (especially) R100, I would expect the gap to close quite a bit. For now, Canon owns the market for garbage. That's something you can be proud of.

Anyone hoping this theoretical lens will cost significantly (or even at all!) less than 100-300 will be sorely disappointed.

Canon already sells RF 100-500, which is a really great lens, but it's not internal zoom and the f-stop at long end is limiting.

A 300-600 seems like a logical pair to the 100-300 f2.8 and will be squarely aimed at pros, with pricing to match. My guess is a nice round $10k - middle ground between the 100-500 and $14k RF 600 f4.

mimbu said:

Which is exactly what the smart people are doing.

Click to expand...

Yes, smart people buy Sony and not Canon. And it turns out that you did, too...but that was just dumb luck.

scyrene said:

You want those lenses, buy a rival's body. Sorted!

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the smart people are doing.

scyrene said:

Here we go again! Just like when marginally lower DR was going to sink them. Why not cite Nokia or Kodak - go the full cliché.

Click to expand...

Interesting you bring up Kodak. I'm not sure I would equate the two just yet, but Canon dumping another FSI sensor into the R6 III was not a sign of strong R&D at the company.

scyrene said:

You understand that low end devices will always dominate most markets, because most people don't want to commit a lot of money to what they buy? No need for the sneering "junk" and "shovel". What a strange mix of superiority and fake concern for the brand's future. Each manufacturer makes decisions, some will fail. If they followed forum warriors' advice, they'd all have gone bust years ago.

Click to expand...

Of course I understand, which is why I pointed out that Canon effectively shoveling garbage tier cameras (and let's be clear, the R100 is absolutely garbage tier, with the R50 not being all that much better) out the door is why the sales numbers are higher. If I didn't understand that, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

And I'm not sure why you think I have "fake concern" for Canon. I don't have any concern for Canon.

mimbu said:

I may have had my Japan market numbers mixed with global numbers, or my numbers may have been out of date.

Click to expand...

So now you're finally going to half-assed, sort of admit that you were wrong? 'May have had?' Lol. When I first disputed your false claim with actual data, I suggested that you were referring to Japan-specific numbers from the BCN Awards, but you doubled down with an asinine inference that because Canon announced they are #1 (again) in ILC sales but didn't specifically say #1 in mirrorless, they weren't. Numbers out of date? Sure, by several years.

mimbu said:

Regardless, I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term. When you hate your customers and try to bleed them for all they've got, most of them eventually figure it out.

Click to expand...

Lol, sure, sure. YAPODFC. Yet Another Prediction Of Doom For Canon. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that Canon knows the market better than you do.

mimbu said:

Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony.

Click to expand...

Deluded much? This is what 'slightly more market share than Sony' looks like:


Sure, I know you will next say that you really mean just mirrorless, or just full frame mirrorless, or just cameras sold in Japan, or just cameras sold at MAP Camera in Tokyo, or just cameras sold at MAP Camera in Tokyo on some specific Tuesday in 2025. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

mimbu said:

I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term.

Click to expand...

Here we go again! Just like when marginally lower DR was going to sink them. Why not cite Nokia or Kodak - go the full cliché.

mimbu said:

Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony. Based on the limited data we get such as Amazon or B&H rankings, this is due to the very high volume of low end junk cameras like the R50 and R100 that Canon effectively shovels out the door.

Click to expand...

You understand that low end devices will always dominate most markets, because most people don't want to commit a lot of money to what they buy? No need for the sneering "junk" and "shovel". What a strange mix of superiority and fake concern for the brand's future. Each manufacturer makes decisions, some will fail. If they followed forum warriors' advice, they'd all have gone bust years ago.

mimbu said:

Canon does not believe in competition.

Click to expand...

More precisely, they engage in external competition with other brands. You want those lenses, buy a rival's body. Sorted!

eero said:

The part that breaks is the screw that attaches the lens hood to the lens. And the structure around it. That area gets a lot of pressure if the lens hood gets hit while shooting or in the bag. And it is almost impossible to glue or patch, because there is also pressure that comes from the screw itself when tightened against the lens. Small cracks keep getting bigger and so on. Difficult to explain, especially in English. I guess it is the weak point of all the big whites.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see the screw being an issue. They did sell them separately but they were outrageously expensive - £500-600 I think?

From the start the R7 II rumors were it would be transformed into a "flagship" level body to go head to head with the Fuji H2, and eventually H3. So I'm inclined to believe these rumored specs and if that's how it pans out the R7 II will be well worth a similar price tag to the H2, maybe $100 more.

The only thing I haven't read or viewed anywhere is its weather and dust sealing level. To be a true wildlife or bird camera this will be the final clincher to me whether it's a "take my money" or wait and see body. (I'm very happy with my R5 II, so not desperate). In addition to the suggested rumored specs, it must have equal or better than the R6 III weather sealing to justify a $2400 price. The OG 7's lack of any sealing was just another reason I ditched it.

neuroanatomist said:

Canon believes in profit, and they already outcompete all the other camera brands. Canon sells more cameras than any other manufacturer, and they sell more mirrorless cameras than any other manufacturer (or are you going to lie again and claim that Sony does, with no data to back up your lies?).

Click to expand...

I may have had my Japan market numbers mixed with global numbers, or my numbers may have been out of date. Regardless, I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term. When you hate your customers and try to bleed them for all they've got, most of them eventually figure it out.

neuroanatomist said:

Yes, it would be nice for Canon users to have 3rd party lens options for FF MILCs (and to have had them for longer for APS-C MILCs). But Canon's domination of the market means they get to set the terms, and of course they're going to do so in a way that is best for their bottom line. That's the reality of business.

Click to expand...

Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony. Based on the limited data we get such as Amazon or B&H rankings, this is due to the very high volume of low end junk cameras like the R50 and R100 that Canon effectively shovels out the door. Sony does not compete well at those price points right now. I'm not sure if Sony will start to produce junk tier cameras like that as well, but I suppose if there is profit there, they might.

mimbu said:

These are the types of options that RF users miss out on because Canon does not believe in competition.

Click to expand...

Canon believes in profit, and they already outcompete all the other camera brands. Canon sells more cameras than any other manufacturer, and they sell more mirrorless cameras than any other manufacturer (or are you going to lie again and claim that Sony does, with no data to back up your lies?).

Yes, it would be nice for Canon users to have 3rd party lens options for FF MILCs (and to have had them for longer for APS-C MILCs). But Canon's domination of the market means they get to set the terms, and of course they're going to do so in a way that is best for their bottom line. That's the reality of business.

zackmorrison said:

I've used a variety of Blackmagics over the years. Under controlled conditions, with good lighting, they make a very nice image. I personally find their form factor though to be less-than-desirable for most field situations, and in uncontrolled settings the image can sometimes be not great.

Click to expand...

I did some testing. I will post the review soon

Tried the sigma 300-600 f4 with Z9. Too heavy since we move around a lot on moped during motorsport assignment. Already carry 2 pro bodies, 14-24, 70-200. If stay on a spot like shooting football/soccer, cricket, rugby etc should be ok.

Hopefully the RF300-600 will complement our RF70-200mm Z nicely on the R1

Bob Howland said:

And I think that Canon could sell the 100-300 at a profit for less than $5000, maybe less than $3500, but they have decided to go for the high profits. I paid less than $2000 for a Sigma EF 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport and it is just superb.

Click to expand...

Which is why Canon has blocked all 3rd party native glass from FF RF, and probably will do so in perpetuity.

Sigma's newer mirrorless native 150-600 is better optically than the EF glass while being less expensive, smaller, and lighter. Tamron's 150-500 is also excellent, and has extremely fast magnetic linear drive focus motors. (Sigma's 150-600 predates their magnetic linear AF, I expect their v2 will have that update.)

With no native RF competition, Canon can charge whatever they want for the 100-300/2.8 and 300-600/5.6. And they do/will.

Edit: For reference and comparison, the Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports is US$875+tax here in Japan at the current exchange rate of USDJPY=159.




The Tamron 150-500/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD is US$737+tax:



These are the types of options that RF users miss out on because Canon does not believe in competition.

scyrene said:

A little surprising, considering it's made from carbon fibre!

Click to expand...

The part that breaks is the screw that attaches the lens hood to the lens. And the structure around it. That area gets a lot of pressure if the lens hood gets hit while shooting or in the bag. And it is almost impossible to glue or patch, because there is also pressure that comes from the screw itself when tightened against the lens. Small cracks keep getting bigger and so on. Difficult to explain, especially in English. I guess it is the weak point of all the big whites.

Bob Howland said:

And I think that Canon could sell the 100-300 at a profit for less than $5000, maybe less than $3500, but they have decided to go for the high profits. I paid less than $2000 for a Sigma EF 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport and it is just superb.

Click to expand...

And I paid just a little more for the RF100-500 and it is definitely better than The Sigma 150-600...

neuroanatomist said:

However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. Please let us know here if you do and what the results are.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm not thrilled with the 100-300/2.8 + 2x, but I think my copy of the RF 2x is the main issue. Since I have the EF 600/4 II (that I use mainly with the EF 1.4xIII), I don't typically need to use the 2x on the 100-300/2.8 (but I often use the 1.4x with that lens).

Quite some time back (but after my return window, lazy me), I tested my RF 2x and found that the EF 2xIII was noticeably better, and that the RF 2x yielded IQ about the same as the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x stacked...the RF 2x should be better than that. I don't use it much, to be honest. However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, people think that a TC should have minimal copy variation because they are relatively simple and have no moving parts. But, I've tested a few in the past and found variation. My RF 2xTC seems good. I was worried about my RF 1.4x but it's the same as two others I've tried.

Bob Howland said:

And I think that Canon could sell the 100-300 at a profit for less than $5000, maybe less than $3500, but they have decided to go for the high profits. I paid less than $2000 for a Sigma EF 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport and it is just superb.

Click to expand...

You have an insight into what the profit margins are?

eero said:

However, they haven't made lens hoods for that lens for ages, and it is the easiest part to break.

Click to expand...

A little surprising, considering it's made from carbon fibre!

eero said:

People complain the 100-300mm + 2X is not sharp at f/5.6. If the new lens was razor sharp all the way to 600mm wide open, that might please all the birders out there. What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6? I have noticed that it is indeed sharper with 1.4x when fully open, but you usually have to pixel-peep to notice. However, this minor sharpness issue plus the possibility to go even further with extenders is very tempting to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not thrilled with the 100-300/2.8 + 2x, but I think my copy of the RF 2x is the main issue. Since I have the EF 600/4 II (that I use mainly with the EF 1.4xIII), I don't typically need to use the 2x on the 100-300/2.8 (but I often use the 1.4x with that lens).

Quite some time back (but after my return window, lazy me), I tested my RF 2x and found that the EF 2xIII was noticeably better, and that the RF 2x yielded IQ about the same as the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x stacked...the RF 2x should be better than that. I don't use it much, to be honest. However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Bob Howland said:

And I think that Canon could sell the 100-300 at a profit for less than $5000, maybe less than $3500, but they have decided to go for the high profits. I paid less than $2000 for a Sigma EF 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport and it is just superb.

Click to expand...

Hve you tried the 100-300mm?

Maybe... RF 35mmF 1.2L pancake?