DocInfoSci said:

OK — totally happy to play ball with this one. I do like you, and I enjoy the back and forth with your excellent attention to detail, I was just caught off guard by (how I read) your response.

Click to expand...

Apologies, was aiming for humor but I know that sometimes fails to translate in a forum post.

DocInfoSci said:

I was hoping the 5.6 nature of the beast would mean a price more in line with the 100-500, and less than that of the prime. The 100-500 retails for less than $4k in Canada not on sale. I realize that it goes to 7.1, so a price bump if held at 5.6. But I think to make it attractive vs existing options there is pressure after the initial release to keep it less than half that of the prime's cost.

Click to expand...

With telephoto designs, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element and thus the size of that entrance pupil determines the size of the front element, and the cost of the lens scales accordingly. 500/7.1 = 70mm, that's relatively small, about the same as 400/5.6 or 200/2.8. Those are sub-$3K lenses, as primes or zooms. 600/5.6 = 107mm, same as 300/2.8. That's 'great white' territory, which currently is $10K and up.

DocInfoSci said:

Your 100-300 2.8 is awesome, but I also feel like it's a market statement piece similar to the 28-70 2. I feel like with the 300-600 clocking in at 5.6 + the 200-800 as a competitive option + primes for the ultimate in luxury means the 300-600 discussed here is more like a working lens. Not cheap, but potentially not a student's second car.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. Math: 300 / 2.8 = 600 / 5.6. 'Clocking in at 5.6' yes, but at 600mm. I mean, the EF 1200mm f/5.6 also clocked in at 5.6 and cost $90,000...more than many houses when it came out in 1993 (the median home price was $126K that year).

Of course, I also realize that Canon could simply be working to replace primes with zooms — that seems to be the trend since late EF days. If the quality of the 300-600 image and build and weight is on par with the 100-300 then the primes can be reserved only for those moments by which even the high ISO capabilities are overwhelmed by the lack of light for a given acceptable outcome. Given recent photos have won prestige awards while using ISO up to 25k this need for absolute brightness is less and less the typical competitive case.

In which case, I agree a price closer to the prime is expected. In the eyes of Canon the 200-800 would be a toy to placate non-commercial work and the primes would begin their final march into niche use and irrelevance.

Since many are repeating themselves, wants or opinions, I will join in too.

For the way I am photographing a 200-600/4-5.6 would be the most useful and most likely to get my money. I use the 100-500 and 200-800 everywhere on the scale. An internal zoom lens of that range which could also take the converters with 100-300 or 100-500 optical quality would be about perfect for me. And maybe some others. Price. If it were 5 or 6K, yippee. If more, well okay, I will put my money where my keyboard is.

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...

OK — totally happy to play ball with this one. I do like you, and I enjoy the back and forth with your excellent attention to detail, I was just caught off guard by (how I read) your response.

I was hoping the 5.6 nature of the beast would mean a price more in line with the 100-500, and less than that of the prime. The 100-500 retails for less than $4k in Canada not on sale. I realize that it goes to 7.1, so a price bump for the 300-600 if held at 5.6. But I think to make it attractive vs existing options there is pressure after the initial release to keep it less than half that of the prime's cost. For third party comparison the Sigma 60-600 retails for less than $3k CAD and the 600mm prime is less than $9k CAD.

Your 100-300 2.8 is awesome, but I also feel like it's a market statement piece similar to the 28-70 2. I feel like with the 300-600 clocking in at 5.6 + the 200-800 as a competitive option + primes for the ultimate in luxury means the 300-600 discussed here is more like a working lens. Not cheap, but potentially not a student's second car.

Perhaps my flippant reference of $2.5 was a trigger, but unpacked above is what lead to it.

Canon Rumors said:

Apologies for another one of these posts. It did pull something out.

I don't think it's going to be a "normal" design. Who knows what's taking so long, but this isn't the first time for a lens. The 100-400 II, 200-400 took forever. Even the RF 70-200 internal zoom took a year to show up from first mention.

Maybe they found a weak point in testing and have to fix it, maybe manufacturing has an issue, maybe a supply chain thing, maybe the accountants just don't want it out yet. Bleh.

Click to expand...

Could be related to something nobody ever criticized before: Trump tarrifs?

DocInfoSci said:

And the article's stated between wording.

Click to expand...

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.

scyrene said:

There's a limit though, right? Or else we could all just wish for that budget 1-1000mm f/1.

One of the longstanding problems with this forum is people having unrealistic expectations (hopes/fantasies) and then acting like they've been let down when reality bites. You might not be one of those, but it doesn't add much either way. We all want a free lunch.

Click to expand...

OK . I mean, I agree on a level — I just didn't realize that closer meant unrealistic or a pharmaceutically enhanced experience.

What would be better? Perhaps, especially if it were farther away from $15k.

But, logically, they're the same statement. Emotionally, I recognize the difference in terms of optimism. I mean, even $6k, which is probably realistic-ish if Canon wants it to be given Sigma's example, would still be less than half of $15k and still honor my original thought. And the article's stated between wording.

DocInfoSci said:

Woah, Dude — I didn't say I was expecting. I said it would be nice.

isn't a rumours forum kind of given to fantasy and wishes?

Click to expand...

There's a limit though, right? Or else we could all just wish for that budget 1-1000mm f/1.

One of the longstanding problems with this forum is people having unrealistic expectations (hopes/fantasies) and then acting like they've been let down when reality bites. You might not be one of those, but it doesn't add much either way. We all want a free lunch.

I can only imagine the reach this RF 300-600mm f5.6 will have on the rumoured R7II. An effective 500-1000mm! Lets assume this lens will be tack sharp wide open...where as the RF200-800mm might stuggle with the R7II's super resolving sensor.

neuroanatomist said:

You're expecting an RF 300-600mm f/5.6L lens for a lower cost than the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L?!?

If I was the sort of person who engaged in recreational drug use, I'd want some of whatever it is that put you in such a mental state, it's evidently pretty powerful stuff!

Click to expand...

Woah, Dude — I didn't say I was expecting. I said it would be nice.

To quote the article:

Going with a DO design would definitely trim some weight and size and give further segmentation in the lineup of supertelephoto lenses. There does need to be an option between $2500 and $15,000 if you're looking for a great 400-600mm option.

Click to expand...

And I stated:

especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

Click to expand...

But then again, isn't a rumours forum kind of given to fantasy and wishes?

DocInfoSci said:

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

Click to expand...

It's not going to be less than the 100-300/2.8L. I suspect if you place a "1" in front of the 2.5 you have there (ie $12.5k), you'll probably be pretty close to the price.

Tirmite said:

I always only purchased Canon lenses.... until a couple years ago. The Sigma 105mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.4 are great lenses. Rented them first, then I bought them. They are well made and sharp and the price makes it seem like Canon is gouging us just for their name badge on the lens, and I'm saying that as a hardcore Canon fanboy. I plan on getting the 200mm 2.0 as soon as I sell my Canon 200mm 2.0. It only makes sense since Canon will stop servicing the 300mm and 200mm EF versions in the next 2-3 years. Why be stuck with a lens that can be repaired if anything happens? The only downside, and it really isn't one, is that I have to use my Sony bodies with those lenses since Sigma doesn't make them in Canon mount (ok, the 105mm was an EF mount but with adapters I can use is on my R3's or a7's. So now I have to also include batteries and chargers in my camera bag for the Sony, but that only takes up a six inch square space. The Canon 200mm was $6400 when I bought mine if I remember correctly. The Sigma is $3300 new. Pretty hard to rationalize the $3000 difference in cost when it performs 99% as well. You sacrifice the filter drawer which I never use. And here's the point I was really getting to: The Sigma 300-600mm f4.0, a constant 4.0 aperture, is $6600. I haven't used/rented one yet, but so far the reviews have been very positive. That's probably what Canon would charge for a 300-600mm f5.6 or a variable f-stop lens. You know they'd want about double what Sigma is charging. It just doesn't make sense financially when they're making such good glass these days. I could have TWO super telephotos or the lens and an a9 Mark III or a1 Mark II or TWO a7v bodies for the difference in price! It's just too bad Sigma won't or can't (for legal reasons) make them available in the RF mount. I love all of my Canon RF and EF glass and I'll never jump ship, but Sigma has turned into an excellent lens manufacturer and Canon has lost me as a big white lens purchaser other than maybe the 100-300mm 2.8 when it comes time to replace my 300mm fixed. And it's not difficult to shoot with two different systems on the same photo shoot in case anyone brings that up. It just isn't an issue. you develop "muscle memory" for each body. When I first got into photography as a kid in the 70's, Sigma was crap. They were cheap in price, and cheap in design and build. It's taken them 40+ years but what they make now is truly impressive especially at the price point they sell them for. Pay attention Canon. I'm sure I'm not the only fanboy with a wandering eye and wallet.

Click to expand...

Paragraphs....

DocInfoSci said:

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

Click to expand...

You're expecting an RF 300-600mm f/5.6L lens for a lower cost than the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L?!?

If I was the sort of person who engaged in recreational drug use, I'd want some of whatever it is that put you in such a mental state, it's evidently pretty powerful stuff!

I always only purchased Canon lenses.... until a couple years ago. The Sigma 105mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.4 are great lenses. Rented them first, then I bought them. They are well made and sharp and the price makes it seem like Canon is gouging us just for their name badge on the lens, and I'm saying that as a hardcore Canon fanboy.
I plan on getting the 200mm 2.0 as soon as I sell my Canon 200mm 2.0. It only makes sense since Canon will stop servicing the 300mm and 200mm EF versions in the next 2-3 years. Why be stuck with a lens that can't be repaired if anything happens? The only downside, and it really isn't one, is that I have to use my Sony bodies with those lenses since Sigma doesn't make them in Canon mount (ok, the 105mm was an EF mount but with adapters I can use is on my R3's or a7's. So now I have to also include batteries and chargers in my camera bag for the Sony, but that only takes up a six inch square space.
The Canon 200mm was $6400 when I bought mine if I remember correctly. The Sigma is $3300 new. Pretty hard to rationalize the $3000 difference in cost when it performs 99% as well. You sacrifice the filter drawer which I never use. And here's the point I was really getting to: The Sigma 300-600mm f4.0, a constant 4.0 aperture, is $6600. I haven't used/rented one yet, but so far the reviews have been very positive. That's probably what Canon would charge for a 300-600mm f5.6 or a variable f-stop lens. You know they'd want about double what Sigma is charging.
It just doesn't make sense financially when they're making such good glass these days. I could have TWO super telephotos or the lens and an a9 Mark III or a1 Mark II or TWO a7v bodies for the difference in price! It's just too bad Sigma won't or can't (for legal reasons) make them available in the RF mount. I love all of my Canon RF and EF glass and I'll never jump ship, but Sigma has turned into an excellent lens manufacturer and Canon has lost me as a big white lens purchaser other than maybe the 100-300mm 2.8 when it comes time to replace my 300mm fixed.
And, no, it's not difficult to shoot with two different systems on the same photo shoot in case anyone brings that up. It just isn't an issue. you develop "muscle memory" for each body. When I first got into photography as a kid in the 70's, Sigma was crap. They were cheap in price, and cheap in design and build. It's taken them 40+ years but what they make now is truly impressive especially at the price point they sell them for. Pay attention Canon. I'm sure I'm not the only fanboy with a wandering eye and wallet.

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k. I find that 600mm is barely adequate for Pacific Northwest lifeforms off of shorelines given than mudflats make it very difficult to approach some life forms, tides make it difficult to wait for long periods, and boats tend to be scary for said life forms. It would be generally capable for animal life, and a TC would make it a reasonably priced option (relative to $15k) for many people when acceptable quality reach beyond that is needed to fill a frame on full frame. It would also probably be epic on a zodiac boat for small stuff like otters.

Fixed aperture is always preferred by me for consistent setting control when zooming. I'll take a fixed 5.6 along the whole length over something variable that ends up at 5.6 anyhow. I don't look at a zoom as a collection of primes, but rather a range of options for framing a given perspective. But horses for courses, right?

300mm + tcs are great for bigger things, like bison, or friendly things, like puddleducks.

For various reasons, a 2x TC applied to something that is relatively close for a given lens is way better than a 2x TC for things that are relatively far away for a given lens. With or without DLO.

Daniel Lindblom said:

The text in the article says that some people don't like the idea of a constant aperture, not a variable aperture.

"A constant aperture of f/5.6 does seem to make some people on the internet upset for whatever reason."

Click to expand...

"People on the internet" are always upset!
Just like some CanonRumors posters...

antonn said:

The simplest way would be to simply add TC2.0 inside. Just like they did with the RF800/5.6 and RF1200/8. Of course, this wouldn't make the lens any smaller or lighter.

Click to expand...

I hope we never see an ugly thing like this from Canon again. I never imagined I would see the day that Canon would pull such shenanigans.

R1+RF600/4, Accipiter nisus

RF 300mm f/2.0L IS USM for approx $9,719.36 or 1,528,200 JPY would be what I'd want

Chig said:

Be interesting to see how light Canon can make this lens: the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 weighs 2.6kg and has the same entrance pupil but hoping Canon can make it closer to 2kg
Also hoping they can find some cost savings so that it's more affordable than the 100-300mm f/2.8

Click to expand...

The simplest way would be to simply add TC2.0 inside. Just like they did with the RF800/5.6 and RF1200/8. Of course, this wouldn't make the lens any smaller or lighter.

neuroanatomist said:

What a novel suggestion, @mimbu! Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

I said the same thing in an earlier threads when many were predicting prices that were a fraction of the 100-300.

Ultimately it's Canon, it's going to be expensive. And they'll never let glass like the Sigma 300-600/4 onto RF.

---

---

Edit: Like here from September last year: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...5-6l-is-usm-on-the-horizon.44719/post-1030856

SteelLynx said:

With all the stuff around that guy, these shots are excellent danfaz. I would have anything in focus, but not those big eyes

Click to expand...

Thank you, it was definitely a challenge! Animal tracking was not working at all, so had to use spot AF.
Aside from those amazing eyes, you almost couldn't see this guy. I edited in post to try and make the owl stand out more.

The Canon RF 300-600mm super telephoto zoom lens has been talked about for what seems like forever.

Click to expand...

Not as long as the 35 1.2

john1970 said:

I do not see how this lens is significantly less costly than the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens. Both lenses (should) have the same entrance pupil diameter.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

To me, that suggests a 300-600/5.6L will be around the same price as the 100-300/2.8

Click to expand...

mimbu said:

It's almost impossible to imagine how a 300-600/5.6L would come in cheaper than the 100-300/2.8L. If anything I would expect it to be more expensive.

Click to expand...

What a novel suggestion, @mimbu! Thanks for sharing.

It's almost impossible to imagine how a 300-600/5.6L would come in cheaper than the 100-300/2.8L. If anything I would expect it to be more expensive.