Looking at this from a Canon Marketing point of view - In the EF days there was the $2K EF 100-400 and then the >$9k SuperTeles into which they dropped the EF 400 F4 DO for $6.5k which was near SuperTele performance for a bit less. This was quite widely used by birders who could afford it but I am guessing was a good but not great seller. It seems sensible that they might drop an RF 300-600 into this slot at $7-8k between RF100-500 @ $2.5k and the superteles at >$10.5k, perhaps thinking that this would have a wider appeal than an RF 400 F4 DO.
So the question becomes what Canon might trim vs 100-300 to reduce the cost by $2-3k. As neuro pointed out that this is 2x rather than 3x which might help. It has been hinted that there is something different about this lens. Perhaps the image needs a small stretch at 600 F5.6 which would reduce the size/weight/cost of elements? This would not matter to those who are pairing this with the R7II which might be expected to the target market. Full-frame users perhaps deemed more likely to use 100-300+2xExt or other superteles. Totally conjecture on my part, but it seems reasonably logical

roby17269 said:

Shocked, sir, I am shocked! I'll have you know I only deign L glass of consideration

Click to expand...

just for that, Canon Japan will make it 45-750mm!

EricN said:

stm is (lenshood and case sold separately)

Click to expand...

Shocked, sir, I am shocked! I'll have you know I only deign L glass of consideration

roby17269 said:

I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

Click to expand...

stm is (lenshood and case sold separately)

EricN said:

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

Click to expand...

I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

roby17269 said:

But you wouldn't, not exactly so.
A 300-600 5.6 native (I mean a lens designed as such, not a lens which is a 100-300 2.8 with a 2x glued on) would conceivably have better IQ than a 100-300 2.8 + 2x extender. All extenders, but especially 2x ones, do have a negative impact on IQ. If they hadn't we'd be using them much more.

If you need the reach, the 300-600 would be the better choice. If you do not often need the reach, then the 100-300 would be the better (and more versatile) choice. The 2 lenses have different use cases. So I'd expect the price of the 300-600 5.6 to be in the same ballpark as the 100-300, but actually a bit more expensive.

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

Click to expand...

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

Do we know for sure it's going to be an "L" lens i.e. the 200-800?
If new super primes are coming this summer as well (400 f2.8, 600 f4) I seriously doubt they'll make this lens a variable aperture and just make straight 5.6 to keep it far away from the new primes.

Great photos

Exploreshootshare said:

The article didn't mention the possibility of a constant f4 aperture for this zoom? Is it possible or plausible? I´m definitely not in the market for this lens, but as constant f5.6 zoom I´d rather buy the 100-300mm f2.8 and get a 2x TC. I´d get the same lens plus 100-300mm @f2.8... Sure, one could adapt the 2x TC on a 300-600mm F5.6 but then it would be a 600-1200mm F11 if I'm correct. I don't know how many people would go for that...

Click to expand...

But you wouldn't, not exactly so.
A 300-600 5.6 native (I mean a lens designed as such, not a lens which is a 100-300 2.8 with a 2x glued on) would conceivably have better IQ than a 100-300 2.8 + 2x extender. All extenders, but especially 2x ones, do have a negative impact on IQ. If they hadn't we'd be using them much more.

If you need the reach, the 300-600 would be the better choice. If you do not often need the reach, then the 100-300 would be the better (and more versatile) choice. The 2 lenses have different use cases. So I'd expect the price of the 300-600 5.6 to be in the same ballpark as the 100-300, but actually a bit more expensive.

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

I'd love for this lens to come in under $6K USD but I doubt it. Since it's Canon, we'll be lucky if it's under $10K. What I would really like is for Canon to introduce an f4 constant aperture version of the 100-300mm. The f2.8 version has been out long enough now for them to consider it.

Craig, are you in a position to comment on the likelihood of this lens being internal zoom?

The article didn't mention the possibility of a constant f4 aperture for this zoom? Is it possible or plausible? I´m definitely not in the market for this lens, but as constant f5.6 zoom I´d rather buy the 100-300mm f2.8 and get a 2x TC. I´d get the same lens plus 100-300mm @f2.8... Sure, one could adapt the 2x TC on a 300-600mm F5.6 but then it would be a 600-1200mm F11 if I'm correct. I don't know how many people would go for that...

DocInfoSci said:

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

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be great but it's a tough crowd. These guys have charts and electron microscopes for crissakes.

neuroanatomist said:

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

Click to expand...

Yeah — and partially on me. We've bantered enough. I was also in the room recently when one of my competitors learned their company has just been rendered redundant by agentic AI. We competed, but it sucks to see that look in someone's eyes. I respect them and their work. I brought that emotion with me today, and I should be wiser.

neuroanatomist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very good point.

neuroanatomist said:

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).

Click to expand...

I stand humbled by math. Again, very good point.

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.