Ian K said:

I got fed up waiting, and ordered a new RF 100-300mm f2.8L IS USM. Withe a doubler I get a 200-600mm f5.6, which is better than a 300-600mm in terms of range. Sure I have to choose to double or not before I set out, or swap the field. Obviously, I’ve got the 1.4x option too. 140-420mm f4.

I got the RF 100-300 for £8600 from Wex Photo Video, new UK stock at the Photography show. 72.5% of RRP

Click to expand...

That was an absolute steal. It would seem to be below the wholesale cost.

Bob Howland said:

Craig mentioned the 24 f/1.4 SSC. I watched a guy buy one of those in I think 1975. He paid for half of it with cash and put the other half on his credit card. He said the didn't want his wife to know how much the lens cost.

Click to expand...

So basically nothing has changed.....

A Yellow-billed Pintail seen while birding at Mirador de Aves - La Cocha, Colombia, February, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Craig mentioned the 24 f/1.4 SSC. I watched a guy buy one of those in I think 1975. He paid for half of it with cash and put the other half on his credit card. He said the didn't want his wife to know how much the lens cost.

Somewhere I read Ringed Plover.

R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 2500

antonn said:

Falco tinnunculus in the city

Click to expand...

Great shots, even in an unusual enviroment!
How did You manage to use a big white in the city? Most people don't expect a wildlife shooter there!

candyman said:

EDIT: I am reading "The IS unit is able to lock and unlock the shifting lens cell depending on the IS switch position on the lens barrel. Mechanically locking the compensation optics prevents the lens from unintentional shifts when stabilization is turned off."

Click to expand...

That's in reference to EF lenses. RF lenses don't do that. No point in switching off IS for transport of an RF lens.

P-visie said:

As @neuroanatomist status: this is normal (I got quite a fright when I got my 100-500mm and saw the IS unit moving around). Canon has stopped "locking" the image stabilizer in (some) RF lenses.
See section "IS Lens Lock Mechanism"on https://exclusivearchitecture.com/03-technical-articles-CLT-18-image-stabilization.html

Click to expand...

Hi Pieter, thank you for the link to the article. I will read it.
I recall, by the way, that in the past it was also advised via websites to transport lenses with IS with the IS switch off. Apparently, that doesn't matter anymore either?

EDIT: I am reading "The IS unit is able to lock and unlock the shifting lens cell depending on the IS switch position on the lens barrel. Mechanically locking the compensation optics prevents the lens from unintentional shifts when stabilization is turned off."

candyman said:

Thank you for providing some more clarity. By the way, I don't hear any clunking sound. I guess that is good. So I only see the elements moving. After the first experience, I was already afraid I would have to go back to Canon again. Now I just hope for nice weather in the coming days so I can put the lens to work outdoors as well.

Click to expand...

As @neuroanatomist status: this is normal (I got quite a fright when I got my 100-500mm and saw the IS unit moving around). Canon has stopped "locking" the image stabilizer in (some) RF lenses.
See section "IS Lens Lock Mechanism"on https://exclusivearchitecture.com/03-technical-articles-CLT-18-image-stabilization.html

Great shots! Well done, Glenn.

Very nice with the water droplets on its feathers.

You won't hear the clunk if you 'gently move the lens from left to right and back again'. You most likely will if you give it a decent shake. Perfectly normal for these lenses.

neuroanatomist said:

Yes, that's normal. Some, but not all, RF lenses do that. My RF 100-400 does, as do my RF 100-500L, 70-200/2.8L and 100/2.8L Macro. Other lenses, e.g., my RF 24-105/2.8L and RF 24-240, do not. Even if you can't see the elements moving inside, RF lenses with IS don't park it when unmounted so they'll make a clunking sound when you move them around.

Click to expand...

Thank you for providing some more clarity. By the way, I don't hear any clunking sound. I guess that is good. So I only see the elements moving. After the first experience, I was already afraid I would have to go back to Canon again. Now I just hope for nice weather in the coming days so I can put the lens to work outdoors as well.

Yes, that's normal. Some, but not all, RF lenses do that. My RF 100-400 does, as do my RF 100-500L, 70-200/2.8L and 100/2.8L Macro. Other lenses, e.g., my RF 24-105/2.8L and RF 24-240, do not. Even if you can't see the elements moving inside, RF lenses with IS don't park it when unmounted so they'll make a clunking sound when you move them around.

I can back up what Neuro said from personal experience with the R7 + RF 100-400 and that OM setup (shhhh, don't tell anyone ).

Bufflehead

Historically, Canon tends to announce professional grade big white telephoto lenses in the spring so a May announcement would be consistent with past behavior. For example, the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 was announced on April 20, 2023.

Mr. Warbucks said:

If the R7Ii gets an R6 body with cooling it will most probably grow weight. The birding set up requires low weight. The Rf100-400 is pretty light, but apenditure comprise at the long end.
If the price really would be around 2300$, would an OM1 mark II with their oly 100-400 lens not a better value proposition? Micro 4/3 gives crop factor 2. Is the lower MP an issue? The sensor is smaller, hence probably not? Probably same weight range, however a bit more expensive?

Click to expand...

Practically speaking, it will likely end up being a wash. The m4/3 sensor will have about 1/2 stop more image noise than the APS-C sensor (e.g., ISO 2200 on the OM-1 II would look like ISO 3200 on the R7II), and the OM lens is 2/3-stop faster. So about 1/6-stop overall advantage of the OM system despite the slower aperture of the Canon RF 100-400, and the RF 100-400 is about half the weight of the OM 100-400 II. The OM-1 II weighs the same as the R7 so if weight is your primary concern then the Canon will be the lighter system by at least 500 g and probably more.

400mm on 2x will give more reach, but the significantly higher MP count of the R7II (even if it stays at 32 MP) will allow deeper cropping for the same output. You'll get more 'pixels on duck' with the Canon setup.

If the R7Ii gets an R6 body with cooling it will most probably grow weight. The birding set up requires low weight. The Rf100-400 is pretty light, but apenditure comprise at the long end.
If the price really would be around 2300$, would an OM1 mark II with their oly 100-400 lens not a better value proposition? Micro 4/3 gives crop factor 2. Is the lower MP an issue? The sensor is smaller, hence probably not? Probably same weight range, however a bit more expensive?

Just a brief update for those who followed my Nikon Z8 & Z 600mm f/6.3 PF (w and w/o 1.4x TC) versus R5 II & EF 600mm f/4.0 III (w and w/o 1.4x TC) AF issues and are interested in my reports. My wife and I found, that the Z8 still offers in their AF menu an option to micro adjust its AF to a lens, in contrast to Canon's ML cameras (as far as I know). So that was a strong hint, that Nikon's AF system even in the age of ML cameras may need AFMA. I dusted off my old Spyder Lenscal and we found indeed, that the Z8 & Z 600mm f/6.3 PF had a massive back-focus, with 1.4x TC even worse. So we AFMA'd the system for both combos. Unfortunately, since then there was no chance to really test this combo with birds, due to bad weather and a lack of time, so we still have to wait for real world results. Of course, we do hope we'll see a substantial improvement.

So, what do we learn from that? Obviously, Nikon's AF system seems to work much more like the old DSLRs, in contrast to Canon's DPAF based system, since there is still an option - and sometimes a strong need - for AFMA. When I have more time, I will try to do a little research to find more in-depth information about Nikon's Z AF system. What I have in mind is that the AF system of Nikon's first Z cameras got a lot of bad reviews, just with about the arrival of the Z9 and later Z8 the test results improved substantially.

neuroanatomist said:

Yep, and it’s one of the cheapest Canon products!

Click to expand...

But still more expensive than the Sony and Nikon version.

I got fed up waiting, and ordered a new RF 100-300mm f2.8L IS USM. Withe a doubler I get a 200-600mm f5.6, which is better than a 300-600mm in terms of range. Sure I have to choose to double or not before I set out, or swap the field. Obviously, I’ve got the 1.4x option too. 140-420mm f4.

I got the RF 100-300 for £8600 from Wex Photo Video, new UK stock at the Photography show. 72.5% of RRP

shadowsports said:

Canon could have sent an R5 mkII and R1 to NASA with 2-3 lenses. Talk about good PR. They missed the boat.

Click to expand...

Remember that Nikon has over half a century's experience in space. They've been providing NASA with space cameras since 1971 during the Apollo program and have been the standard cameras on Apollo (Command Module, not Lunar Module), Apollo/Soyuz, the Shuttle, Skylab and the International Space Station. It's rumored that all the major vendors do submit proposals every time a new camera is called for but fifty years' experience gives Nikon an edge in knowing what is needed and how to build and deliver it.

However, the embarrassing one was that some Sony fans released a fake press release that Sony had been chosen as the new Artemis camera complete with photos of executives, fake quotes and a photo of a Sony camera on a lunar-like background as an April Fools post. It actually got believed by some news sources.