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...

On a 600 mm f5.6 I would use a 1.4x TC for 840 mm f8 lens. With only the 1.4x TC the degradation of image quality should be minimal.

Tirmite said:

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?

Click to expand...

EF 500mm f/4 ii is still on the "serviced" list. However, they haven't made lens hoods for that lens for ages, and it is the easiest part to break. Internet is full of people wanting to buy one. It is very disappointing. Well, some might say it is not part of the lens, but a separate product. Yeah well... I wonder how Sigma handles issues like this.

neuroanatomist said:

Honestly not really sure I get the purpose of this lens, unless Canon does something differentiate it from the 100-300/2.8 + 2x. Ok, the 300-600 could take TCs...

Click to expand...

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.

Ph0t0 said:

A 300-600mm f5.6 lens with a price point closer to 2.5k would indeed be something. Especially since that is the price point of 100-500mm f4.5-7.1
I'm thinking something like 8k or more ...

Click to expand...

$12k or more. The chances of it being cheaper than the 100-300/2.8 that has the same front element size are very, very slim.

neuroanatomist said:

Get the RF 70-200/2.8 Z and put the RF 1.4x TC behind it. You’ll have a 98-280mm f/4 with excellent IQ, and you can get it right now, no waiting and hoping required.

Click to expand...

Strange (in a very positive way) that this particular lens doesn't seem to suffer fron extender addition. This has been convincingly proven by AlanF, even with a 2X extender.

EricN said:

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

Click to expand...

Based on a HarryFilm original design.

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...

A 300-600mm f5.6 lens with a price point closer to 2.5k would indeed be something. Especially since that is the price point of 100-500mm f4.5-7.1
I'm thinking something like 8k or more ...

dwkdnvr said:

I agree with this, which is why I continue to be surprised by the fact that 39MP seems to be *THE* one thing that has been consistent in the rumors. Of all the complaints about the R7 from a birding perspective resolution seems to be well down the list. Staying at 32MP would be perfectly fine as long as you have the readout speed and AF performance expected of an up-market birding-focused body. Heck, a fully stacked 26MP sensor as in the X-H2S might even be preferable to a 39MP one as it would offer faster frame rates and deeper buffers on the same hardware.

I'm expecting an R10II to move up and get IBIS to fill that niche, but it's a similar outcome - the R7II expands the range/footprint and leaves a gap in the lineup right where the existing R7 fits.

Click to expand...

If so it would be similar to the way the 2017 6D Mark II was very close, spec-wise, to the 2012 5D Mark III which was replaced by the 2016 5D Mark IV. Or the way the 5D Mark III was essentially the replacement for the 1Ds Mark III in 2012.

Different body levels, but similar technical capabilities.

neuroanatomist said:

Indeed, just like @mimbu believes that Sony leads the mirrorless market in spite of the fact that Canon has done so since 2022.

Click to expand...

Canon led the mirrorless market for most of the EOS M era, just not the Full frame mirrorless market.

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...

Let's see, a catadioptric zoom with AF and IS and maybe a little DO thrown in for good measure. That would be small and light and definitely not "normal". It would also likely be able to make a whole different price point. I would nab an AF mirror lens in a hot second.

GMCPhotographics said:

I'm really looking forwards to this new camera. Spec wise it sounds like massive fix for all of the R7's deficiencies. It's far more like the camera we hoped for in the R7. great as the R7 was, It's AF was notoriously un-reliable in low light (pulsing issues too), it's slightly weird and unique ergonomics. Now it's got pre-capture, all the latest UI and ergonomic upgrades, a better battery and superior buffer and card media. I just hope Canon gives it a better EVF...I think the R7 shares the same unit as the R8. Yes the stacked sensor will be a huge benefit over the current R7 if that's ever been an issue for you.
For me, I've used the 1.6x crop sensor cameras as cameras where I have a built in teleconverter. If i need a teleconverter, then i might as well use a R7 instead.
Your milage, opinion and use case scenario might vary.

Click to expand...

If the R7 Mark II turns out to be what many wished the R7 could have been, it will be a case of history repeating itself.

The 7D Mark II was what the 7D should have been, but the 7D had frustratingly inconsistent AF from one frame to the next, especially in AI Servo bursts but also with one shot single frame shooting. The 7D was also a lot noisier than the 7D Mark II at typical night field sports ISOs: 3200-6400.

AlanF said:

Neither was the weight. I tried to pick one up many years ago and had a shock. As a matter of interest, how do you handle this 3.7kg lens?

Click to expand...

Carrying it around the sidelines attached to my monopod (I had to upgrade the tilt head from a Manfrotto 234 to an Oben VH-A30 to support the lens) and a gripped 7D Mark II attached to the lens was like carrying a bowling ball on the end of a stick. I typically held the monopod with my left hand with the lens facing rearward resting over my left shoulder while moving around. I had two other bodies on a dual harness with a 70-200/2.8 on one and either a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 on the other.

H2Oplanet said:

Yep, RF 600 4.0 is too and has been for several days now....

Click to expand...

Scratch that -- Canon USA is showing RF 600 4.0 availability now buy B&H is not...

SonicStudios said:

Ummmm interesting Canon U.S.A. and B&H photos are now showing RF 400 2.8 out of stock, now I am wondering if the big whites are about to be released

Click to expand...

Yep, RF 600 4.0 is too and has been for several days now....

@Click @ThomasTH thanks, guys!

Let's just hope it's going to be an L lens with great IQ and we don't end up with something that is longer and faster than the 100-500 but actually has worse IQ.

Ummmm interesting Canon U.S.A. and B&H photos are now showing RF 400 2.8 out of stock, now I am wondering if the big whites are about to be released

roby17269 said:

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

Click to expand...

Sigma's 60-600/4.5-6.3 is not too far removed from that.

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...

I am still hoping against hope that it is a constant f4 ... if not, I will probably wait for gen 2 of RF 600 f4 and carry on with my 100-300 f2.8 w/ TC's... is Canon simply trying to avoid cannibalizing the RF 600 f4 or are there myriad other factors in going to f5.6?

JoeDavid said:

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.

Click to expand...

Get the RF 70-200/2.8 Z and put the RF 1.4x TC behind it. You’ll have a 98-280mm f/4 with excellent IQ, and you can get it right now, no waiting and hoping required.

antonn said:

R1+RF600/4, Accipiter nisus

Click to expand...

Beautiful shots. Well done, antonn.

danfaz said:

Good day for the owls today, got my first Great Horned Owl BIFs!
I watched what appeared to be an adult teaching a juvenile to hunt.
They were pretty far off, and I was across a river, so couldn't get any closer (hence the mega-crop!)

Click to expand...

Very nice series. I especially like the last one.

EricN said:

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

Click to expand...

At this point, probably the only way we'll ever see 35mm with f1.2

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.

Click to expand...

The IQ would definitely take a hit, but my goodness, think about the flexibility. It was just a thought of mine, I´m not really in the kind of mindset of counting pros and cons for these two lenses. I'm just curious if F4 is an option and if not, why so. Are the weight savings that immense?

roby17269 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Whew, even more expansive as the 100.-300mm? I´ll gladly stay with my most costly lens... the RF 100-500mm. It also my favorite lens

roby17269 said:

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

Click to expand...

I´d start saving for that baby!

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