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.

EricN said:

There was the suggestion about Diffractive Optics, even with that, do you think would be more likely to be 7 or or 8k? If so, why?

Click to expand...

I don't think DO will make the lens cheaper, if that's what you're suggesting. It's really the size of the entrance pupil that matters. For example, the 200/2 and 400/4 II DO have the same size entrance pupil, the former launched in 2008 for 850,000 ¥ and the latter in 2014 for 900,000 ¥ (and the 400/4 DO MkI was 770,000 ¥ when it launched in 2001). So, those three lenses are all about the same price, accounting for appropriate increases with time.

To me, that suggests a 300-600/5.6L will be around the same price as the 100-300/2.8, whether the new lens has DO or not. It's longer so that would be likely to increase the price a bit, but it's a 2x zoom not 3x which would be likely to decrease the price a bit.

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 to be a 420-840mm f/8 or 600-1200mm f/11 and probably that's enough of a selling point if the optics of the bare lens are similar in quality to the 100-300/2.8. Or they could make the lens such that it could be priced in the$7-8K range but I don't see how without sacrificing optical and build quality.

neuroanatomist said:

I have a very good RF 200-600mm f/5.6L IS with dual nano USM when I put the RF 2x behind my RF 100-300/2.8. As @john1970 suggests, I don’t see how a 300-600/5.6 gets down to the ~$4-6K price range that people looking at the Nikon 600/800 PF lenses are hoping for.

Click to expand...

There was the suggestion about Diffractive Optics, even with that, do you think would be more likely to be 7 or or 8k? If so, why?

I just want a good, sub $8k super tele lens, with internal zoom

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

Canon Rumors said:

a constant aperture RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS VCM.

Click to expand...

I have a very good RF 200-600mm f/5.6L IS with dual nano USM when I put the RF 2x behind my RF 100-300/2.8. As @john1970 suggests, I don’t see how a 300-600/5.6 gets down to the ~$4-6K price range that people looking at the Nikon 600/800 PF lenses are hoping for.

It will be interesting to see what this lens specifications are once it is released. Frankly, I am not a fan of development announcements. Just make the product announcement in the summer with the availability in the fall. If Canon included DO that would be nice to lower the weight. As other have already mentioned, I would also prefer f4 on short end of the focal length. A 300-600 mm f4-f5.6 DO lens??! With that 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.

hmm I don’t know about the idea of this lens. I have the 300 2.8ii… with TCs 420mm 4.0 - 600mm 5.6. This is what a nice modern tele zoom would bring me to upgrade from my EF!
Otherwise a lightweight 300-600 4.0…

I don’t believe in a good price…

So, what will arrive first, the Canon 300-600/5.6L or the Sony 100-400/4GM...

blackcoffee17 said:

I don't understand why variable aperture is an issue. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is totally different proposition. I rather have F4 at 300mm than F5.6.

Click to expand...

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."

I don't understand why variable aperture is an issue. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is totally different proposition. I rather have F4 at 300mm than F5.6.

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
Personally would much prefer a variable aperture of say f/4-5.6 and I'm hoping it's 200-600 rather than 300-600 as I'd much rather have that range and if it has a shorter minimum focal distance that would be a bonus.
Builtin 1.4x and maybe 2x extenders would be great too: 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
Those are my wishlist specs

danfaz said:

Here are some portraits of the juvenile Great Horned Owl that I posted some BIFs of yesterday. Again, very distant, so I had to crop heavily. This guy was also quite difficult to spot, blended in so well with the environment.
View attachment 228497View attachment 228498View attachment 228499

Click to expand...

It needs sunglasses in order to be effectively blended in the environment !

AJ said:

You put the lens in a vise.

Just joking around....

Click to expand...

And...crank it as hard/tight as possible?!

Click said:

I love his eyes. Nicely done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click! They are piercing, huh!

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

I will maybe be able to do a comparison of a R5II and BMPCC 6k in the following days. The C50 images looks very similar to the R52 from what I can see, but I am curious to how it compares to blackmagic. Form factor seems to be the most relevant difference when comparing Canon.

Click to expand...

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.