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.

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