Is A Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM The New Big Zoom That’s Coming?

[Canon Rumors]

The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM has been rumored for ages, and we know that prototypes were out there, but where is it? We have reported and blown possible announcement dates. Apologies for that.

Read The Full Article

 

[stillviking]

Take my money!! Waiting for this since my old EF 400mm 5.6L.

 

[Kiton]

If Canon is business wise, they will just copy the Nikon 200-500 5.6. I see that lens at every sporting event I go to, it is hugely popular and will sell like hot cakes.
Now if they can make it an f4, and it does not sell for 13k, even better!

 

[Bob Howland]

I have a Sigma EF 150-600 Sport that cost me about $2000. Why do I need a Canon 300-600 probably costing three times as much?

 

[Loswr]

I have a Sigma EF 150-600 Sport that cost me about $2000. Why do I need a Canon 300-600 probably costing three times as much?

If you have to ask the question, then you don’t need one. Obviously, other people are going to have different needs.

 

[Del Paso]

Sounds very interesting!
Not being an f/4 lens means less weight and cost.
+ 1,4X extender will give a 840mm f/8.

 

[scyrene]

Re the "cannibalisation", surely that doesn't apply if the new product is more expensive?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have a Sigma EF 150-600 Sport that cost me about $2000. Why do I need a Canon 300-600 probably costing three times as much?

For precisely the reasons you see so many Canon shooters choose the RF 100-500 f7.1 LIS.

 

[JESPhoto]

I have the 100-500 and, as a wildlife and nature photographer, it serves me well. The 300-600 would most likely not focus as close, but that remains to be seen. It will miss everything from 100-300. A week ago, I was searching my photo library to see where I shot most of my images with the 100-500. A friend was debating to get the lens or a fixed focal length. About 30% of my images were shot between 100 and 200. About 20% between 200 and 400 the remaining 50% were between 400 and 500. I do mainly mammals, reptiles, amphibians, wildflowers, insects (butterflies, dragonflies and spiders (I know spiders are not insects). I do some bird photography but like raptors more than tiny kinglets and warblers. I do enjoy woodpeckers. The 100-500 has met my needs for the variety of wildlife I enjoy capturing. Once in a while, I would like more focal length (think waterfowl way out in the wetlands) but, honestly, atmospheric conditions tend to ruin long shots anyway. The 2/3 stop from 5.6 to 7.1 really isn't that significant in real world nature settings, at least to me. Others may disagree and that is fine, I'm talking about my photography.

I'm sure the 300-600 would sell but it holds little interest to me over the 100-500.

 

[Maximilian]

Sounds very interesting!
Not being an f/4 lens means less weight and cost.
+ 1,4X extender will give a 840mm f/8.

Question is: How much less...?

Otherwise, it sounds interesting.
I prefer lenses that I can (easily) handhold.

 

[Maximilian]

If Canon is business wise, they will just copy the Nikon 200-500 5.6. ...and will sell like hot cakes.

I suppose, you are right here. I am not sure how much Nikon earns at the actual price.

...
Now if they can make it an f4, and it does not sell for 13k, even better!

Better make your maths about that. Both in price and size/weight.
I'd guess, with f/4 you'd be closer to 13k than you think.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re the "cannibalisation", surely that doesn't apply if the new product is more expensive?

I've never really got the whole "cannibalisation" concearn. Canon needs to make lenses the customer wants to buy....not just the ONE lens Canon wants to supply. For example, there's a fair use case over lap with the RF100-500 f7.1 LIS and the new RF200-800 f9 IS. However, both are selling really well and are very popular. I know a number of guys who own and use both. Similarly, I know of guys who own and regularly use both 400/2.8 and 600/f4's depending on shooting needs. If you own R5, R6ii and R7 camera bodies, there is a LOT of capabilities overlap between these cameras. Overlap is good and choice is king.

 

[Bob Howland]

If you have to ask the question, then you don’t need one. Obviously, other people are going to have different needs.

Thank you! I never would have known if you hadn't told me. Craig, the answer to the title question of this thread is: Probably Not.

 

[koenkooi]

If this lens breaks in half like the RF200-800, would we get 2 functioning 300mm lenses?

 

[RobbieHat]

This would be an ideal long telephoto zoom for me. The perfect cross between a wildlife and long telephoto landscape lens. I would be an instant buyer with weight being my only concern.

 

[Bob Howland]

This would be an ideal long telephoto zoom for me. The perfect cross between a wildlife and long telephoto landscape lens. I would be an instant buyer with weight being my only concern.

How much would you be willing for pay for such a lens. There are already 100-500, 60-600 and 150-600 lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. Have you considered one of those?

 

[RobbieHat]

How much would you be willing for pay for such a lens. There are already 100-500, 60-600 and 150-600 lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. Have you considered one of those?

I have the 100-500 and have been underwhelmed by the results. I would like to replace my EF 600mm F4 VII with a lighter and more flexible lens. I would be willing to pay upwards of 5-6K if the quality is there. Would love something that is pretty effectively weather sealed as I would use it for wildlife and long lens photography in the desert, etc.

 

[john1970]

Frankly, I am not quite sure I understand this lens. If the 300-600 mm f5.6 L becomes reality I suspect a similar price to the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L.

I own the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 L and have used it extensively with the 2x TC with excellent results. Unless the new lens is vastly superior I would be hard pressed to buy.

 

[Del Paso]

Question is: How much less...?

Otherwise, it sounds interesting.
I prefer lenses that I can (easily) handhold.

Me too, and also lenses that I can easily put into my (large) backpack. But this lens's characteristics sound interesting.
Unless it's only a rumor, of course.
But if true, weight and size o.k., I could sell the 100-500 and replace it with the 300-600...

 

[Chig]

I'd prefer a variable aperture as 300mm f/5.6 is pretty dark, also 200-600mm would be much more versatile.
Maybe a 200-600mm f/4-5.6 with builtin 1.4x extender for 280mm f5.6 - 840mm f/8 ?
The original rumoured 200-500mm f/4 with 1.4x (and 2x maybe) builtin extenders would be more of a replacement for the much loved EF 200-400mm f/4 though.

As I've suggested before a 300mm f/2 with both 1.4x and 2x builtin extenders would be super cool (and super expensive of course) imagine 3 primes in one lens:

• 300mm f/2
• 420mm f/2.8
• 600mm f/4

This could be based on the 600mm f/4 and personally I'd much prefer it to either a 600mm f/4 or a 300-600mm zoom and it should be possible to make it similar weight to the current 600mm f/4 and not much more expensive.