Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

[Canon Rumors]

There has been rumors for as long as my old brain can remember about a “big white” super telephoto zoom lens. There has been talk about an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM, an optical design that we have seen patents for in the past. The thing with optical designs and Canon L lenses, is that […]

See full article...

 

[Fbimages]

Finally some good news for my wallet!

 

[john1970]

This would be an interesting lens and maybe a bit lighter than the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 + 2x TC? The Sigma 300-600 mm at 8.75 lbs is too heavy for me.

 

[Chig]

If it's based on the $10,000 RF 100-300 f2.8 why would it be well below $10,000 ? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I'd much rather have a version ii of the 100-300mm f2.8 with builtin 1.4x and 2x extenders and I would expect to pay accordingly

 

[AlanF]

I don't want a TC on a zoom. They add weight and they lower IQ particularly on a zoom. So, you end up with a telephoto lens that is not optimised for the longest range where the TC kicks in. I want a telephoto zoom that is optimised for the longest focal lengths and is the lightest possible.

 

[Del Paso]

An f4 300-600 would also have faced criticism by the internet experts for being too heavy, too front-heavy, too expensive, lacking an extender etc...
Yet, knowing Canon, below $10000 could stand for $9999...

 

[johnchio]

honestly i think after this canon should just go big with either being lightweight or having the absolute best lens and not caring about size and weight. Some ridiculous designs im hoping for (but its prob never gonna come): 70-200 f1.2-f.18, 300 f2 or in the other direction like nikon is doing maybe a fixed 200 f2.8 (like the ef one) a 300 f4? 400 f5.6? and longer. sorry for just spamming my wishlist

 

[SvO2]

I’m not sure a 300-600 5.6 for nearly 7k would be very successful when both Sony and Nikon have access to a 200-600 (or 180-600) 5.6-6.3 for around 2k. At a certain point it’s just cheaper to buy the third party body and lens than it is to stick with Canon’s ecosystem.

 

[P-visie]

The article states “It’s an RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2x teleconverter at the long end”. I hope this is not literally what Canon will do (like they did with the RF 800mm f5.6 and RF1200mm f8 lenses). The RF100-300mm f2.8 and the 2X extender are, as @AlanF and Duade Paton have shown, not a very good combination.

 

[john1970]

The article states “It’s an RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2x teleconverter at the long end”. I hope this is not literally what Canon will do (like they did with the RF 800mm f5.6 and RF1200mm f8 lenses). The RF100-300mm f2.8 and the 2X extender are, as @AlanF and Duade Paton have shown, not a very good combination.

If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.

 

[AlanF]

If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.

If you fill the frame, then the differences in sharpness you see in the high crops of mine will disappear. It's when you are working at the limits or need pixel peeping resolution, these differences may be important. What it does show is that the cheaper end even very cheap lenses do perform very well.

 

[PinholeR5]

If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.

I also have had a good experience with the RF 100-300mm F2.8 and the 1.4x and 2x TCs. With the 2xTC I've been happy with the results on the R6II/R5(II)/R3/R1. Not so much with the R7. The 1.4xTC will do ok with the R7, but never liked the result with the 2xTC. But then again, I've always had a bit more trouble with the R7 in that it is really hard to take advantage of the extra pixel density (shooting conditions have to be great).

Owning the RF 100-300mm F2.8, I can't see myself buying an RF 300-600mm F5.6. I would buy the Sigma 300-600mm F4 in a heartbeat if it were available for Canon mount, despite the weight. I will admit my EF 600mm F4 II, which weighs as much as the Sigma, is getting a bit heavy. But the extra flexibility of 300-600mm F4 at $6K would get me to jump on it.

 

[CanonGrunt]

I have been wanting to see something like an RF 500mm f/5.6 L for a long time now. Basically a slightly longer and updated EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L. that lens is still tack sharp on an R1 or R5. It was the “budget” L lens for the “amateur” nature photographer or weekend warrior. It’s pretty much always with me when I travel. It’s only slightly longer, but skinnier than my 70-200 f/2.8. An RF prime version of either a 400 or 500 mm f/5.6 lens would definitely be able to come in cheaper than a lot of these zoom offerings, and would be pretty light too. The zooms are cool, but they need some sort of middle L series telephoto prime. I have the EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM as well, and I like it, the stabilization was useful on the older bodies from time to time, but the 400 f/5.6 is still way sharper. The 300 is also kind of loud focusing. At least the adaptors work flawlessly on these R bodies, so I don’t see myself selling any of my FL, FD or EF Canon glass, but I would definitely be interested in a lightweight, RF telephoto prime in the f/5.6 area.

Though, if this is small enough, and the price isn’t astronomical… We shall see.

I still use my EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L a lot with my R1 and 1DX MK III. Probably that and my EF 180mm f/3.5 Macro, RF 100mm Macro, and the EF 600mm F/4 L IS USM III are my main 4 lenses I cycle through (leaving so many others sadly left on my desk).

 

[BabyNSX]

I check out this site every day hoping that one day the rumors will stop and Canon will finally launch a lens that fills this focal range that is faster than the 100-500. Honestly, I'm tired of the rumors, it's time for Canon to start announcing some new glass.

 

[stillviking]

Excellent lens for sure, but price is key here. If SIGMA 300-600 f4 DG OS Sports is around 6k, no way I will pay 6k for a 5.6L.

 

[Bob Howland]

How is this lens going to compete against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses for $2000?

 

[H2Oplanet]

200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4 (w IQ of the 100-300mm L f2.8) please --- don't care how heavy or how much... enough with the pedestrian lenses please... I don't even consider the 100-500mm worthy of L designation based on image quality

 

[AlanF]

200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4 (w IQ of the 100-300mm L f2.8) please --- don't care how heavy or how much... enough with the pedestrian lenses please... I don't even consider the 100-500mm worthy of L designation based on image quality

Complete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.

Thread 'Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm'

Aug 21, 2025

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 +...

• AlanF
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Canon Lenses

• 

 

[Del Paso]

Complete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.

Thread 'Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm'

Aug 21, 2025

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 +...

• AlanF
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Canon Lenses

• 

Garbage is even far too polite for such a c..p!

 

[AlanF]

200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4 (w IQ of the 100-300mm L f2.8) please --- don't care how heavy or how much... enough with the pedestrian lenses please... I don't even consider the 100-500mm worthy of L designation based on image quality

And if you don't believe my shots, here is the-digital-pictures comparison of the RF 100-500mm vs RF 600mm on the R5.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com