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

[SvO2]

I have no intention to put a Nikon lens on a Canon...and don't compare zooms with primes.

Sure I don't have an intention to put a Nikon Lens on a Canon either, mostly because you can't. But fact is you can get a more capable lens along with a new body for a lot less than $12k.

 

[SvO2]

Hm, maybe because it is two stops slower with f5.6 and therefore needs much less glass?

A 600 5.6 and 300 2.8 would have the same size front elements

 

[Del Paso]

Sure I don't have an intention to put a Nikon Lens on a Canon either, mostly because you can't. But fact is you can get a more capable lens along with a new body for a lot less than $12k.

Fine, just buy your Nikon and be a happy bunny!

 

[CanonGrunt]

It is the slowest L lens that Canon makes (other than the 1200mm f8) and useless in many low light situations... my copy is not nearly as sharp as my 100-300mm w/ 1.4TC (resolution is only part of the sharpness equation)... if Canon gets it together and produces a 200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4, I will punt it immediately upon delivery ... I am happy that you find it useful though

I wonder if you have a bad copy? It does happen. I’ve borrowed this lens and have had great results, but I’m not a fan of variable aperture zooms if I can help it… Probably why my camera bag is so heavy..

 

[EricN]

500 5.6 primes from the other brands are more like $3k

Even at 3k, I can't see ⅔ stop a big enough difference in image quality if you lose the zoom ability when you could go to 1⅔ stop plus ⅕ increase in focal length. But I don't have a much of a problem with using photolab noise reduction.

 

[P-visie]

In order to be a successful lens the price point has to be uncanonlike "low". Going for f5.6 should come along with a lower pricer tag. addition, If the f.number is lower than the competition it should reflect on the price.

Sonys and Sigmas offering are (hopefully) putting pressure on Canon this time. Usually Canon really doesn't care, but as people have mentioned in this thread, if a second body plus a lens saves you money compared to getting a canon lens, that really raises the pressure. Plus, once people buy into a second system they might buy more lenses from Sigma e.g.

Canon might reason that the RF200-800mm ‘competes’, both in price and zoom range, with Sony’s 200-600mm. If the 300-600mm f5.6 is an L lens, I doubt that it will be cheaper than Sigma’s 300-600mm f4 zoom.

 

[blackcoffee17]

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...

Internet experts who complain that the RF 200-800 lens is "heavy" because they expect a 500g 800mm lens?

 

[SvO2]

Even at 3k, I can't see ⅔ stop a big enough difference in image quality if you lose the zoom ability when you could go to 1⅔ stop plus ⅕ increase in focal length. But I don't have a much of a problem with using photolab noise reduction.

All depends on the light. The 100-500 takes excellent pictures if you have great lighting conditions, but falls apart quickly as you lose it. Zooming out doesn't really help if you're trying to capture more detail of your target. And you have to go as low as 360mm for the lens to get to f/5.6

2/3 of a stop is the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 10000 and there's tends to be pretty significant quality difference there. Also of note, the source article for this thread highlights this hypothetical 300-600's 1/3 stop advantage over the 200-600 making it a 'more premium top to bottom' option. I wonder if they'd agree that the 200-600 is a more premium option over the 100-500 in that case.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Image quality entails much more than resolution... micro contrast and noise in the shadows under copious shooting situations is below the threshold I consider excellent for that lens. There are obviously many others who shoot within conditions and/or have a standard such that they are willing to accept the limitations of the lens and get results that they are happy with.

How does noise in the shadows have anything to do with the lens? That is affected by the sensor and exposure.
Micro contrast is great on the 100-500, not sure what you don't like about it.

 

[blackcoffee17]

All depends on the light. The 100-500 takes excellent pictures if you have great lighting conditions, but falls apart quickly as you lose it. Zooming out doesn't really help if you're trying to capture more detail of your target. And you have to go as low as 360mm for the lens to get to f/5.6

2/3 of a stop is the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 10000 and there's tends to be pretty significant quality difference there. Also of note, the source article for this thread highlights this hypothetical 300-600's 1/3 stop advantage over the 200-600 making it a 'more premium top to bottom' option. I wonder if they'd agree that the 200-600 is a more premium option over the 100-500 in that case.

I think everyone forgets the 100-500 is a replacement of the EF 100-400 and meant to be a relatively small and light lens - not a replacement of a 600mm F4 supertele.

 

[AlanF]

I think everyone forgets the 100-500 is a replacement of the EF 100-400 and meant to be a relatively small and light lens - not a replacement of a 600mm F4 supertele.

Absolutely. And, you have to weigh up all the factors for your own use. On my regular walks or on nature trips, I photograph insects as well as birds and other wild life. The RF 100-500mm focusses very close for a telephoto and gives 0.33x magnification at 1.2m, whereas the Sony 200-600mm 0.2x and the RF 100-300mm only 0.16x. So, one lightweight lens gives me close to macro at one extreme and birding at the other, and it takes the 2xTC very well so it's 0.66x for perched dragonflies and 1000mm for distant perched birds. Its very fast AF at 500mm is great for dragonflies in flight as well as fast birds, especially as you can swing around a light lens quickly. So for me, its pros far outweigh its cons.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

I'm with you on this. My interest in birds is inversely proportional to the number of human models available in my area. So, very high now. This lens might be just the ticket. There is no shortage of birds on my little place. Everything from Piliated Woodpeckers, Bob white Quail, to tiny Bluebirds. There are probably 30+ species that frequent here.

Then, my chickens. Lots of chickens.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Absolutely. And, you have to weigh up all the factors for your own use. On my regular walks or on nature trips, I photograph insects as well as birds and other wild life. The RF 100-500mm focusses very close for a telephoto and gives 0.33x magnification at 1.2m, whereas the Sony 200-600mm 0.2x and the RF 100-300mm only 0.16x. So, one lightweight lens gives me close to macro at one extreme and birding at the other, and it takes the 2xTC very well so it's 0.66x for perched dragonflies and 1000mm for distant perched birds. Its very fast AF at 500mm is great for dragonflies in flight as well as fast birds, especially as you can swing around a light lens quickly. So for me, its pros far outweigh its cons.

Exactly! It's so versatile with the 100mm starting focal length and 0.33 magnification. Good for everything from landscapes, (outdoor) sports, not so distant wildlife, documentary, etc. Also light enough to carry on trips in a small backpack.

 

[SvO2]

I think everyone forgets the 100-500 is a replacement of the EF 100-400 and meant to be a relatively small and light lens - not a replacement of a 600mm F4 supertele.

Okay, but the discussion is more around 500 / 5.6 and 600/6.3 lenses (latter being popular in recent zooms as well as Nikon's excellent PF prime), not 600 F/4s

Sigma's 500 5/.6 is barely larger than the 100-500 in its collapsed state and weighs about the same. Likewise for Nikon's 500 5.6. You lose the zoom, but I can't say that's a huge tradeoff -- most people tend to use zooms at their extremes. The 200-600 and 180-600 lenses are indeed larger and heavier. But non-telescoping and better light gathering for a thousand bucks less.

I own the Canon 100-500. It's *okay* and I've gotten some good photos with it. But between its relatively dark image, long zoom throw, telescoping nature, and the teleconverter weirdness - I just don't enjoy it that much. 70-200 Z with the 2x tele basically replaced that lens for me. And unfortunately for anything longer, you pretty much have to step up to the big whites with Canon. The middle ground is lacking, unfortunately doesn't seem to be a big priority for Canon.

Now this hypothetical 300-600 could be interesting and maybe fill that niche, but I highly doubt it'll be much less than $10k.

 

[Quack]

I don't render opinions based upon the masses. Many aren't willing and/or able to purchase and/or handle large, heavy, expensive lenses to shoot in the conditions that I do. The eye is the great discriminator and we have different standards.

By your logic the RF 200-800mm, which received a compiled 4.5 rating by 192 reviewers on B&H, is an excellent lens.?.? That is the same 4.5 rating that 480 viewers attribute to the RF 100-500mm. So, if the 200-800mm was more weather resistant does it deserve "L" status in your world?

I don't render opinions based on the masses either. I base it on competent, serious professional reviewers and personal experience. If the lens does not produce the results you accept because you shoot in more challenging conditions, that does not mean the lens isn't "L" quality, it means you made a poor choice in lens. It sounds like you re experienced enough to know what will work in challenging conditions, but still bought a lens unsuited for those conditions. I guess you would say the the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is not an L lens either, then. Wonder what your criteria is.

The RF 200-800 is an very good lens, for it's focal range and for it's price, in my opinion. But, no, I would not say that it is an "L" lens, due to it's less than "L" quality build. I don't care what the reviewers on B&H say, even though their opinion certainly carries some weight. More than one person on an internet forum, that's for sure.

 

[EricN]

All depends on the light. The 100-500 takes excellent pictures if you have great lighting conditions, but falls apart quickly as you lose it. Zooming out doesn't really help if you're trying to capture more detail of your target. And you have to go as low as 360mm for the lens to get to f/5.6

2/3 of a stop is the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 10000 and there's tends to be pretty significant quality difference there. Also of note, the source article for this thread highlights this hypothetical 300-600's 1/3 stop advantage over the 200-600 making it a 'more premium top to bottom' option. I wonder if they'd agree that the 200-600 is a more premium option over the 100-500 in that case.

Are you intentionally ignoring the difference in ⅕ focal length?

 

[Chig]

Hm, maybe because it is two stops slower with f5.6 and therefore needs much less glass?

It's exactly the same entrance pupil so has exactly the same front element and is basically the same as the 100-300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender added

A 300mm f/2.8 has an entrance pupil of: 300mm 2.8 = 107mm
A 600mm f/5.6 has an entrance pupil of: 600mm 5.6 = 107mm

Do you understand now why it wouldn't be any cheaper?

 

[EricN]

It's exactly the same entrance pupil so has exactly the same front element and is basically the same as the 100-300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender added

A 300mm f/2.8 has an entrance pupil of: 300mm 2.8 = 107mm
A 600mm f/5.6 has an entrance pupil of: 600mm 5.6 = 107mm

Do you understand now why it wouldn't be any cheaper?

Isn't it possible they would shave some cost by using cheaper parts or modification of the design such as using fresnel / diffraction opics?

 

[P-visie]

Isn't it possible they would shave some cost by using cheaper parts or modification of the design such as using fresnel / diffraction opics?

Yes, but you still need a big and expensive front lens. People on this forum have stated that lenses > 100mm in diameter require manual, not automated, production steps. The EF 400mm DO lenses were expensive as well, Canon NL has a list price of € 7200 (incl. VAT) for the Mk II version. I would not be amazed if the 300-600mm f5.6 has a similar price. For reference: Nikon’s 600mm f6.3 Z lens is $ 5200 at Nikon USA.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, but you still need a big and expensive front lens. People on this forum have stated that lenses > 100mm in diameter require manual, not automated, production steps. The EF 400mm DO lenses were expensive as well, Canon NL has a list price of € 7200 (incl. VAT) for the Mk II version. I would not be amazed if the 300-600mm f5.6 has a similar price. For reference: Nikon’s 600mm f6.3 Z lens is $ 5200 at Nikon USA.

Sony recently brought out their 400-800mm f/8 at long end for only £2500 with a front end of 100mm. It’s in their 2nd tier G-series, competing with the RF 200-800mm. It's optimised for 800mm and surprisingly sharp with TCs. It's too big and too heavy for me for regular use, coming in at 2,735 kg to think of changing to Sony for it, though if I were a Sony user it would be used occasionally. The front element of the 400mm f/4 DO II is only 95mm, Canon cheated a bit on the f-number and focal length. These companies know how to squeeze the most profit with their pricing strategies.