I would welcome it and it would Be bringing Canons lenses up to touch with the competitors it just wants to be a lighter lens for my liking
Upvote
0
Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
So you reasoning is, that because a £2,000 lens does not match a $12,000 lens (including not having an f4 aperture) it is not worthy of being an 'L' lens.
You clearly dont understand how Canon assign the 'L' designation
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
That's true, my R7 can deliver great results with my EF 600mm III, just yesterday I used it with the 1.4x TC III and got good results. But often the conditions are already the limiting factor that undermines the maximum resolution technically achievable, be it small movements of e.g. a bird in low light or heat haze.
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
If this zooms hit with these specs the market, and if it really is an L lens, dial me in. I would immediately upgrade my RF 200-800mm with it as a lighter combo when I don't want to carry my heavier 600mm prime. My main reason to replace the RF 200-800mm is its obvious fragility that prevents me to take it with me in more rugged environments, otherwise I still like this compact zoom.
Upvote
0
Well a good monopod takes care of the weight issue with the sigma…if only we could get an rf version. But the 100-300 went up $700, so is now $10,199. Zoom is wonderful and that was really the only way I could justify getting one was because it gives me a range that I can use for video too.
Upvote
0
And the 100-500 has better image quality than 90% of the L lenses, including the 24-105 or 24-70. In that case, none of the L lenses deserve to be L.
Upvote
0
All of those 600 6.3 lenses are much bigger and heavier. And the Sigma is a fixed lens. You again forget that the 100-500 is meant to be a versatile lens, like a 70-200 with a longer focal length. Making it 2kg or a fixed prime would kill that design objective. Losing the zoom might not be a tradeoff for you but it would be for me and others.
I agree that Canon is lazy and feels like lost it's passion when it comes to lens designs. For example Nikon, (a much smaller company in worst financial situation) managed to design brand new 400 2.8 and 600 F4 primes with teleconverters and also a line of amazing 6.3 primes, taking over the telephoto lead. In the meantime, Canon managed to "solder" an RF adapter to the 6 year old EF designs. Canon used to be a leader in telephoto lenses, now it feel like they are lagging behind Nikon, Sony and even Sigma soon.
Upvote
0
All of those 600 6.3 lenses are much bigger and heavier. And the Sigma is a fixed lens. You again forget that the 100-500 is meant to be a versatile lens, like a 70-200 with a longer focal length. Making it 2kg or a fixed prime would kill that design objective. Losing the zoom might not be a tradeoff for you but it would be for me and others.
I agree that Canon is lazy and feels like lost it's passion when it comes to lens designs. For example Nikon, (a much smaller company in worst financial situation) managed to design brand new 400 2.8 and 600 F4 primes with teleconverters and also a line of amazing 6.3 primes, taking over the telephoto lead. In the meantime, Canon managed to "solder" an RF adapter to the 6 year old EF designs. Canon used to be a leader in telephoto lenses, now it feel like they are lagging behind Nikon, Sony and even Sigma soon.
Upvote
0
There do not appear to be any reports of the 200-800 breaking since April. Have you seen any?
Upvote
0
Yes, I have. The front end of the 200-800mm lens of a friend of mine was bent. Despite being less than two years old: no warranty, but a 900+ € repair bill.
Upvote
0
I wish we had an angry emoji. Was it at the join and how big was the bend?
Upvote
0
It was at the join. I did not see the lens but the bend was sufficient to cause major sharpness issues.
Upvote
0
I wonder if, for Euro 900+, Canon will replace the high quality polymer -aka plastic- flange with an improved metal version.
Because, if this incident occurs a second time, cumulated costs of repairs will exceed the value of the lens...(grey market price is currently Euro 1750).
Without a guarantee it won't happen a third time...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Sinceramente, siento que canon esta bastante complicado para tomar desiciones y en muchos casos pareciera que solo intenta reaccionar a la competencia. En este rumor en particular, un 300-600 si realmente tiene un precio cercano a 10.000, lo que sería lógico si es similar al 100-300, me parece simplemente ridiculo. Ya se ha dicho suficiente sobre las ofertas de la competencia y creer que la letra L de por si eleva el precio 5 veces por solo 1/3 de diafragma, me parece increible. Seguramente venderan estos lentes a profesionales o fotografos adinerados, pero no creo que sea masivo. En todo caso me sigue pareciendo mas util el 100-300 2.8, con un 2X en caso de requerir mas alcance, que un 300-600. Obviamente pienso en el uso que yo le daria, fotografiando pajaros donde la luz es muy complicada (ecuador, colombia, etc), con un 300 2.8 podes intentar fotos de accion como picaflores en condiciones de mala luz, con un 5,6 ya puede ser complicado. Cito estos casos donde la distancia al sujeto suele no ser el problema, ya que las aves estan cerca, pero la luz es complicada. Como sea canon fabricara el lente que crea que puede ser el mejor negocio. Hoy sony esta por delante de canon en mi opinion, pero de todos modos todos los sistemas ofrecen buenos productos y con cualquier equipo se pueden hacer buenas fotos. Si hoy arrancara de cero, claramente canon no seria mi eleccion. Espero los proximos lanzamientos y los precios.
Upvote
0
They did say "well below" so surely that must be at least $9998.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...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
