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

[mimbu]

Sony 200-600/f5-6.3 G is 1/3 stop slower on the long end but sells for $2100.

So... How "well below $10k" is going to be "well below"? $8k? $7k? With the price estimate being anchored to $10k, surely it's not going to be $6k, $5k, or less. Psychologically for many there's a big difference between f5.6 and f6.3 from DSLR days when going beyond f5.6 could have a serious impact on AF. These days with mirrorless there is almost no difference.

Why can't Canon make a 200-600 that actually performs as well as the Sony G? What happens when Sony eventually brings out the 200-600v2 with even better optics and their full magnetic linear drive AF motors, but it still sits below $2.5k? Because that lens is definitely coming.

 

[AlanF]

For those preferring a 200-600

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.

I'd trade in my 200-800mm for a better made and 800mm-optimised 200-800mm ii. There are real advantages of 800mm over 600mm when having to crop images of small creatures, including being able to work at higher isos because you crop less.

 

[john1970]

For those preferring a 200-600

I'd trade in my 200-800mm for a better made and 800mm-optimised 200-800mm ii. There are real advantages of 800mm over 600mm when having to crop images of small creatures, including being able to work at higher isos because you crop less.

Fair point. I do own the 200-800 mm myself, and wished it was sharper at 800 mm. With that said, I also own the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens and when I do need 800 mm of reach that is the outfit I typically use.

 

[SvO2]

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.

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

 

[SvO2]

Are you intentionally ignoring the difference in ⅕ focal length?

If my issue is having to deal with too much noise at 500mm due to a slow lens, being able to zoom out to 100mm does nothing to fix that.

 

[AlanF]

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

I used to shoot with the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, one of my most favourite lenses ever, but found the RF 100-500mm so much more versatile and with virtually indistinguishable IQ that I sold off the Nikon system. But YMMV and others may feel differently, but it is not an open and shut case. Canon presumably know their markets better than us.

 

[Chig]

Fair point. I do own the 200-800 mm myself, and wished it was sharper at 800 mm. With that said, I also own the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens and when I do need 800 mm of reach that is the outfit I typically use.

I find my 200-800 plenty sharp at 800mm

 

[john1970]

I find my 200-800 plenty sharp at 800mm View attachment 225763View attachment 225764

Maybe my copy is not as sharp as it should be, but I am already on my second copy. The first copy I had would misfocus on well-light subjects on a R3 body so was never able to fix the issue. Luckily my local store did an exchange.

 

[Chig]

Maybe my copy is not as sharp as it should be, but I am already on my second copy. The first copy I had would misfocus on well-light subjects on a R3 body so was never able to fix the issue. Luckily my local store did an exchange.

I find the most important thing is to be as close to your subject as possible, if you're more than 10-15m away atmospheric conditions start to trash the I.Q at 20m just forget it

 

[fox40phil]

I think it will be to expensive anyway…
Gnarf…

 

[blackcoffee17]

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

Yeah, i agree Canon doesn't give a choice but that's a different issue. The 100-500 does not mean to be more than what it is. Canon needs to offer more options, they always had this problem. In the EF era you had the $1500 100-400 and the $10K 500 F4, nothing in between.

 

[EricN]

If my issue is having to deal with too much noise at 500mm due to a slow lens, being able to zoom out to 100mm does nothing to fix that.

I could have sworn you were said "losing detail" before.

 

[John D P]

I'm shooting wildlife and bigger birds; my main lens is the 100-500 4.5 to 7.1. When I look at my metadata a 300-600 would cover 75% of my shooting. I'm OK with 5.6 at 500-600, but I'm not in love with 5.6 at 300-400mm for a $6000 lens. A fixed f4.5 or 4.8 would be more appropriate for the price. I would like at least a full stop faster then 500mm at f7.1. They probably don't want to produce at fixed f4 because it would compete / replace their 600 f4 prime. The old EF 200-400 f4 with the teleconverter switched on is 280-560 f5.6 ( essentially a 300-600 5.6), but you still have the f4 option.

There is also a "rumored" fixed 5.6 150-600 L. This would be more versatile, but doesn't make alot of sense in that it would compete with the fixed 5.6 300-600. The Canon100-500 is 5+ years old; time for an update. I would love an "L" series 150-600 with internal focus, quality built & weather sealing, reasonable size & wt and image quality like the 70-200Z. Nikon and Sony don't have a semi pro version of their 180-600 / 200-600 lens. Canon will probably make two variants of the 150-600mm, ie: a fixed 5.6 L series and a variable aperture non L series to directly compete with Nikon, sigma, and Sony. Canon does this all the time; look at the various 24-105 and 70-200 lens. Who knows! Need some announcements !!!! Canon is clearly behind Nikon & Sony with regard to long glass. Time to catch up, hope it doesn't take a year or more!

 

[ISv]

They did say "well below" so surely that must be at least $9998.

LOL!

 

[aliyel]

As much I am in favor of the (faster) f/5.6 in that proposed 300-600, the 200-800 is just 1.3 stops slower than f/5.6. For the longest time I was hesitant to go much higher than ISO 500 or 800, but state-of-the-art noise reduction now makes ISO 8000-25600 possible (with proper focus and exposure). I would probably miss the 600-800 range since most of my bird images are at 800mm.

 

[AlanF]

As much I am in favor of the (faster) f/5.6 in that proposed 300-600, the 200-800 is just 1.3 stops slower than f/5.6. For the longest time I was hesitant to go much higher than ISO 500 or 800, but state-of-the-art noise reduction now makes ISO 8000-25600 possible (with proper focus and exposure). I would probably miss the 600-800 range since most of my bird images are at 800mm.

If you crop the 600 image to the size of the 800mm image, 800mm f/9 works out at only 1/2 stop slower than 600 f/5.6 in terms of signal to noise.

 

[Mikehit]

I used to shoot with the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, one of my most favourite lenses ever, but found the RF 100-500mm so much more versatile and with virtually indistinguishable IQ that I sold off the Nikon system. But YMMV and others may feel differently, but it is not an open and shut case. Canon presumably know their markets better than us.

As i see it, they know the markets that are defined by their professional base (photojournalism and sports). I fear they have got into a stasis of groupthink - assuming that if they highly prioritise those professionals they assume they have got what the general population want but I think things have moved on in the last decade but Canon are still there. Yes, having a zoom like the 100-300 f2.8 with the image quality of the EF 330 2.8 and the lens is (professionally speaking) a winner. But at 10k it ain't gonna sell a lot.
Their focus seems to be to hell with primes, and create mega-expensive zooms. Meanwhile, looking at this from a mid-market perspective, Canon really do have the weakest lens line-up of the 3 major marques (and a lot of the zooms they do have in this bracket are extending designs).

 

[AlanF]

As i see it, they know the markets that are defined by their professional base (photojournalism and sports). I fear they have got into a stasis of groupthink - assuming that if they highly prioritise those professionals they assume they have got what the general population want but I think things have moved on in the last decade but Canon are still there. Yes, having a zoom like the 100-300 f2.8 with the image quality of the EF 330 2.8 and the lens is (professionally speaking) a winner. But at 10k it ain't gonna sell a lot.
Their focus seems to be to hell with primes, and create mega-expensive zooms. Meanwhile, looking at this from a mid-market perspective, Canon really do have the weakest lens line-up of the 3 major marques (and a lot of the zooms they do have in this bracket are extending designs).

I go out birding where the average enthusiasts go, and by far the most common telephotos are now the Canon RF 100-500 and 200-800, followed by Sigmas on DSLRs or adapted Canons or other bodies. Rarely if ever do I see a Sony, but I do see the occasional Nikon 800/6.3 and the odd smaller primes, but far more Canon 600mm. Maybe it is different in other countries. Canon has the largest market share and it's through selling at the lower end of the market, not the RF 100-300s and not to the pros but to the average person who constitute the majority of buyers. I'm not saying they are providing us with the best lenses but they sell what sells the most. They do have some very cheap primes and zooms that are good value for money. Canon treats the UK particularly badly for pricing.

 

[justaCanonuser]

2.735kg with the hood. Another 1/2lb to mix units.

Not too far away from the weight of my EF 600mm f/4 III or Sony's actual 600mm f/4 - well, looking at the prices, the gap is a bit bigger That said, kudos to Sony for this zoom - seems to be well made. But we can see here again: 1 stop more at the long end ads substantially more weight to such supertele lens.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Some birder I met told me about the same story recently. I immediately started to caress my 200-800 after the first cases reported in the net, what basically means that I take nearly always my heavier and bigger 600mm lens out when I think I should better rely on a really rugged gear. So the zoom lost a substantial part of its usability for my purposes, and I am really disappointed by Canon for the first time since many years. Ruggedness and reliability was always something that kept me within Canon's ecosystem, in particular because we had much more trouble with my wife's big Nikon gear over the years. Plus, I should add that, even non L gear from Canon never let me down so far. But, obviously, now Canon seems to feel forced to reside to critically cheap engineering solutions at least with some gear. They really shouldn't do that - a good reputation is quickly destroyed, and it is much harder to regain it again.