A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon

[Canon Rumors]

We have been talking ad nauseam about an RF 300-600mm lens for a long time now, and information about what’s exactly coming has evolved. What we have been told is that such a lens will have a variable aperture, which isn’t a bad thing if size, weight and cost dazzle us. Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L […]

See full article...

 

[Canon Rumors]

Sorry for disappearing posts, we had to redo it.

 

[mimbu]

With some of the other information we received, we think the lens could cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $6499-$6999 USD, but we’d love to see it come in sub $6000.

300/2.8 and 600/5.6 require the same front element size. 300-600 will be physically larger. And of course this is Canon we're talking about here, and this is a big white L super tele. Price is likely to be very close to the 100-300/2.8L IS.

 

[Canon Rumors]

300/2.8 and 600/5.6 require the same front element size. 300-600 will be physically larger. And of course this is Canon we're talking about here, and this is a big white L super tele. Price is likely to be very close to the 100-300/2.8L IS.

 

[Ian K]

How does the 100-300mm work with the 2x TC? I’ve seen people say it’s great. Then I’ve seen others say it’s super soft unless stopped down to f8.

I sold my 2x TC because it was painful on the 100-500, even in good light.

 

[Zadak]

Is it an internal-zoom lens?

 

[Ian K]

The problem with a 300-600 is it leaves a large hole between 100 to 300, so you’re likely going to need to fill that, either with the 100-300mm for the super rich or the 100-500mm for more ordinary mortals. Ho hum then you need to swap out doors or have yet another body!

 

[Canon Rumors]

How does the 100-300mm work with the 2x TC? I’ve seen people say it’s great. Then I’ve seen others say it’s super soft unless stopped down to f8.

I sold my 2x TC because it was painful on the 100-500, even in good light.

I used one recently, sharpness is just fine if your goal is to bring something full in the frame. A lot of what I have seen is people trying to bring smaller things into the frame but are still too far away.

 

[Ian K]

What ever happened to the 0x, 1.4x, 2x TC?

 

[Canon Rumors]

What ever happened to the 0x, 1.4x, 2x TC?

There have been 3 patents on the design, and here we are. I have some thoughts, but I don't want them to become some kind of fact. There are two products coming next year that would make it a perfect time.

 

[AlanF]

How does the 100-300mm work with the 2x TC? I’ve seen people say it’s great. Then I’ve seen others say it’s super soft unless stopped down to f8.

I sold my 2x TC because it was painful on the 100-500, even in good light.

I wonder if there is copy variation of the TC or the 100-500 that causes this. My RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm is good. I posted some comparisons here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...tc-vs-ef-600mm-f-4-iii-vs-rf-200-800mm.44688/

 

[Ian K]

I used one recently, sharpness is just fine if your goal is to bring something full in the frame. A lot of what I have seen is people trying to bring smaller things into the frame but are still too far away.

That would kinda suggest it’s good for sports, not so good for wildlife (especially in Africa).

 

[Canon Rumors]

That would kinda suggest it’s good for sports, not so good for wildlife (especially in Africa).

Well, if you want a tight mammal or a headshot, it does the job extremely well. I'll post a lynx shot in the gallery taken with the 100-300/2x. A photo fine for the photo frame, it won't make it to paper.

I'm not sure how to explain it. This set up is to bring you closer, not to bring the subject closer. I can't articulate that any better. Maybe someone with a brain like mine gets it.

Update: Here

 

[AlanF]

I used one recently, sharpness is just fine if your goal is to bring something full in the frame. A lot of what I have seen is people trying to bring smaller things into the frame but are still too far away.

It's the extreme cropping that requires the ultimate in sharpness. If you fill the frame then Canon lenses usually don't disappoint.

 

[Canon Rumors]

It's the extreme cropping that requires the ultimate in sharpness. If you fill the frame then Canon lenses usually don't disappoint.

That's a good way to put it. That could have been shot at 300 2.8, achieved a blur, but with an environmental composition.

 

[Ian K]

I wonder if there is copy variation of the TC or the 100-500 that causes this. My RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm is good. I posted some comparisons here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...tc-vs-ef-600mm-f-4-iii-vs-rf-200-800mm.44688/

Indeed, I’m beginning to think that. I may order a new one from Wex. I had a kingfisher stock still in great light and the 2x + 100-500 was mush. The 100-500 alone was good, but small. I could walk half way across the river to get closer, I’ve not mastered that trick yet.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Indeed, I’m beginning to think that. I may order a new one from Wex. I had a kingfisher stock still in great light and the 2x + 100-500 was mush. The 100-500 alone was good, but small. I could walk half way across the river to get closer, I’ve not mastered that trick yet.

The kingfishers tend to be a bird that has to come to you. Josh Holko uses bacon to bring a Kookaburra into his backyard.

 

[Ian K]

Well, if you want a tight mammal or a headshot, it does the job extremely well. I'll post a lynx shot in the gallery taken with the 100-300/2x. A photo fine for the photo frame, it won't make it to paper.

I'm not sure how to explain it. This set up is to bring you closer, not to bring the subject closer. I can't articulate that any better. Maybe someone with a brain like mine gets it.

Update: Here

Sure I get it. Turning 10% of frame into 20% isn’t going to work. But 30% into 60% may and 40% to 80% should be great.

 

[GreenViper]

Pricing in the 6k-7k range makes sense. Previously there was an EF300 2.8 and DO400 F4 I & II in that large gap between the better smaller telephotos and the professional large ones which appealed to wildlife photographers who could deal some extra weight and extra cash for the better reach and quality (with extenders) but not the 10k+ and weight of the supertelephotos. That is the market I think they are going for. Maybe announce with the R7 II? That would be potentially a great small critter combo even if it does empty my bank account

 

[Marc73]

The kingfishers tend to be a bird that has to come to you. Josh Holko uses bacon to bring a Kookaburra into his backyard.

Go for a new nice stick from which the kingfisher can hunt. They cannot resist the new toy and WILL sit on it. A ghilly 3D suit or a camu tent nearby does the trick. they are not shy and will get used to a tent with a couple of hours! Good luck!