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

[AlanF]

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.

Here are some shots I've dug up with the dragonfly at 1000mm, Bald Eagle against the blue sky at 1000mm and the Bald Eagle against the lighter sky at 500mm, with the RF 100-500mm on the R5. All are crops with 1 px here = 1 px original (100% crops).

 

[john1970]

Nice lens and one that I will likely purchase. Glad that it is f4 on the wide end.

Two questions:
1. Will it take 1.4x TC? Almost sure it will since it is L series

2. Is it an internal zoom. Prefer internal zooms due to their shorter throw.

 

[AlanF]

Nice lens and one that I will likely purchase. Glad that it is f4 on the wide end.

Two questions:
1. Will it take 1.4x TC? Almost sure it will since it is L series

2. Is it an internal zoom. Prefer internal zooms due to their shorter throw.

Prefer external zooms as they are lighter and more compact for packing, which is more important for me than the shorter throw.

 

[john1970]

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 mine with the 2x and got good results to fill the frame. I am sure a native 300-600 mm will be sharper.

 

[fogleman]

The article brings up variable aperture multiple times like it's some awful thing to some people.

With a super telephoto lens like this, the aperture at the long end is obviously going to be the limiting factor. So we're at 600mm f/5.6. Why is getting f/4 at the short end a bad thing? Who would prefer 5.6 throughout? If you want 5.6 throughout, set it to 5.6. I think this is an old idea that needs to die off.

 

[John D P]

Shooting wildlife and larger birds. I have the 100-500mm on the R5m2 and really love it for image quality, size, portability & weight; but I'm not in love with the external zoom, teleconverter situation, or 7.1 at 500mm. I want to upgrade, but I do not want a prime. I'm very interested in this lens. Assuming it's an internal zoom with image quality equal to the 100-300 2.8 or the 70-200Z, I will buy this lens.

Apparently, the 100-300mm is an incredible lens, BUT for me this lens would have to live with a 2X teleconverter on it. For me it doesn't make sense to spend that much $ and constantly degrade the native image quality with a teleconverter. Just me and I don't own the lens or a 2X.

I wanted the variable aperture. Starting at f4.0 for 300mm; that's certainly better then 5.6. If similar to the 100-500, it will incrementally increase a third of a stop at a time until 600mm. This also makes it a little more acceptable to those that wanted a fixed f4.0. Also, it's my understanding ( not an expert ) that a fixed aperture zoom lens would be larger, heavier and more expensive. So, this lens has a better chance to be a reasonable weight & size (hand holdable) and not $10k.

I have the 70-200mm Z on the R6m2, which I also love. I can either deal with the 100mm gap ( from 200 to 300 ) or use a 1.4 teleconverter to fill it in. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon releases a fixed f4.0 or a variable f2.8-4.0 100-300mm within the next year.

Canon should also develop / release a switchable teleconverter, which I would also buy.

 

[fogleman]

> We have been told that the lens will be F4 between 300-400mm and F5.6 from 400-600mm.

So where is it 4.5 and 5.0? It's not gonna jump straight from 4 to 5.6 at the 400mm mark, lol.

 

[Canon Rumors]

> We have been told that the lens will be F4 between 300-400mm and F5.6 from 400-600mm.

So where is it 4.5 and 5.0? It's not gonna jump straight from 4 to 5.6 at the 400mm mark, lol.

It could be a full stop, 2/3 or 1/3. Depends on the design.

 

[Bob Howland]

It could be a full stop, 2/3 or 1/3. Depends on the design.

I've never encountered a lens that wasn't 1/3 stop. Sample size is about 8 lenses.

 

[domo_p1000]

Much as I enjoy using my 100-500mm, greater pull and brighter glass will make me jump at this. It will put the nail firmly in the coffin for any chance of the Sigma 300-600mm F4 coming to RF mount - it would be fascinating to see how the two compare.

 

[fogleman]

It could be a full stop, 2/3 or 1/3. Depends on the design.

That makes no sense. There's no physical lens design that would introduce a discontinuous step in the aperture. When wide open, the physical aperture is continuously variable as you zoom and the camera UI just rounds to the nearest 1/3 or 1/2 stop depending on what preferences you have set. (Imagine you never use the aperture blades, only a fixed diameter aperture. Then as you zoom, the exact f-stop will vary continuously.)

 

[liv_img]

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!

Interesting lens, although I think the same: If you have a 24-70 or 24-105mm, it's OK to have a 100-400 or 100-500mm. With this 300-600 you will need something in between. More weight, more money to spend.

 

[fogleman]

Anyway, now for my take on this lens.

I want it.

I have the 100-500 and the 200-800 and use them daily for bird photography. I rented the 600 f/4 once and while it's an amazing lens, it's just way too big and heavy for most of what I do. So I've been wanting something in between for ages. 800 is nice on the 200-800 but a little soft, so I often find myself using that lens at 600 anyway.

My main hopes: a decent minimum focusing distance (love the max mag on the 100-500), and excellent performance with the 1.4x teleconverter (at least as good as on the 100-500). Everything else that matters is going to be fine on a Canon lens like this.

I do think 300 will feel a bit tight on the short end in some situations. 200 already does. But better than being locked in with a prime.

I do find the idea of this being a good bit cheaper than the 100-300 a little suspect...

 

[fox40phil]

hmmmm... for me its all about the price and portability.
Would be great if it will be under 2,5kg of my 300 2.8II.

(but a 300-600 4.0f like Sigmas would be also nice to have optional in the line up -.-")

 

[grilled_rooster]

If this lens ist coming with a 6000-7000 $ price tag, it will be around 8000 € in Germany. I would love to see it under 7000 € in Germany.

And i might get one. I use a 500/4 for soccer. I might need the extra reach to 600mm not very often. But to zoom out to 300mm would help a lot. Especially when, like me, you photograph for the press and have to take most photos in horizontal orientation. When players run towards me (in a soccer game), at 500mm it often happens that the player no longer fits in the frame. Switching to the second camera with a 70-200mm lens means that you miss some scenes.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I've never encountered a lens that wasn't 1/3 stop. Sample size is about 8 lenses.

I read the post wrong, too much Facebook moderation today.

 

[grilled_rooster]

hmmmm... for me its all about the price and portability.
Would be great if it will be under 2,5kg of my 300 2.8II.

(but a 300-600 4.0f like Sigmas would be also nice to have optional in the line up -.-")

The Sigma 300-600/4 is a nice looking lens. And optical a good one. Also the price is great. But it's size und weight... it's a no for me.

I hope canon is able to get this lens a light as possible. And of course a pricetag around 6-7k would be nice.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Some people don't like variable apertures - I don't see how F4.5-5.6 is worse than constant F5.6. Just stop the lens down to 5.6 and you have constant aperture.

 

[grilled_rooster]

I'm ok with the variable aperture. If they make it a constant F4 it would be almost as heavy and big as the sigma. The sigma is almost 9lb. I would like to have the canon 300-600 not far over 6lb - preferably even less than 6 lb. The canon 100-300 weighs 5.8lb. That has to be the goal. You still can't hold it in your hand for two hours straight, but you can for a few minutes.

 

[Ozarker]

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!

Well, if I'm shooting birds at my place, 100mm-300mm would be useless. Even 400mm is a little short where I'm at.