Canon Gets 300mm Creative

[Ozarker]

Well, for me, 300mm wouldn't be long enough. 420mm is too short for me too. (Aspc x 1.6? Can't remember.)

I had the EF 400mm f/5.6L on a 70D. I really liked that lens. Unfortunately, it just seemed too short for birding in the area I lived at the time (Mojave Desert). I had a Canon 2x, but the lens just wasn't sharp with that on there.

If I needed a birding lens and was going to drop $11k, I'd save a little more for something with more reach. Yes, I know there are more uses.

 

[P-visie]

It's better than you think. I used to shoot the RF 300mm f/2.8 II with the 2xTCIII and found it excellent. It stands up well, even on Craig's dishonourable 5DSR vs the RF 600mm f4 on the R5. I'm jealous of the Sony 300/2.8 as it gives a very sharp and light 600/5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I did not say it was bad, I stated that the image quality and AF speed would no be a good as a 600 mm f4 lens. The comparisons you posted confirm that, specially for the Sony 300mm.

 

[AlanF]

I did not say it was bad, I stated that the image quality and AF speed would no be a good as a 600 mm f4 lens. The comparisons you posted confirm that, specially for the Sony 300mm.

One of the best bird photographers for BIF and stills I follow who is great on testing and comparing gear is now using exclusively the Sony 300/2.8. I'll PM you his flickr page.

 

[kaihp]

Well, for me, 300mm wouldn't be long enough. 420mm is too short for me too. (Aspc x 1.6? Can't remember.)

I had the EF 400mm f/5.6L on a 70D. I really liked that lens. Unfortunately, it just seemed too short for birding in the area I lived at the time (Mojave Desert). I had a Canon 2x, but the lens just wasn't sharp with that on there.

Most lenses suffered a lot with the 2x TC, except the 300/2.8 and - I think - the 400/2.8.
I've used the 2x TC Mk III with the 300 f/2.8 II with great satisfaction. It would take something extraordinary to make me part with the 300/2.8.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It would take something extraordinary to make me part with the 300/2.8.

I started looking for a 300/2.8 II as they were becoming less widely available, and since I knew I’d be switching to the R series soon, I was reluctant to buy one anyway. I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was initially disappointed when the 100-300/2.8 was announced, mainly because of the 75 mm / 3” greater length.

I have had the 100-300/2.8 for quite a while now, and it’s definitely an extraordinary lens. The convenience of the zoom is more than worth the extra length.

 

[Ian K]

A 0x teleconverter is a lens cap.

The rumored 1x-1.4x-2x TC came about from misinterpretation of a patent, such a lens would be extremely complex because the 1x setting would require reducing optics (otherwise, it would be an extension tube and limit distant focusing). So, such a lens would need to have 1x optics and two sets of 1.4x optics that swing in/out. I highly doubt we'll ever see such a product. The patent on which that rumor is based had four elements. Four, with two of them sliding back and forth. It's not what some people seem to think it is.

I knew it would require reducing elements for 1x, but assumed that was the point. The swinging elements seem a bad way of adding and removing lens elements as they don’t guarantee the elements are perpendicular to the light path. Sliding in sideways, like the 200-400 seemed a more viable option.

From the animation I see that the sliding forward and backward is designed to prevent the alignment issue I worried about.