Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[Canon Rumors]

The Canon RF 300-600mm super telephoto zoom lens has been talked about for what seems like forever. It's been more than a year of chatter, and we're still waiting. I have been told that in a recent retailer meeting that the lens was once again mentioned in a presentation, but that there is still no […]

See full article...

 

[Chig]

Be interesting to see how light Canon can make this lens: the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 weighs 2.6kg and has the same entrance pupil but hoping Canon can make it closer to 2kg
Also hoping they can find some cost savings so that it's more affordable than the 100-300mm f/2.8
Personally would much prefer a variable aperture of say f/4-5.6 and I'm hoping it's 200-600 rather than 300-600 as I'd much rather have that range and if it has a shorter minimum focal distance that would be a bonus.
Builtin 1.4x and maybe 2x extenders would be great too: 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
Those are my wishlist specs

 

[blackcoffee17]

I don't understand why variable aperture is an issue. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is totally different proposition. I rather have F4 at 300mm than F5.6.

 

[Daniel Lindblom]

I don't understand why variable aperture is an issue. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is totally different proposition. I rather have F4 at 300mm than F5.6.

The text in the article says that some people don't like the idea of a constant aperture, not a variable aperture.

"A constant aperture of f/5.6 does seem to make some people on the internet upset for whatever reason."

 

[mimbu]

So, what will arrive first, the Canon 300-600/5.6L or the Sony 100-400/4GM...

 

[fox40phil]

hmm I don’t know about the idea of this lens. I have the 300 2.8ii… with TCs 420mm 4.0 - 600mm 5.6. This is what a nice modern tele zoom would bring me to upgrade from my EF!
Otherwise a lightweight 300-600 4.0…

I don’t believe in a good price…

 

[john1970]

It will be interesting to see what this lens specifications are once it is released. Frankly, I am not a fan of development announcements. Just make the product announcement in the summer with the availability in the fall. If Canon included DO that would be nice to lower the weight. As other have already mentioned, I would also prefer f4 on short end of the focal length. A 300-600 mm f4-f5.6 DO lens??! With that said, I do not see how this lens is significantly less costly than the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens. Both lenses (should) have the same entrance pupil diameter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

a constant aperture RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS VCM.

I have a very good RF 200-600mm f/5.6L IS with dual nano USM when I put the RF 2x behind my RF 100-300/2.8. As @john1970 suggests, I don’t see how a 300-600/5.6 gets down to the ~$4-6K price range that people looking at the Nikon 600/800 PF lenses are hoping for.

 

[Zadak]

I just want a good, sub $8k super tele lens, with internal zoom

 

[EricN]

I have a very good RF 200-600mm f/5.6L IS with dual nano USM when I put the RF 2x behind my RF 100-300/2.8. As @john1970 suggests, I don’t see how a 300-600/5.6 gets down to the ~$4-6K price range that people looking at the Nikon 600/800 PF lenses are hoping for.

There was the suggestion about Diffractive Optics, even with that, do you think would be more likely to be 7 or or 8k? If so, why?

 

[neuroanatomist]

There was the suggestion about Diffractive Optics, even with that, do you think would be more likely to be 7 or or 8k? If so, why?

I don't think DO will make the lens cheaper, if that's what you're suggesting. It's really the size of the entrance pupil that matters. For example, the 200/2 and 400/4 II DO have the same size entrance pupil, the former launched in 2008 for 850,000 ¥ and the latter in 2014 for 900,000 ¥ (and the 400/4 DO MkI was 770,000 ¥ when it launched in 2001). So, those three lenses are all about the same price, accounting for appropriate increases with time.

To me, that suggests a 300-600/5.6L will be around the same price as the 100-300/2.8, whether the new lens has DO or not. It's longer so that would be likely to increase the price a bit, but it's a 2x zoom not 3x which would be likely to decrease the price a bit.

Honestly not really sure I get the purpose of this lens, unless Canon does something differentiate it from the 100-300/2.8 + 2x. Ok, the 300-600 could take TCs to be a 420-840mm f/8 or 600-1200mm f/11 and probably that's enough of a selling point if the optics of the bare lens are similar in quality to the 100-300/2.8. Or they could make the lens such that it could be priced in the$7-8K range but I don't see how without sacrificing optical and build quality.

 

[mimbu]

It's almost impossible to imagine how a 300-600/5.6L would come in cheaper than the 100-300/2.8L. If anything I would expect it to be more expensive.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do not see how this lens is significantly less costly than the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens. Both lenses (should) have the same entrance pupil diameter.

To me, that suggests a 300-600/5.6L will be around the same price as the 100-300/2.8

It's almost impossible to imagine how a 300-600/5.6L would come in cheaper than the 100-300/2.8L. If anything I would expect it to be more expensive.

What a novel suggestion, @mimbu! Thanks for sharing.

 

[roby17269]

The Canon RF 300-600mm super telephoto zoom lens has been talked about for what seems like forever.

Not as long as the 35 1.2

 

[mimbu]

What a novel suggestion, @mimbu! Thanks for sharing.

I said the same thing in an earlier threads when many were predicting prices that were a fraction of the 100-300.

Ultimately it's Canon, it's going to be expensive. And they'll never let glass like the Sigma 300-600/4 onto RF.

---

---

Edit: Like here from September last year: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...5-6l-is-usm-on-the-horizon.44719/post-1030856

 

[antonn]

Be interesting to see how light Canon can make this lens: the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 weighs 2.6kg and has the same entrance pupil but hoping Canon can make it closer to 2kg
Also hoping they can find some cost savings so that it's more affordable than the 100-300mm f/2.8

The simplest way would be to simply add TC2.0 inside. Just like they did with the RF800/5.6 and RF1200/8. Of course, this wouldn't make the lens any smaller or lighter.

 

[dolina]

RF 300mm f/2.0L IS USM for approx $9,719.36 or 1,528,200 JPY would be what I'd want

 

[mimbu]

The simplest way would be to simply add TC2.0 inside. Just like they did with the RF800/5.6 and RF1200/8. Of course, this wouldn't make the lens any smaller or lighter.

I hope we never see an ugly thing like this from Canon again. I never imagined I would see the day that Canon would pull such shenanigans.

 

[Del Paso]

The text in the article says that some people don't like the idea of a constant aperture, not a variable aperture.

"A constant aperture of f/5.6 does seem to make some people on the internet upset for whatever reason."

"People on the internet" are always upset!
Just like some CanonRumors posters...

 

[Canon Rumors]

Apologies for another one of these posts. It did pull something out.

I don't think it's going to be a "normal" design. Who knows what's taking so long, but this isn't the first time for a lens. The 100-400 II, 200-400 took forever. Even the RF 70-200 internal zoom took a year to show up from first mention.

Maybe they found a weak point in testing and have to fix it, maybe manufacturing has an issue, maybe a supply chain thing, maybe the accountants just don't want it out yet. Bleh.