Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[DocInfoSci]

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k. I find that 600mm is barely adequate for Pacific Northwest lifeforms off of shorelines given than mudflats make it very difficult to approach some life forms, tides make it difficult to wait for long periods, and boats tend to be scary for said life forms. It would be generally capable for animal life, and a TC would make it a reasonably priced option (relative to $15k) for many people when acceptable quality reach beyond that is needed to fill a frame on full frame. It would also probably be epic on a zodiac boat for small stuff like otters.

Fixed aperture is always preferred by me for consistent setting control when zooming. I'll take a fixed 5.6 along the whole length over something variable that ends up at 5.6 anyhow. I don't look at a zoom as a collection of primes, but rather a range of options for framing a given perspective. But horses for courses, right?

300mm + tcs are great for bigger things, like bison, or friendly things, like puddleducks.

For various reasons, a 2x TC applied to something that is relatively close for a given lens is way better than a 2x TC for things that are relatively far away for a given lens. With or without DLO.

 

[Tirmite]

I always only purchased Canon lenses.... until a couple years ago. The Sigma 105mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.4 are great lenses. Rented them first, then I bought them. They are well made and sharp and the price makes it seem like Canon is gouging us just for their name badge on the lens, and I'm saying that as a hardcore Canon fanboy.
I plan on getting the 200mm 2.0 as soon as I sell my Canon 200mm 2.0. It only makes sense since Canon will stop servicing the 300mm and 200mm EF versions in the next 2-3 years. Why be stuck with a lens that can't be repaired if anything happens? The only downside, and it really isn't one, is that I have to use my Sony bodies with those lenses since Sigma doesn't make them in Canon mount (ok, the 105mm was an EF mount but with adapters I can use is on my R3's or a7's. So now I have to also include batteries and chargers in my camera bag for the Sony, but that only takes up a six inch square space.
The Canon 200mm was $6400 when I bought mine if I remember correctly. The Sigma is $3300 new. Pretty hard to rationalize the $3000 difference in cost when it performs 99% as well. You sacrifice the filter drawer which I never use. And here's the point I was really getting to: The Sigma 300-600mm f4.0, a constant 4.0 aperture, is $6600. I haven't used/rented one yet, but so far the reviews have been very positive. That's probably what Canon would charge for a 300-600mm f5.6 or a variable f-stop lens. You know they'd want about double what Sigma is charging.
It just doesn't make sense financially when they're making such good glass these days. I could have TWO super telephotos or the lens and an a9 Mark III or a1 Mark II or TWO a7v bodies for the difference in price! It's just too bad Sigma won't or can't (for legal reasons) make them available in the RF mount. I love all of my Canon RF and EF glass and I'll never jump ship, but Sigma has turned into an excellent lens manufacturer and Canon has lost me as a big white lens purchaser other than maybe the 100-300mm 2.8 when it comes time to replace my 300mm fixed.
And, no, it's not difficult to shoot with two different systems on the same photo shoot in case anyone brings that up. It just isn't an issue. you develop "muscle memory" for each body. When I first got into photography as a kid in the 70's, Sigma was crap. They were cheap in price, and cheap in design and build. It's taken them 40+ years but what they make now is truly impressive especially at the price point they sell them for. Pay attention Canon. I'm sure I'm not the only fanboy with a wandering eye and wallet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

You're expecting an RF 300-600mm f/5.6L lens for a lower cost than the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L?!?

If I was the sort of person who engaged in recreational drug use, I'd want some of whatever it is that put you in such a mental state, it's evidently pretty powerful stuff!

 

[Zadak]

I always only purchased Canon lenses.... until a couple years ago. The Sigma 105mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.4 are great lenses. Rented them first, then I bought them. They are well made and sharp and the price makes it seem like Canon is gouging us just for their name badge on the lens, and I'm saying that as a hardcore Canon fanboy. I plan on getting the 200mm 2.0 as soon as I sell my Canon 200mm 2.0. It only makes sense since Canon will stop servicing the 300mm and 200mm EF versions in the next 2-3 years. Why be stuck with a lens that can be repaired if anything happens? The only downside, and it really isn't one, is that I have to use my Sony bodies with those lenses since Sigma doesn't make them in Canon mount (ok, the 105mm was an EF mount but with adapters I can use is on my R3's or a7's. So now I have to also include batteries and chargers in my camera bag for the Sony, but that only takes up a six inch square space. The Canon 200mm was $6400 when I bought mine if I remember correctly. The Sigma is $3300 new. Pretty hard to rationalize the $3000 difference in cost when it performs 99% as well. You sacrifice the filter drawer which I never use. And here's the point I was really getting to: The Sigma 300-600mm f4.0, a constant 4.0 aperture, is $6600. I haven't used/rented one yet, but so far the reviews have been very positive. That's probably what Canon would charge for a 300-600mm f5.6 or a variable f-stop lens. You know they'd want about double what Sigma is charging. It just doesn't make sense financially when they're making such good glass these days. I could have TWO super telephotos or the lens and an a9 Mark III or a1 Mark II or TWO a7v bodies for the difference in price! It's just too bad Sigma won't or can't (for legal reasons) make them available in the RF mount. I love all of my Canon RF and EF glass and I'll never jump ship, but Sigma has turned into an excellent lens manufacturer and Canon has lost me as a big white lens purchaser other than maybe the 100-300mm 2.8 when it comes time to replace my 300mm fixed. And it's not difficult to shoot with two different systems on the same photo shoot in case anyone brings that up. It just isn't an issue. you develop "muscle memory" for each body. When I first got into photography as a kid in the 70's, Sigma was crap. They were cheap in price, and cheap in design and build. It's taken them 40+ years but what they make now is truly impressive especially at the price point they sell them for. Pay attention Canon. I'm sure I'm not the only fanboy with a wandering eye and wallet.

Paragraphs....

 

[mimbu]

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

It's not going to be less than the 100-300/2.8L. I suspect if you place a "1" in front of the 2.5 you have there (ie $12.5k), you'll probably be pretty close to the price.

 

[DocInfoSci]

You're expecting an RF 300-600mm f/5.6L lens for a lower cost than the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L?!?

If I was the sort of person who engaged in recreational drug use, I'd want some of whatever it is that put you in such a mental state, it's evidently pretty powerful stuff!

Woah, Dude — I didn't say I was expecting. I said it would be nice.

To quote the article:

Going with a DO design would definitely trim some weight and size and give further segmentation in the lineup of supertelephoto lenses. There does need to be an option between $2500 and $15,000 if you're looking for a great 400-600mm option.

And I stated:

especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

But then again, isn't a rumours forum kind of given to fantasy and wishes?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I can only imagine the reach this RF 300-600mm f5.6 will have on the rumoured R7II. An effective 500-1000mm! Lets assume this lens will be tack sharp wide open...where as the RF200-800mm might stuggle with the R7II's super resolving sensor.

 

[scyrene]

Woah, Dude — I didn't say I was expecting. I said it would be nice.

isn't a rumours forum kind of given to fantasy and wishes?

There's a limit though, right? Or else we could all just wish for that budget 1-1000mm f/1.

One of the longstanding problems with this forum is people having unrealistic expectations (hopes/fantasies) and then acting like they've been let down when reality bites. You might not be one of those, but it doesn't add much either way. We all want a free lunch.

 

[DocInfoSci]

There's a limit though, right? Or else we could all just wish for that budget 1-1000mm f/1.

One of the longstanding problems with this forum is people having unrealistic expectations (hopes/fantasies) and then acting like they've been let down when reality bites. You might not be one of those, but it doesn't add much either way. We all want a free lunch.

OK . I mean, I agree on a level — I just didn't realize that closer meant unrealistic or a pharmaceutically enhanced experience.

What would be better? Perhaps, especially if it were farther away from $15k.

But, logically, they're the same statement. Emotionally, I recognize the difference in terms of optimism. I mean, even $6k, which is probably realistic-ish if Canon wants it to be given Sigma's example, would still be less than half of $15k and still honor my original thought. And the article's stated between wording.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And the article's stated between wording.

That wording seems to derive from the prices of the RF 100-500L and the RF 600/4L, which seem like reasonable bookends for a L series lens covering 400-600mm. Of course, I'd argue that the RF 100-300/2.8 + RF 2x TC at $11,300 currently (though I paid $10,100 for the combo) falls right in that range and can be bought today.

 

[EricN]

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.

Could be related to something nobody ever criticized before: Trump tarrifs?

 

[DocInfoSci]

That wording seems to derive from the prices of the RF 100-500L and the RF 600/4L, which seem like reasonable bookends for a L series lens covering 400-600mm. Of course, I'd argue that the RF 100-300/2.8 + RF 2x TC at $11,300 currently (though I paid $10,100 for the combo) falls right in that range and can be bought today.

OK — totally happy to play ball with this one. I do like you, and I enjoy the back and forth with your excellent attention to detail, I was just caught off guard by (how I read) your response.

I was hoping the 5.6 nature of the beast would mean a price more in line with the 100-500, and less than that of the prime. The 100-500 retails for less than $4k in Canada not on sale. I realize that it goes to 7.1, so a price bump for the 300-600 if held at 5.6. But I think to make it attractive vs existing options there is pressure after the initial release to keep it less than half that of the prime's cost. For third party comparison the Sigma 60-600 retails for less than $3k CAD and the 600mm prime is less than $9k CAD.

Your 100-300 2.8 is awesome, but I also feel like it's a market statement piece similar to the 28-70 2. I feel like with the 300-600 clocking in at 5.6 + the 200-800 as a competitive option + primes for the ultimate in luxury means the 300-600 discussed here is more like a working lens. Not cheap, but potentially not a student's second car.

Perhaps my flippant reference of $2.5 was a trigger, but unpacked above is what lead to it.

 

[juststeve]

Since many are repeating themselves, wants or opinions, I will join in too.

For the way I am photographing a 200-600/4-5.6 would be the most useful and most likely to get my money. I use the 100-500 and 200-800 everywhere on the scale. An internal zoom lens of that range which could also take the converters with 100-300 or 100-500 optical quality would be about perfect for me. And maybe some others. Price. If it were 5 or 6K, yippee. If more, well okay, I will put my money where my keyboard is.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Of course, I also realize that Canon could simply be working to replace primes with zooms — that seems to be the trend since late EF days. If the quality of the 300-600 image and build and weight is on par with the 100-300 then the primes can be reserved only for those moments by which even the high ISO capabilities are overwhelmed by the lack of light for a given acceptable outcome. Given recent photos have won prestige awards while using ISO up to 25k this need for absolute brightness is less and less the typical competitive case.

In which case, I agree a price closer to the prime is expected. In the eyes of Canon the 200-800 would be a toy to placate non-commercial work and the primes would begin their final march into niche use and irrelevance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

OK — totally happy to play ball with this one. I do like you, and I enjoy the back and forth with your excellent attention to detail, I was just caught off guard by (how I read) your response.

Apologies, was aiming for humor but I know that sometimes fails to translate in a forum post.

I was hoping the 5.6 nature of the beast would mean a price more in line with the 100-500, and less than that of the prime. The 100-500 retails for less than $4k in Canada not on sale. I realize that it goes to 7.1, so a price bump if held at 5.6. But I think to make it attractive vs existing options there is pressure after the initial release to keep it less than half that of the prime's cost.

With telephoto designs, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element and thus the size of that entrance pupil determines the size of the front element, and the cost of the lens scales accordingly. 500/7.1 = 70mm, that's relatively small, about the same as 400/5.6 or 200/2.8. Those are sub-$3K lenses, as primes or zooms. 600/5.6 = 107mm, same as 300/2.8. That's 'great white' territory, which currently is $10K and up.

Your 100-300 2.8 is awesome, but I also feel like it's a market statement piece similar to the 28-70 2. I feel like with the 300-600 clocking in at 5.6 + the 200-800 as a competitive option + primes for the ultimate in luxury means the 300-600 discussed here is more like a working lens. Not cheap, but potentially not a student's second car.

I think you're missing the point. Math: 300 / 2.8 = 600 / 5.6. 'Clocking in at 5.6' yes, but at 600mm. I mean, the EF 1200mm f/5.6 also clocked in at 5.6 and cost $90,000...more than many houses when it came out in 1993 (the median home price was $126K that year).

 

[DocInfoSci]

Apologies, was aiming for humor but I know that sometimes fails to translate in a forum post.

Yeah — and partially on me. We've bantered enough. I was also in the room recently when one of my competitors learned their company has just been rendered redundant by agentic AI. We competed, but it sucks to see that look in someone's eyes. I respect them and their work. I brought that emotion with me today, and I should be wiser.

With telephoto designs, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element and thus the size of that entrance pupil determines the size of the front element, and the cost of the lens scales accordingly. 500/7.1 = 70mm, that's relatively small, about the same as 400/5.6 or 200/2.8. Those are sub-$3K lenses, as primes or zooms. 600/5.6 = 107mm, same as 300/2.8. That's 'great white' territory, which currently is $10K and up.

Very good point.

I think you're missing the point. Math: 300 / 2.8 = 600 / 5.6. 'Clocking in at 5.6' yes, but at 600mm. I mean, the EF 1200mm f/5.6 also clocked in at 5.6 and cost $90,000...more than many houses when it came out in 1993 (the median home price was $126K that year).

I stand humbled by math. Again, very good point.

 

[bluezurich]

But then again, isn't a rumours forum kind of given to fantasy and wishes?

Wouldn't that be great but it's a tough crowd. These guys have charts and electron microscopes for crissakes.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The article didn't mention the possibility of a constant f4 aperture for this zoom? Is it possible or plausible? I´m definitely not in the market for this lens, but as constant f5.6 zoom I´d rather buy the 100-300mm f2.8 and get a 2x TC. I´d get the same lens plus 100-300mm @f2.8... Sure, one could adapt the 2x TC on a 300-600mm F5.6 but then it would be a 600-1200mm F11 if I'm correct. I don't know how many people would go for that...

 

[mkush]

Craig, are you in a position to comment on the likelihood of this lens being internal zoom?

 

[JoeDavid]

I'd love for this lens to come in under $6K USD but I doubt it. Since it's Canon, we'll be lucky if it's under $10K. What I would really like is for Canon to introduce an f4 constant aperture version of the 100-300mm. The f2.8 version has been out long enough now for them to consider it.