The Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM appears to be getting closer [CR3]

[unfocused]

I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8...

What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.

If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?

 

[dolina]

It is a given that this lens will come out within the next 23 months. Same with the RF 500mm

 

[AlanF]

What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.

If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?

According to birding doyen Art Morris, who sells used lenses on his birders site, the price of the EF 300mm f/2.8 II tumbled when the 400mm DO II was released. Both Jack and I switched from the 300/2.8 to the DO II.

 

[Bob Howland]

What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.

If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?

Are you using a FF camera or an APS-C body or both? A 600mm lens (300mm + 2x TC) with a crop body gives an effective 960mm. 300mm with a FF body and mounted on a monopod is excellent for photographing dimly-lit bands or theater after being kicked out of the pit.

 

[entoman]

I personally prefer primes lense over zooms every time regardless of the inconvenience.

I like the challenge of using a prime, they force you to look harder for suitable subjects and to think more about what you are trying to achieve.

Some would say that zooms are for the lazy, but I disagree - there are a huge number of occasions in wildlife and sports photography, when you have to shoot from a fixed position.

For bird photography I prefer a long prime, because I find I nearly always want the longest possible focal length. For mammal photography from a vehicle, I find a zoom significantly better, as the animals can vary in size, and be anywhere between 5-500 metres away.

 

[AlanF]

Are you using a FF camera or an APS-C body or both? A 600mm lens (300mm + 2x TC) with a crop body gives an effective 960mm. 300mm with a FF body and mounted on a monopod is excellent for photographing dimly-lit bands or theater after being kicked out of the pit.

So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?

 

[Bob Howland]

So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?

Your field of view gets narrower. If you're trying to frame the image in a particular way, you have to move back.

 

[entoman]

So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?

It'll expand as it warms up!

 

[AlanF]

Your field of view gets narrower. If you're trying to frame the image in a particular way, you have to move back.

I can do that by cropping without having to move back. Maybe you can't if you are doing video. Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that crop factor gives you 1.6x extra reach. It doesn't by itself, it's pixel density that counts. An R7, 90D or M6II 1.6x crop outresolves Olympus micro 4/3s with a 2x crop factor. For us birders, it's resolution or reach we need telephotos for, not a narrower field of view.

 

[john1970]

This is great news - the EF 300/2.8L IS II was probably the best lens I've ever owned. But "best" wasn't best for me - I found myself using it with the 2x most of the time and eventually switched to a 500 - and that's what I'm really waiting for. A ground-up redesign of the 500/4L IS II would be very exciting. If it was DO and had a built in 1.4x... but now I'm drifting off into fantasy...

Your thoughts are the same as mine. A lightweight DO 500 mm f4 with a built in 1.4x T would be ideal.

 

[kaihp]

Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.

The 300/2.8 II is fully hand-holdable for extended periods for me.

But sure, lighter is always appreciated. Shorter and better balanced weight (CoG closer to the camera) also welcome, even when the existing 328 II is 'good enough' for me.

 

[Bob Howland]

I can do that by cropping without having to move back. Maybe you can't if you are doing video. Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that crop factor gives you 1.6x extra reach. It doesn't by itself, it's pixel density that counts. An R7, 90D or M6II 1.6x crop outresolves Olympus micro 4/3s with a 2x crop factor. For us birders, it's resolution or reach we need telephotos for, not a narrower field of view.

So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?

Update: If you'll recall, my original post was in response to question "If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?"

 

[neuroanatomist]

What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.

For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.

I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.

If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?

No, it wouldn’t be. 300mm with the possibility of 600/5.6 would not be versatile enough for me, either, since I frequently shoot birds. But I’m fortunate to not be limited to buying only one big white – I already have the EF 600/4 II, which I use most of the time with the 1.4x III for 840/5.6.

 

[AlanF]

So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?

Update: If you'll recall, my original post was in response to question "If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?"

"So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?" Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question, no it would not be ideal as I have different requirements for different situations and no one camera would be ideal. I have alongside my R5 a 32 Mpx R7, equivalent in pixel density to 88 Mpx FF. If Canon comes out with an 88 Mpx FF with a BSI sensor, I would be tempted by it, and use it in both crop and FF modes.

 

[Bob Howland]

For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.

I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.


No, it wouldn’t be. 300mm with the possibility of 600/5.6 would not be versatile enough for me, either, since I frequently shoot birds. But I’m fortunate to not be limited to buying only one big white – I already have the EF 600/4 II, which I use most of the time with the 1.4x III for 840/5.6.

With the 300, you can always crop to get a 400mm FOV. If the subject is too close with the 400, you're stuck.

I never shoot birds. I just don't have the patience.

 

[dolina]

With the 300, you can always crop to get a 400mm FOV. If the subject is too close with the 400, you're stuck.

I never shoot birds. I just don't have the patience.

I perfectly understand and if I could have a redo of the past 15 years I'd probably not do it at all

 

[Bob Howland]

"So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?" Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question, no it would not be ideal as I have different requirements for different situations and no one camera would be ideal. I have alongside my R5 a 32 Mpx R7, equivalent in pixel density to 88 Mpx FF. If Canon comes out with an 88 Mpx FF with a BSI sensor, I would be tempted by it, and use it in both crop and FF modes.

It was a question. I have used my 300 with three APS-C bodies: 40D (10MP), 7D (18MP) and R7 (32MP). I'm very aware of the concept of "pixels per feather." The lens did wonderful things to the 40D images.

 

[AlanF]

It was a question. I have used my 300 with three APS-C bodies: 40D (10MP), 7D (18MP) and R7 (32MP). I'm very aware of the concept of "pixels per feather." The lens did wonderful things to the 40D images.

I used the lens with the 7D but it focussed erratically with the 2xTC. It was fine with the 7DII. On the R7 it has the reach of a 400mm on an R5 and the fov of a 480mm.

 

[unfocused]

For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.

I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.


No, it wouldn’t be. 300mm with the possibility of 600/5.6 would not be versatile enough for me, either, since I frequently shoot birds. But I’m fortunate to not be limited to buying only one big white – I already have the EF 600/4 II, which I use most of the time with the 1.4x III for 840/5.6.

Thanks. Makes sense. I've retired from sports shooting (well actually, the small college I shot for for the past several years went belly up in the spring, but I wanted to retire anyway). So, I'm pretty much just shooting birds and wildlife these days, with an occasional contract job for conferences, etc. So, for me, the 300mm length isn't of much use. I'd love a 600mm/f4 but given where I live and the need to travel to pursue the critters I'm interested in, rental is a more cost-effective option.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks. Makes sense. I've retired from sports shooting (well actually, the small college I shot for for the past several years went belly up in the spring, but I wanted to retire anyway). So, I'm pretty much just shooting birds and wildlife these days, with an occasional contract job for conferences, etc. So, for me, the 300mm length isn't of much use. I'd love a 600mm/f4 but given where I live and the need to travel to pursue the critters I'm interested in, rental is a more cost-effective option.

I can’t remember what bodies you have. I’m finding that I’m as satisfied with results I’m getting with the RF 100-400/500 on the R7 and R5 as I ever was with the primes on my DSLRs.