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

[Marphoto]

This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. 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 suggestion is that it is a redesigned lens if it is shorter and lighter than the existing ef version. This is a favorable development and hopefully a harbinger of new formulas to come. I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.

 

[subtraho]

But no word on the RF 500 f/4 (DO?) from the same original rumor?

 

[Hector1970]

Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?

I do use it for sports. I also use it for wildlife with a 1.4 extender handheld. It’s also an amazing portrait lens. People never look better than in front of a 300mm.

 

[InchMetric]

The suggestion is that it is a redesigned lens if it is shorter and lighter than the existing ef version. This is a favorable development and hopefully a harbinger of new formulas to come. I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.

This “slapped on” and “bolted on” stuff is silly. Why redesign a state of the art lens?

Better they keep an astounding three year old design and work on…. This lens.

 

[AlanF]

This “slapped on” and “bolted on” stuff is silly. Why redesign a state of the art lens?

Better they keep an astounding three year old design and work on…. This lens.

It’s not silly. Just read the-digital-picture review of the 800 RF, which has a bolted on slightly improved 2xTC. The 300mm f/2.8 II is not a 3 year old design either, it’s a generation back. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

 

[dolina]

What I expect.
​

ETA​	Lens​	EF weight​	EF release year​	RF ~40% weight reduction​	Price​	Closest Focusing Distance​	Stops of IS​
Within 23 months​	RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM​	2,350g​	2011​	~1,410g​	>$7k​	<2.0m​	>4​
Within 23 months​	RF 200mm f/2L IS USM​	2,520g​	2008​	~1,512g​	>$6k​	<1.9m​	>4​
After 2024 Olympics​	RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM​	2,100g​	2014​	~1,260g​	>$7k​	<3.3m​	>4​

When millenials hit their 60s & 70s by 2040 & 2050 they'll be so lucky carrying a flagship RF body + RF L lens that are 80% of the weight of gear 2 decades ago.

 

[sanj]

It's not too long?

No sir. Try walking with it on the streets of Thailand, India, China, New York, Japan etc. Do try. (You can first try with a cheaper lens). With this lens, it is possible to capture faces and moments on the street which shorter lenses don't allow without making the subject conscious.

 

[Bob Howland]

I do use it for sports. I also use it for wildlife with a 1.4 extender handheld. It’s also an amazing portrait lens. People never look better than in front of a 300mm.

As ridiculous as that sounds, for years a 300 f/2.8 was used as the standard lens for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. The last time I watched the "making of" show, it appeared that the 200 f/2 was used instead.

 

[InchMetric]

It’s not silly. Just read the-digital-picture review of the 800 RF, which has a bolted on slightly improved 2xTC. The 300mm f/2.8 II is not a 3 year old design either, it’s a generation back. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

I was referring to the 400 and 600 as state of the art. TheirbRF versions trigger no dopamine for novelty addicts but they are excellent lenses.

 

[rpg51]

For professionals, sure. But, I can't bring myself to drop $7K or more on a single lens. I would love to have a fast telephoto prime. But its not in the cards. I'll just have to suffer through with my zooms. First world problems.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sigma made the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 300-800 f/5.6 but no 200-500 f/4. The 200-500 f/2.8 should never have happened.

I am not sure why Sigma did not make a 500 f/2.8.
They had a 300 f/2.8 and an 800 f/5.6.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.

They are not very old

 

[davidcl0nel]

They are not very old

Yes, the RF were the III version of the EF ones.
But there was no 300 III with reduction, so this would be now an entire new design, because I don't think they will it design for EF and add the adapter for it... So maybe it can be more compact in size.

 

[Johnw]

The reported weight reduction would put this at around 3.2 lb, just slightly heavier than the 100-500, and insanely light for a big white, even if this is the little brother lens.

 

[David - Sydney]

Stop calling computational photography "photography". It's not "photography". LITERALLY BY DEFINITION IT IS COMPUTER GENERATED "ART".

Well, this will be a can of worms!
The definition of art vs photography is pretty grey at best. I would suggest that all images from digital sensors are art but YMMV.

A digital sensor is a piece of silicon (computer designed and controlled manufacture) with photodiodes digitally recording light intensity at a point in space and then requires a computer to show the image, That's a pretty good definition of computer generated image.
The art is how it is interpreted by Canon (colour science etc) for SooC images which are jpegs. But most of us are recording in raw and post process in Adobe camera raw and then the editor's choice of computer tools (eg LR/PS) to digitally modify the image on a computer even further. Only film is a physical/chemical process to produce an image.

But let's go further for the definition of computational photography from WIkipedia using the taxonomy proposed by Shree Nayari....

Computational photography refers to digital image capture and processing techniques that use digital computation instead of optical processes. Computational photography can improve the capabilities of a camera, or introduce features that were not possible at all with film based photography, or reduce the cost or size of camera elements. Examples of computational photography include in-camera computation of digital panoramas, high-dynamic-range images, and light field cameras. Light field cameras use novel optical elements to capture three dimensional scene information which can then be used to produce 3D images, enhanced depth-of-field, and selective de-focusing (or "post focus").
=> this was one element of my comment on rawnerf.

The definition of computational photography has evolved to cover a number of subject areas in computer graphics, computer vision, and applied optics.
=> I would include Canon's digital distortion correction SW to the applied optics to provide more usable wide angle images with smaller lenses.

These areas are given below, organized according to a taxonomy proposed by Shree K. Nayar. Within each area is a list of techniques, and for each technique one or two representative papers or books are cited.
Deliberately omitted from the taxonomy are image processing (see also digital image processing) techniques applied to traditionally captured images in order to produce better images. Examples of such techniques are image scaling, dynamic range compression (i.e. tone mapping), color management, image completion (a.k.a. inpainting or hole filling), image compression, digital watermarking, and artistic image effects.... Also omitted are techniques that produce range data, volume data, 3D models,
=> this last point would apply to rawnerf's application of denoise and 3D models.

I was using computational photography for the processing of images on phones that were better than would otherwise be due to their severely limited optical lenses and small sensors.
Overall, I will be more careful in the future to use "computational photography" phrase more accurately but in general, I am happy with how I applied the term.

 

[scyrene]

Well, this will be a can of worms!
The definition of art vs photography is pretty grey at best. I would suggest that all images from digital sensors are art but YMMV.

A digital sensor is a piece of silicon (computer designed and controlled manufacture) with photodiodes digitally recording light intensity at a point in space and then requires a computer to show the image, That's a pretty good definition of computer generated image.
The art is how it is interpreted by Canon (colour science etc) for SooC images which are jpegs. But most of us are recording in raw and post process in Adobe camera raw and then the editor's choice of computer tools (eg LR/PS) to digitally modify the image on a computer even further. Only film is a physical/chemical process to produce an image.

But let's go further for the definition of computational photography from WIkipedia using the taxonomy proposed by Shree Nayari....

Computational photography refers to digital image capture and processing techniques that use digital computation instead of optical processes. Computational photography can improve the capabilities of a camera, or introduce features that were not possible at all with film based photography, or reduce the cost or size of camera elements. Examples of computational photography include in-camera computation of digital panoramas, high-dynamic-range images, and light field cameras. Light field cameras use novel optical elements to capture three dimensional scene information which can then be used to produce 3D images, enhanced depth-of-field, and selective de-focusing (or "post focus").
=> this was one element of my comment on rawnerf.

The definition of computational photography has evolved to cover a number of subject areas in computer graphics, computer vision, and applied optics.
=> I would include Canon's digital distortion correction SW to the applied optics to provide more usable wide angle images with smaller lenses.

These areas are given below, organized according to a taxonomy proposed by Shree K. Nayar. Within each area is a list of techniques, and for each technique one or two representative papers or books are cited.
Deliberately omitted from the taxonomy are image processing (see also digital image processing) techniques applied to traditionally captured images in order to produce better images. Examples of such techniques are image scaling, dynamic range compression (i.e. tone mapping), color management, image completion (a.k.a. inpainting or hole filling), image compression, digital watermarking, and artistic image effects.... Also omitted are techniques that produce range data, volume data, 3D models,
=> this last point would apply to rawnerf's application of denoise and 3D models.

I was using computational photography for the processing of images on phones that were better than would otherwise be due to their severely limited optical lenses and small sensors.
Overall, I will be more careful in the future to use "computational photography" phrase more accurately but in general, I am happy with how I applied the term.

I would think (like many things) it's better to imagine a spectrum than discrete categories, from less to more computational. As you say, by definition a digital image requires computing to exist in any usable way. The video seemed to be aiming to create representations of a scene rather than adding in elements that weren't there, so it doesn't even seem to me to be especially far towards the creative end of things. I tend to feel that people who get upset by these approaches must be focused on more traditionalist genres (like portraiture), because macro and astro (for instance) are heavily reliant on computational postprocessing nowadays, and it's uncontroversial.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would think (like many things) it's better to imagine a spectrum than discrete categories, from less to more computational. As you say, by definition a digital image requires computing to exist in any usable way. The video seemed to be aiming to create representations of a scene rather than adding in elements that weren't there, so it doesn't even seem to me to be especially far towards the creative end of things. I tend to feel that people who get upset by these approaches must be focused on more traditionalist genres (like portraiture), because macro and astro (for instance) are heavily reliant on computational postprocessing nowadays, and it's uncontroversial.

@asingleredcactus@h appears to have only posted a couple of messages in the forum and - USED ALL CAPS - which suggests they were quite distressed at my comments.

I agree that many things are like a spectrum but happy to have a conversation about the issue. I'm hear to learn from others in the forum and my own research rather than push an agenda. Clearly, others have also thought about this a lot for a taxonomy to be proposed.

Let's see asingleredcactus@h's response... if they have something to add to the conversion rather than shouting at me.

 

[usern4cr]

Hell that would be only 1.5kg! So I guess I'm not ordering this 100-500 yet!

I wouldn't postpone getting the 100-500 for that reason. It is a spectacular & very versatile lens which is well worth having whether you get this new lens or not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find that the choice between buying a lens that exists and buying a lens that doesn’t is an easy one.

 

[AlanF]

I wouldn't postpone getting the 100-500 for that reason. It is a spectacular & very versatile lens which is well worth having whether you get this new lens or not.

Absolutely!

I find that the choice between buying a lens that exists and buying a lens that doesn’t is an easy one.

Let's face it, if they have that dilemma, do they need either?