An image of the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the official announcement
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I just don’t understand Canon’s strategy. Why push out a $10k lens when you don’t even have the most sought after focal lengths in your lineup yet? I invested in the RF mount with the expectation it would move forward, yet here we are years later with the same issues. The L lenses they have released are really good, but the lineup is still full of glaring holes. The lenses that are available are either outrageously expensive L series glass or extremely underwhelming and plasticy budget options, with nothing in between. The thing that could rectify this issue, third party lenses, still seem to be years away. The cameras are good, yet expensive, but are still made with head-scratching decisions like micro-HDMI ports, no all-I recording options, no C-log 2 and overheating issues. None of it makes any sense to me.
I recently was in the market for a second camera body, already owning an R5 and several L series RF lenses. Instead of buying an R6ii, R5c or R3, I opted to buy a LUMIX S5ii. Canon forced my hand. Their decision making forced me into having a “plan b”. The S5ii is by no means a perfect camera, but the L-mount at least appears to have a path forward and an enticing and diverse lineup of quality lenses to choose from. Are they L series level? No, but between Panasonic, Leica and Sigma, they are close, and 1/3rd of the price. If the S1Hii, that is likely to be released in the near future, can compete with the technical specs of the R5, I will have a difficult time justifying not completely moving to the Panasonic system. I really like my R5, I think it is the best photography camera on the market right now. That being said, I don’t like paying $2500-3000 per lens and not having a full range of options. I don’t like the limitations on the video side. I don’t like the teases of big firmware updates only to be left underwhelmed. After defending the RF mount for years, it is getting to the point where the negatives are starting to outweigh the positives, and other systems are becoming more and more attractive.
I recently was in the market for a second camera body, already owning an R5 and several L series RF lenses. Instead of buying an R6ii, R5c or R3, I opted to buy a LUMIX S5ii. Canon forced my hand. Their decision making forced me into having a “plan b”. The S5ii is by no means a perfect camera, but the L-mount at least appears to have a path forward and an enticing and diverse lineup of quality lenses to choose from. Are they L series level? No, but between Panasonic, Leica and Sigma, they are close, and 1/3rd of the price. If the S1Hii, that is likely to be released in the near future, can compete with the technical specs of the R5, I will have a difficult time justifying not completely moving to the Panasonic system. I really like my R5, I think it is the best photography camera on the market right now. That being said, I don’t like paying $2500-3000 per lens and not having a full range of options. I don’t like the limitations on the video side. I don’t like the teases of big firmware updates only to be left underwhelmed. After defending the RF mount for years, it is getting to the point where the negatives are starting to outweigh the positives, and other systems are becoming more and more attractive.
Upvote
0
"Optical performance will be better than the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM" Are they using wording carefully maybe?
How about comparing with 300mm 2.8L IS II ?
Unless it was a typo...
Anyway, I believe that they wanted to introduce something different to tempt existing 300mm 2.8L IS (I and II) as well as new users. I am not but then I am not a pro or sports shooter.
YMMV.
How about comparing with 300mm 2.8L IS II ?
Unless it was a typo...
Anyway, I believe that they wanted to introduce something different to tempt existing 300mm 2.8L IS (I and II) as well as new users. I am not but then I am not a pro or sports shooter.
YMMV.
Upvote
0
I wondered about that. CRguy’s subsequent post implied he was referring to the MkII, but perhaps the source wasn’t.
Upvote
0
It's been said ad nauseum
- Low yield lenses are much easier to meet demand as optical glass used for L lenses is only recently started to reach normal levels. Why make lenses that people will have on eternal backorder. Just look at the RF 135, this would likely be a "tier 2" as far as sales for an L prime behind the likes of a 35 or 24 and they are nowhere near meeting demand yet.
- Lenses like this are purchased in bulk by news agencies, they're easy to sell to that market and have a great margin.
- Getting all of the "pro" long lenses out before the EOS R1 hits the market and photographers leave their EOS-1DXs behind is going to be very important.
- It's also rumoured a trio of fast wide prime lenses are coming at the same time. This is so consumers don't have to settle if they trickle them out one by one.
- What Canon has done in 4.5 years with this system is pretty remarkable... even with the 3 years of global chaos. Sony had an 8-9 year head start. Canon is well ahead of the Z mount.
- At the end of the day, of all the camera companies... Canon is pretty much the only one that consistently makes money on cameras and lenses, even through the chaos.... so they probably know what they're doing.
Upvote
0
"Optical performance" is a bit vague. It can be a bit better in some type of CA and they can already claim it's better. The 300 prime is also an over 10 year old lens.
Upvote
0
Very few indeed.
In Germany, I have made an interesting observation, specifically in soccer but also in handball (which is huge here btw)
The more serious kids participate at their chosen sport and the more cameras and distinguished lenses you'll see at soccer games or at the complex where a tournament is held.
At the lowest level, in Germany we call it "Breitensport" (roughly translated "mass sport") most parents (age group 10 - 16) basically do all their photos with a smartphone. The quality of the photos is quite bad (if I am mean I'd say it reflects the level of playing/ competition).
Starting U12, this where most professional Bundesliga teams start with their own youth teams, you'll see 1-3 parents who invested in a DSLR/ DSLM with a medium tele-lens such as EF 70-300mm or RF 100-400mm.
Looking at the "NLZ Sonderspielrunde" (basically organised friendly games/ small tournaments between youth teams of pro soccer clubs) you'll even see some white lenses such as the 100-400mm.
At the big U13 tournaments you'll see parents of every team taking pics with quite professional cams and lenses. And even some clubs have their video analysts film the game (usually from a fixed tripod or "coaches eye" spot that covers the entire field) and have them shot photos while the cam films. Mainz, Stuttgart, Bavaria Munich hired a pro who takes pics with EF 300mm/ 400mm prime.
Going further up, U15/ U17 pro level, you'll see at least two parents with a pro camera and a white or big white lense. Furthermore, the clubs might have a photographer there as well, so might the DFB (German soccer association).
So, in conclusion: When the level of competition rises, so do the efforts of the parents in order to make memories out of them.
For the RF 100-300mm F2.8 there are only very few parents who will pay for that lense. Given my observation, I'd guess:
There are 57 "NLZ´s" (English: "Youth performance center" --> youth teams from pro soccer clubs)
subtract those from financially challenged regions and the NLZs from lower leagues (level of competition is lower as well) and you'll end up with app. 25 NLZ´s- Each NLZ has four to five teams. If all teams have one parent who'll purchase such a lens it gives you around big white 100 lenses in total. Considering, that these lenses are sold over the years and some parents/ teams already have bought big white lenses, I'd guess no more than 6-10 RF 100-300mm F2.8 lenses are sold annually to soccer parents/ pro youth clubs. This is just based on my observations, not based on data.
For Canon, I'd try to specially target parents, who fit the bill in the RF 100-400mm price range/ area. This lens and the R7 is a good start.
Upvote
0
Interesting. From where I sit as someone who no longer owns either brand, they look pretty equal to me. A few areas where Canon is ahead, a few areas where Nikon is ahead. Quite a few gaps in both systems.
If forced to choose right now I'd take a Z9 + Nikkor glass over an R3 + L glass, mostly because Canon has a lot of gaps in their prime lineup, and the 800/6.3 is a ridiculously good lens in so many ways. The lack of an actual flagship R mount camera from Canon is also a big problem.
Upvote
0
Can a curious amateur with a lot of money buy it? You can definitely get it. But this lens is definitely on a professional level.
Upvote
0
But that lens, a 1.4 and an R8 might be darn tempting to a wildlife photographer concerned about compactness and light weight. Also, for the same reasons, a sports shooter of the small market persuasion.
Upvote
0
I hope it's fully compatible with top quality 2x TC. That, and knowing you can crop to taste the final image yourself would allow for images with near the longest super-tele sharpness of a 100-500 (with & without 2x TC) while getting much bigger background blur, which is what we all love to see, as well as not losing all the wide angle of the 100-500 with any TC attached.
I'm guessing their magic for lens size & weight reduction (and the photo) means that they use an external zoom. That's fine with me!
If it was good enough to replace a 100-500L and still light enough to carry (TBD) then I might actually consider getting one. But I'm not used to super heavy weight lenses so that might be enough for me to pass even if I wanted to spend the $.
I can't wait to see it!
I'm guessing their magic for lens size & weight reduction (and the photo) means that they use an external zoom. That's fine with me!
If it was good enough to replace a 100-500L and still light enough to carry (TBD) then I might actually consider getting one. But I'm not used to super heavy weight lenses so that might be enough for me to pass even if I wanted to spend the $.
I can't wait to see it!
Upvote
0
That lens looks so tiny....i bet it'll be a real nice lens. Out of reach of me, but still can appreciate it.
I shoot youth soccer right now. I'm thinking a 200-400 would still be better for me. But also can't afford that. An RF 200-400 or 200-500 as its rumored, would be $15k (guessing based on the pricing of this lens), so that's a no-go as well. Maybe someday a used EF one will come down enough in price.
Brian
I shoot youth soccer right now. I'm thinking a 200-400 would still be better for me. But also can't afford that. An RF 200-400 or 200-500 as its rumored, would be $15k (guessing based on the pricing of this lens), so that's a no-go as well. Maybe someday a used EF one will come down enough in price.
Brian
Upvote
0
Ohhhh please, let it be the TC which you gives you exactly those three options! Or an extender, which features a stepless adjustment.
My bigger wish: I am hoping for a TC that lets me use the entire zoom range of the RF 100-500mm. But I'm afraid, they'd have to design a RF 100-500mm mkii for that...
Upvote
0
Thus ‘few’ and not ‘none’. Full disclosure, my primary use for the 100-300/2.8L will be my kids’ indoor and night-lit outdoor events.
But put it in perspective – this lens plus the least expensive FF body (the R8 from your example) costs $11K. In the US, if you’re at the median household income, that represents 15% of gross annual earnings. If you’re in the 90th percentile of household income, that purchase represents 5% of gross annual earnings. Economically, few households can justify such a purchase.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
