An image of the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the official announcement

[Del Paso]

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.

If I had only bought what I could economically justify...

 

[AlanF]

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.

That lens would be even more tempting on an R7 or an R5 because those have respectively 1.8x and 1.36x more reach, with hardly any difference in weight when considering a large, heavy lens is being used. And, I don't know how the small battery in the R8 would cope with the power drain of AF and IS on that lens? The R8 is an entry level body and the proposed 100-300mm a top end pro lens.

ps, R8 +1.4xTC = 686g, R7 = 612g, R5 = 738g.

 

[mariosk1gr]

Out of topic Question but shouldn't we have already heard about a camera announcement already? C200mark ii/c700 mark ii during NAB?

 

[Tirmite]

A better optical performance than the prime ????
These would be great news if true !
What I don't see on this picture is a device, lever, switch etc. to engage an extender...

It's just a zoom. Doesn't have the extender like the 200-400L.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Out of topic Question but shouldn't we have already heard about a camera announcement already? C200mark ii/c700 mark ii during NAB?

No cameras for NAB, unless they show some kind of a development announcement tomorrow.

 

[mariosk1gr]

No cameras for NAB, unless they show some kind of a development announcement tomorrow.

Damn and I was hoping for many things this time at NAB...

 

[Red Dog]

I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport and, whilst it may not be a match for the latest Canon RF lenses, it is exceptionally good for sport and was my go to lens for many years for football. Costing around £2000 new, its a bargain compared to the rumoured price of the new Canon version. I've used it with the R3 and all the 1dx series and it still performs well.

 

[AJ]

The perfect indoor sports lens.
With a 1.4x tc - the perfect outdoor sports lens.
With the price tag, I can see this becoming a popular rental lens.

 

[juststeve]

That lens would be even more tempting on an R7 or an R5 because those have respectively 1.8x and 1.36x more reach, with hardly any difference in weight when considering a large, heavy lens is being used. And, I don't know how the small battery in the R8 would cope with the power drain of AF and IS on that lens? The R8 is an entry level body and the proposed 100-300mm a top end pro lens.

ps, R8 +1.4xTC = 686g, R7 = 612g, R5 = 738g.

When I typed that I was in brain fart mode. As a long time user of both a crop and full frame bodies, I meant the crop R7 for the body in making up a magic combination. My only complaint about the R7 is that it is a little too small for winter use with my not all that big hands. It gets Sony tight between grip and lens body.

 

[AlanF]

When I typed that I was in brain fart mode. As a long time user of both a crop and full frame bodies, I meant the crop R7 for the body in making up a magic combination. My only complaint about the R7 is that it is a little too small for winter use with my not all that big hands. It gets Sony tight between grip and lens body.

Don't worry - that happens to us all! An f/2.8 300mm would indeed bring out the best of the R7 because there will be less detrimental effects of diffraction and being able to work at lower iso. It would have close to the resolution of a 550mm on an R6II or R8 or 416mm on an R5.

 

[mpmark]

I have seen two angles of the lens, there is no built-in TC that I can see in either, nor do the related patents suggest there is one. If weight is a selling feature, a built-in TC would be an obvious omission.

The promotional picture clearly doesn’t have an extender in its name.

 

[Cstan23]

Canon will soon announce the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM, which will be the first of its kind from Canon. Sigma does have an EF 120-300mm f/2.8, but it was never that highly regarded, mostly due to autofocus performance when compared to Canon L lenses. We are told that the new lens will be

See full article...

In my best Kanye voice, “Canon doesn’t care about poor photographers!”

 

[mpmark]

Too bad about the lack of a built-in TC. I do hope it’s fully compatible (i.e., throughout the zoom range) with the current TCs. Lack of that compatibility might make me reconsider my preorder.

Why wouldn’t it have full zoom range with the TC? All of canons zooms that take the TCs do.

 

[AlanF]

Why wouldn’t it have full zoom range with the TC? All of canons zooms that take the TCs do.

Unfortunately not all do. The RF 100-500mm will zoom back only to the 300mm mark because the TC pokes so far into the lens. The 1.4x gives 420-700mm and the 2x 600-100om range.

 

[mxwphoto]

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.

Yes, those items listed are thing the R5 lack, but to their credit Canon has been transparent about what the camera and the RF system has to offer and what it doesn't.

From my perspective it does not make sense to buy into an expensive system hoping that something may or may not be available down the road (ie cheaper 3rd party lenses, future feature firmware updates, etc) and not liking the result rather than buying the right tool to fit the current budget and need.

 

[Czardoom]

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....

What "most sought after focal lengths" are not in the lineup?
Approximately 8 new lenses a year is not moving forward for you? Any idea how long it takes to design and build a new lens? Obviously not.
You can whine because Canon does not have exactly what you want, but at least try to be a little bit factual.

 

[kaihp]

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.

Canon has officially stated that with the declining volumes, they plan to make up for that by extracting more money from the customers to maintain their revenue and increase their profits.

So by not offering the Goldilocks lens that you want, you can either buy the little icky lens that you don't want to or bleed through the nose while getting th L stuff. Canon is betting on enough customers going high.

 

[scyrene]

NGL I find this an exciting lens, and it has the bonus of making the 100-500 seem like a bargain! Incidentally I saw a mint, used RF 1200mm for sale today, anyone got a spare £18500? ;p

 

[lnz]

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.

You can adapt EF lenses ( canon & others brands )... Canon don't need to make RF version of all existing EF glasses... They are creating new stuff we never saw : 28-70 F2, 1.2 lense ( the 85 DS ), compact 70-200, and that 100-300 is another statement... I don't understand what you want

 

[lnz]

If that lense have a build in tc i sell my RF 400 2.8