It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced

[ZE3kr]

Doesn't mention if you can stack TCs though...

Add a 2x TC and get a 200-600mm/5.6 which a lot of forum dwellers are waiting for but heavy on the wallet

Stack TCs for this lens is obviously impossible, like all other lenses. The only exception to this is if that lens is a built-in TC like the 200-400/4 does. The longest reach is 600mm. However, if use 2x all the time, the 100-500L is a much more budget, lightweight and versatile option when compared to 200-600mm/5.6. I wonder if 100-300 with a 2x can be sharper or at least as sharp as 100-500.

 

[john1970]

Stack TCs for this lens is obviously impossible, like all other lenses. The only exception to this is if that lens is a built-in TC like the 200-400/4 does. The longest reach is 600mm. However, if use 2x all the time, the 100-500L is a much more budget, lightweight and versatile option when compared to 200-600mm/5.6. I wonder if 100-300 with a 2x can be sharper or at least as sharp as 100-500.

On page 1 of the thread I posted the MTF charts of this lens with TCs and did a direct comparison to the RF100-500 mm.

 

[David - Sydney]

Incidentally, the hood weights are not very different – 159 g for the 100-300 hood, 170 g for the 300/2.8 II hood.

A <10% weight difference but quite a big difference in size. I can't understand why they didn't add a window for rotating the CPL filter like they did with RF70-200 and RF100-500.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Even allowing for the tax differences, most lenses are considerably cheaper in the US than elsewhere.

We have grey market lenses in the US.
That means they must be cheaper somewhere else.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm not saying that the price difference is only due to the longer warranty, but it certainly has an effect. I'm also not saying that the price difference for a longer warranty period is worth it to European consumers. I think a lot of them would take a lower price for a shorter warranty period.

Canon Australia provides a 5 year warranty and regular sales/rebates get the local pricing to be similar to US pricing + the local 10% GST. Non sales time is more expensive though.

 

[David - Sydney]

On a side note, IMO, this lens sheds a little light on the decisions they made with the RF 70-200 2.8. An extender compatible 70-200 would definitely infringe heavily on this lens.

A compact/light 70-200mm that extends probably has more appeal for users than the previous EF70-200/2.8, It certainly was a no-brainer for me to upgrade and sell my EF70-200/2.8 even though I missed being able to use TCs. => Canon's strategy worked as I also bought a RF100-500mm. My 3 lens travel combo is EF16-35/4 + R24-105/4 + RF100-500. RF70-200 for indoor events.

I am not sure that the users for a 300/2.8 lens would overlap with the much-larger audience for the 70-200mm. eg wedding photographers would rarely use the 300mm focal length but 70-200mm would be a workhorse with the 24-70 or 28-70.

This lens will be for specialist use who can afford its cost. If you can't afford it then get the RF70-200/2.8 + EF300/2.8 and have spare change
Always good to have choices!

 

[sanj]

I am having the exact same thoughts for my summer travels. Do I take my RF 100-500 mm lens or rent the RF 100-300 mm f2.8. The extra stops of light are very very enticing.

"Summer Travels". You, sir, are an exception to who this lens is designed for.

 

[David - Sydney]

Having said that, the issues you raise all concern telephoto designs, where I would not expect the shorter flange distance to be a big benefit. Perhaps they’re fighting the perception that the lenses should be shorteu because of that shorter flange distance, and they’re responding by making the lenses shorter in other ways that don’t contravene physics.

But still getting around physics by using lens correction profiles to avoid vignetting on the RF14-35/4. It will be a great lens to buy when my EF16-35/4 dies but it still keeps going even after land/seascapes and underwater stuff.

 

[sanj]

Gordon Laing is positive. Says that Canon states it is sharper than the EF300mm/2.8 and takes TCs. Doesn't mention if you can stack TCs though...
Yes, a hood is included
Length is the same with R mount adapter and lens hood.
Up 200gms on the EF300 (lighter with R mount adapter)
Looks like the same tripod mount as the EF300mm/2.8
No drop-in filters
It isn't clear how you would use the control ring which looks to me next to the body unless on a tripod.

Add a 2x TC and get a 200-600mm/5.6 which a lot of forum dwellers are waiting for but heavy on the wallet

This lens is designed for people who would not want to ever stack TC's because they realize the quality will drop considerably.

 

[David - Sydney]

That in part is slowing down my willingness to fully "migrate". I don't like that the 100-500 is slower beyond 250mm (and more expensive) than the excellent EF 100-400 II. Plus some reliability/usability quirks I have with the mirrorless bodies vs. the older DSLRs.

It would be nice to fully migrate but there are some EF niches that Canon either won't or doesn't have the capacity to replace yet. I see RF lenses adding options rather than direct EF replacements except for the high run rate models.

"Slower" is a pretty minor difference between EF100-400 and RF100-500. Given the better AF and ISO quality in the R bodies cf the DLSR bodies then it shouldn't impact too many users.

The RF100-300/2.8 is a good example where the RF version adds features include weight/size but compromises on some things that affects certain users eg filters. I am sure that some filter manufacturers will now increase their 112mm range to include CPL+ND options specifically for this lens.
I still would prefer more battery life but happy with the other features of the R bodies.

I figured Canon's early pitch was mostly marketing talk.

I think that Sony was really pushing the small size for mirrorless including the narrower mount... but it didn't help ergonomics for large (or even medium) sized hands especially for some lenses hand held.
Canon never (to my knowledge) stated that mirrorless would = small systems. They had the M series for that market although that is changing.

 

[David - Sydney]

It’s really just the loss of zoom range – it goes from a 5x zoom without an extender to a 1.67x zoom with one. Put another way, a 200-1000mm zoom offers much more framing flexibility than a 600-1000mm zoom.

Worth saving 18mm of lens length? Maybe.

Perhaps the R5 helps with the pixel density allowing cropping in this case ie not using extenders on the RF100-500mm. It all depends on the what the end use of the image ie.. large prints @300dpi vs upscaling etc options.
The perspective difference for cropping should be minor for telephoto focal lengths.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not complaining about this lens, as I have no interest in it (at least not at this price point) but I do wonder about all the compromises that Canon is making with RF lenses, when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and necessary for them to offer exciting new options.
RF mount design precluded using drop in filters on this 100-300 lens.

• RF design severely limits the zoom range of the 100-500 RF lens when using extenders.
• RF design prevented the use of any extender with the 70-200 F2.8 zoom.
• Focus breathing issues with the 100mm macro (may not be an issue with the RF mount, but it does seem to make the lens less desirable than the EF macro for many buyers).
• Heavy reliance on computer-based interpolation for wide-angle lenses (This doesn't really bother me, but it seems to offend some users).
• Then there are "lazy" bolt-on mount adapters and extenders for certain very expensive super-telephotos. (Again, if I could afford the RF 600 mm I really don't care if its just the EF version with a mount adapter and if the results of the 800 and 1200 RF lenses are good, I don't really care if they got there by using extenders.)

I understand that there are always compromises and you can't defy physics, but still, it seems like there have been a lot of compromises made and I wonder if a little more thought/design had gone into the R system (especially since Canon took their time designing the system) they might have avoided or minimized some of the issues.

I love my R bodies (R5 and R3) and love my R lenses, but it just seems like they didn't plan well for some of these challenges.

Aside from the RF600/800mm big whites...
Clearly Canon put a lot of thought into the designs in the R system. The choices they made were (generally) aimed at improving many of the EF designs for weight/length/AF performance or at the other end greater focal zooms. There are a couple of head-scratches like no window on the RF100-300mm hood though.

Removing options for TCs with the RF70-200/2.8 pushes you to the RF100-500mm if you need telephoto or the RF600/800 F11 which is good for Canon or buy the EF100-400mm + TCs
Offending some users for using correction profiles on the RF14-35mm doesn't preclude the major benefit of the extra 2mm with only 77mm filters. If the purists don't like it then they don't have to use it at 14mm

It is just great that we can still buy and use the EF lenses that sit between the cheaper RF lenses and the pricey ones as another level of choice. Just need a reasonable native RF50/1,4

 

[David - Sydney]

This lens is designed for people who would not want to ever stack TC's because they realize the quality will drop considerably.

You can stack RF TC and EF TCs (iii) with an extension tube but lose infinity focus. I believe that Sigma and Kenko TCs could stack though without an extension tube.
Would you want to? Image quality suffers of course and probably AF speed which was always a trade-off. The quality of the Canon TCs has improved a lot from version ii to version iii and now the RF TCs. See @john1970 post on page 1 of this thread with the MTF chart comparison with TCs vs RF100-500mm

 

[David - Sydney]

Stack TCs for this lens is obviously impossible, like all other lenses. The only exception to this is if that lens is a built-in TC like the 200-400/4 does. The longest reach is 600mm. However, if use 2x all the time, the 100-500L is a much more budget, lightweight and versatile option when compared to 200-600mm/5.6. I wonder if 100-300 with a 2x can be sharper or at least as sharp as 100-500.

not impossible if an extension tube is used but it has downsides of course... infinity focus and image quality. See page 1 of this thread for the MTF chart comparison

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can stack RF TC and EF TCs (iii) with an extension tube but lose infinity focus.

With EF lenses, you can use an RF TC behind the mount adapter and an EF TC in front of it. Examples with the 600/4 II here.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]"Slower" is a pretty minor difference between EF100-400 and RF100-500. Given the better AF and ISO quality in the R bodies cf the DLSR bodies then it shouldn't impact too many users.[...]

I'm still not convinced it's actually slower, the aperture is the same size for both lenses. The numbers in your EVF are different, yes, but is that due to the aperture being smaller or due to Canon using a different way of rounding the numbers? The numbers are already wildly different for the same lens when picking 1/3 or 1/2 stops!

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm still not convinced it's actually slower, the aperture is the same size for both lenses. The numbers in your EVF are different, yes, but is that due to the aperture being smaller or due to Canon using a different way of rounding the numbers? The numbers are already wildly different for the same lens when picking 1/3 or 1/2 stops!

The EF100-400 +1.4TC has slightly longer max focal length and I believe that the RF100-500 has a slightly smaller aperture @400mm. Practically, I don't think that users will notice any differences by YMMV. Use the adapated EF100-400 +/- the 1.4X TC or the RF100-500mm... too many choices with pros/cons for both

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon Australia provides a 5 year warranty and regular sales/rebates get the local pricing to be similar to US pricing + the local 10% GST. Non sales time is more expensive though.

Today's special for the R5 from Digidirect is AUD5014.
Take off 10% GST => AUD4562
AUD:USD is currently 1AUD = 0.67USD
=> Buy a new R5 with 5 year Canon warranty for USD3361+tax!

No haters from UK/EU/US please... it was a lot more expensive 3 years ago

 

[Del Paso]

Even allowing for the tax differences, most lenses are considerably cheaper in the US than elsewhere. (Except in Japan where due to the current weak JPY, most lens are now cheaper in Japan than at B&H. RF600/4 is $12999+tax at B&H but $11300+tax in Japan.)

Absolutely correct:
This even applies to European power tools (Festool, Fein etc...)which are much more expensive in Germany than in the US.

 

[photographer]

Canon Australia provides a 5 year warranty and regular sales/rebates get the local pricing to be similar to US pricing + the local 10% GST. Non sales time is more expensive though.

I bought the RF 50 1.2 during the Black Friday with a discount of about 20% and the RF 70 - 200 2.8 when Canon had a promotion - 25% off. "Grey imports" also work here, and by that I don't mean individual imports from a trip, but a large e-shop that has been operating like this for several years. In that case, however, you only have a one-year warranty from the seller and sometimes a problem with local services, because it is not a product intended for Europe.