It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Yep. 60. I average 10 foreign trips per year, and most of them are indirect, and usually there are domestic flights as well. e.g. a 3 week trip to West Papua in December involved 15 flights - London-Jakarta-Makassar-Manokwari-Sorong-Manokwari-Jayapura-Wamena-Jayapura-Sorong-Fakfak-Sorong-Makassar-Jakarta-London....SIXTY!
The reason why I have so many flights is because I'm a photography tour organiser/leader.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I compensate for my carbon footprint by donating to reforestation projects in Peru, Ecuador and Colombia
. These are designed to form corridors, linking existing wildlife reserves. Enables wildlife to travel across otherwise inhospitable land. Enables gene flow and maintains genetic diversity.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Indeed. The hood door on my EF100-400mm drove me nuts because it was so loose that it repeatedly drifted open. The click-lock wasn't strong enough to keep it in place so I was constantly having to close it. However this seems to have been solved with the RF100-500mm, which has a firmer door that remains closed until I deliberately open it.
The EF100-400mm zooms out when pointing downwards, but has a friction ring to prevent that being a problem. I don't find that the RF100-500mm zooms out when pointing downwards, even with the friction ring at its loosest setting. It's just loose enough to enable me to use push-pull zooming but can be quickly tightened to make it really stiff when required. A nice design. I do agree that it would be very useful if the zoom lock would work at any focal length.
Yes it would be very hand to be able to set minimum and maximum distances and limit the focusing to within that range. Such a feature would make it impossible for the AF to jump onto the background with BIF or with near-macro. I suspect that this would be quite easy to implement electronically via the camera body/EVF and will probably eventually become a standard feature on high end cameras, although I'll be dead and gone by the time Canon get around to it.
Yes, several reviewers complained about that, so it's a mystery why Canon hasn't reacted.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My response to you is this:They don’t seem ‘loose’ to me, there’s a click-stop in the fully closed and fully open position. Nor do they ‘open on their own’. Hyperbolize much? If yours actually does, it’s defective. I just took mine (both copies) and shook / wrist-snapped them as forcefully as I could, and with the window either open or closed it didn’t move.
If you bump it, sure it opens…and yes, I find that annoying. I know in my case, it’s usually because I carry it on a BlackRapid strap and it dangles with the hood bumping me. I suspect if I used the neck strap Canon provided (which remains unopened in the box) it wouldn’t be an issue.
Probably another debate at Canon – should we put a lock on it? But then some people would complain they couldn’t get it open fast enough.
The zoom on mine doesn’t creep at all. I don’t use the lock, there’s no need even with the 70-200 dangling. Since you suggest other manufacturers employ superior engineering, which of them has a zoom lock that can be applied at any focal length?
The point of a focus limiter switch is to speed up AF. The available options are generally matched to the focus gearing of the lens, which is not necessarily linear. If a lens focuses slower at near distances than at far distances, it makes sense to be able to block the near part of the range and a two-position limiter does the job. If a lens has a more linear drive with a long focus throw, as is the case with many of the supertele lenses, it makes sense to be able to select the near range, the far range, or the full range and thus those lenses often have three-position limiters.
I don't see integrated AS grooves on new Nikon or Sony long lenses. Looks like Tamron puts them on a lens or two, and Olympus put them on one. Am I missing some new trend among major OEMs? It doesn't seem all that common, as you imply.
Perhaps one reason they don't is that there's no such thing as an 'Arca Swiss' standard. What if the grooves on an OEM foot didn't work with every clamp? In particular, Really Right Stuff warns, "Due to wide variations in other brands of Arca-Swiss compatible plates, we recommend using our lever-release clamps only with Really Right Stuff or Wimberley brand quick-release plates. ... Our lever-release clamps are not user adjustable, so the plate that you use in our lever-release clamp has to be EXACTLY the right width. Only Really Right Stuff and Wimberley build plates to the same exacting tolerances." Screw clamps are more forgiving, but personally I prefer lever clamps.
There's also the issue of balance. Compare the Canon foot of the 600/4 to the RRS replacement foot:
View attachment 208698
Note how the Canon foot sweeps forward while the rail on the RRS foot extends further back (behind the attachment to the collar). I know from experience that with a TC on the lens, that very back part of the foot needs to be at the back of the clamp to balance the lens on a gimbal (and balance is key for that application). With a flash mounted on the body, the back edge RRS foot needs to be within the clamp (i.e. the foot only occupies part of the clamp) for balance. The RRS setup is robust enough that that's fine. The point is that if the Canon foot had grooves, it still would not work in a common use case for the lens (extender with a 1-series body). Note that I have the MkII version of the 600/4, the MkIII seems to use the same foot design, but a 'feature' of the MkIII lenses is that the weight was moved further back in the lens to make them easier to handhold. That would actually make the problem of balancing on a gimbal worse!
My R3 shows the zoom focal length in the EVF while composing, it changes as I zoom (and I also have the option to show the focus distance enabled, which also updates 'live' during composition). My R8 has both of those options as well, they are menu options that need to be enabled.
View attachment 208699
No idea if older Canon MILCs lack the capability, but certainly it's no problem with the Canon brand as far as my cameras are concerned.
It just looks to me like you want to complain.
1) The hood door to my 70-200 and 100-500 behave the same, so I don't suspect an unusual product for 1 of them. There is the slightest detent to hold the door open, but there is no detent otherwise (including shut). There is just the resistance of the door when sliding one way or the other, which is minimal and just enough that the door won't slide due only to gravity. But any bump, hand holding of lens near the hood, or putting the lens away/back out will usually leave me with an open door, which is what I don't want. A simple and firm stop at the open and close positions is what it should have, but it doesn't, as many others here have commented about.
2) After re-testing my 70-200 (at cool 60F-ish temp) for zoom creep, it is behaving properly. It won't alter zoom if held up or down. If you put the camera down on the lens (with hood on) then the weight of the body is enough to cause it lens to retract in, but I don't worry about that as I normally don't do that. My memory of it being loose was on hot sunny summer days, so I'll see how it behaves then.
3) I never mentioned others having a zoom lock. I did mention that I would like it if Canon had it. Most people don't really need it, but I often take a panorama on somewhat windy days with ten to a hundred shots, and I use a zoom lens to get just the right field of view to match my ball stop increments. If there's any drift in the lens while moving it between positions then it ruins the panorama. And getting the right focal length by seeing it displayed on the EVF is critical for that. My R5 doesn't have it so I have to hope the zoom doesn't wander.
4) A 3 position distance switch (far, both, near) is useful in all conditions, no matter the build type. If you don't need one range, fine - don't use it, but someone else will. It is a needless way to cut cost or to underestimate the usefulness of it.
5) I used to use Olympus and had their 300mm f4 pro zoom which had a really close min. focus distance. It was a spectacular lens (even with retractable lens hood). It had A-S grooves in the foot which worked perfectly and I loved that. It didn't cost them anything appreciable to do it, whether you used it or not. I do thank you for your mention of the non-standard A-S (which I'm aware of), but despite that I have a full suite of A-S connectors & fixtures of all sorts and from lots of different makers, and they have all worked 100% fine for me. I will repeat this again, if you add grooves which cost next to nothing to do, nobody has to use them. But those that do will be very happy and might increase sales accordingly.
6) I'm glad that your newer R3 displays focal length on the EVF. It's about time Canon came out with that. But I have an R5 and they just came out with a "big" firmware update and it still can *not* display the focal distance while composing shots.
7) You say I "just want to complain"? Wow - There's no need for you to be insulting. Chill out a little. If you'd read many of my prior posts, you would see that I very often (and most of the time IMHO) comment on how great the R5 or various lenses are. I am the only one I've seen here that actually measured, and posted here, the resolution of the R5 sensor with and without the new pixel-shift added to it. I found out that the pixel shift had a massive gain in resolution that you could measure and see with your own eyes in the line test areas. I said "GreatWork" and "Huzzah" (or something like that) to Canon for the good job they did. Check it out - various testchart posts before and particularly at post #231 at the CR link: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/it’s-time-to-fill-those-memory-cards-canon-releases-firmware-v1-8-1-for-the-canon-eos-r5-400mp-stills-are-now-possible.42213/page-12#post-957995
8) I'd just like to say that you are one of the most informed people on this site. I enjoy reading what you say and agree with most of it. When you think others need to be corrected, just tell them what you have found out - that's how nice discussions go. But there's no need to go a step further and start insulting them. (well, unless they do it first, which is something I've tried to avoid doing myself)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not sure when you bought yours, perhaps there was a silent update by Canon? I purchased my RF 100-500 and 70-200/2.8 in Aug/Sep 2021, and there is a detent at both ends of both hoods, one to hold the window shut and the other to hold it open. In either position, I can flick the window reasonably hard and it doesn't move. Opening it requires a declarative push. Check it out:
View attachment HoodWindows.mov
As I said, if it catches on something like a belt it will open. Sliding it down into a tight-fitting camera bag slot can certainly open it. It most assuredly doesn't 'open on its own' as you previously stated.
I mostly use my 100-500 in warm, sunny weather but that lens has a zoom tensioner anyway. I typically use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor events, so if there's a temperature dependence, I would not have noticed. But it's worth noting in this context that Roger Cicala stated in the lens teardown that, "The Canon RF 70-200mm has about the most robust extending barrel mechanism I’ve ever seen."
No, you didn't. I just figured that since you were saying Canon was using engineering not up to the standards of other manufacturers (a viewpoint thoroughly refuted by Uncle Rog in the linked blog post above), I wondered if this was an area where Canon was 'not as good as the competition'...apparently not.
And when people complain they miss a shot because the switch was in the wrong position? In theory, more options are better. In practice, that's not always true. As I stated, there's an engineering reason why Canon uses 2- vs. 3- position switches on various lenses.
As a side note, a 'needless way to cut cost' is an oxymoron – from a manufacturer's standpoint, there's always a need to cut cost. Since the manufacturer is making these decisions, and since we're talking about the design decisions being made, the relevant viewpoint is that of Canon...and they will need a reason to cut profit by spending more on manufacturing the product, not to cut costs. Apparently in the case of a 3-position focus limiter, that reason is insufficient.
Out of curiosity, did you use your grooved Oly lens foot with an RRS lever clamp and if so, did it work? I know that despite what RRS says about using only RRS and Wimberley plates, the Acratech plate I use on my M6II works fine with their lever clamps. I wonder if people would think the grooves make the foot less comfortable as a handle? If it's such a great idea (and honestly, I think it generally is), why are there only two manufacturers that offer it...and none of them are the big three?
Looking at the one Tamron and three Olympus lenses that have the integrated dovetail in the foot, it does seem that those feet are noticeably thicker than the feet on Canon/Sony/Nikon lenses, as if the dovetail was added to the bottom of the foot as opposed to grooves being cut into the sides as you suggest. That means more metal, more weight, and more cost...good reasons (from a manufacturer perspective) to not add the dovetail, especially when other solutions are readily available at no additional cost to the manufacturer (i.e. lens plates and replacement feet from various vendors).
The R8 does, as does the R10. So most likely it will be in all future bodies, but they won't add it to the R5. Lots of people have lots of features from newer cameras they want to see in older cameras, most won't happen. Can you say pre-shooting buffer for the R3?
Sorry, that was me being facetious. Seems the
emoji did not adequately convey that.
Upvote
0
It's another example of Canon's meanness. My R7 displays the focal length as do other post-R5 introduction models. It must surely be a simple piece of code routine that could be easily incorporated into a firmware upgrade into one of their top-of the range models. The presence or absence of this is not a deal maker or breaker for me as it is such a minor feature. I like Canon's gear but I don't like their corporate spirit, especially their regional price gouging.
Upvote
0
Ah, that makes sense. Still, it's about twice as many as I've done in my whole life to this point
Upvote
0
It can also optionally display SA adjustment, which lets me know that the lock switch on my RF100L became unlocked, again.
I'm pleasantly surprised at how much difference all these little additions and changes make when using the camera. Compared to an R5, the R8 gets less in the way of taking pictures. Till you fill the buffer, they you get to enjoy an enforced break
Upvote
0
Even LR Classic shows the focal length that has been used.
Goddess Kwannon's ways are inscrutable...
Upvote
0
The R7 etc show in the viewfinder the actual focal length that is being used as you shoot. The EXIF data for the R5 tells you what you used when you subsequently process.
Upvote
0
The minor tweaks make little difference for me, and I switch between the R7 that has them and the R5, but you are probably more sophisticated in your use. For me, I want some real things, like being able to change the frame rate for ES.It can also optionally display SA adjustment, which lets me know that the lock switch on my RF100L became unlocked, again.
I'm pleasantly surprised at how much difference all these little additions and changes make when using the camera. Compared to an R5, the R8 gets less in the way of taking pictures. Till you fill the buffer, they you get to enjoy an enforced break
Upvote
0
COGS is unrelated to profit?
Edit: coincidentally, this morning one of my kids asked me why Apple stopped including the charger and earbuds with new iPhones. Keeping in mind what I learned from you, I told her it was entirely due to Apple’s deep environmental consciousness and their efforts to reduce global waste. Then I
ed some more.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Which the R8 kinda has, I can pick 40, 20 and 5. (H+, H and Low-speed-continuous respectively). Doesn't the R7 have that as well?
Edit: the R7 has 30/15/3: https://cam.start.canon/en/C005/manual/html/UG-05_AF-Drive_0130.html
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The R3 has the same H+/H/L options that give 30/15/3 fps. 1-series DLSRs let you customize the values, e.g. on the 1D X I could set H to any value between 2 and 12 fps, and L to any value between 1 and 11 fps. I expect the R1 will have that level of customization, and that it will remain restricted to 1-series bodies.
Upvote
0
When I first started flying I enjoyed the experience, but nowadays I loathe flying. It's no fun driving to an airport in the middle of the night for an early flight, getting stuck in long queues at bag drop, getting hassled to have every item of camera gear individually examined at security, waiting 2-3 hours due to delayed flights, and then spending 15 hours sandwiched together in economy class. Unfortunately, flying is the only practical way to reach distant destinations, and I've always been determined to visit as much of this planet as possible during my lifetime.Ah, that makes sense. Still, it's about twice as many as I've done in my whole life to this point
If it's any consolation to people who object on principle to flying, soon they won't need to. The next generation, heaven forbid, will live mostly in an artificial world, which they'll explore only by virtual reality. I'm determined to enjoy what remains of the natural world while it still exists, and to mitigate to some extent by my involvement with reforestation, conservation and ecotourism.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've resorted to "locking" the lock switch with gaffer tape. When I first started using the 100mm macro I had quite a few shots ruined, because I'd inadvertently knocked the lock switch, and subjected the photos to the horrors of spherical aberration - it's easy to miss the slight softness when viewing through the EVF, and didn't realise I'd knocked the SA control switch until I reviewed the photos later in the day.
Upvote
0
So we have people asking for more switches with more options, and we have people who put tape on switches to keep from inadvertently moving them. When using my 600/4 for winter raptors (wearing gloves), I have inadvertently set the 3-position focus limiter to the near-only setting and found myself unable to focus on my subjects. It has only happened a couple of times, so I haven't resorted to tape.
Upvote
0
Yes, I know what you mean - I normally have the limiter on my RF100-500 set to the long distance position, which reduces time wasted when the AF hunts, when photographing animals and birds. Similarly with my RF100 macro, I usually have the limiter set for longer distances, as I rarely use it at magnification stronger than half-lifesize. But with both lenses I've been caught out a few times when subjects have appeared closer to the camera.
An electronic distance limiter which allowed the user to choose minimum and maximum distances for the AF the range over would be nice, and could be toggled on/off via a customised button. I would have preferred if Canon had fitted both of the above lenses with a custom button, even if it added a couple of hundred to the price.
However, we all have to work within the limitations of our equipment, and that sometimes means we have to find workarounds, including good old gaffer tape!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 6 staff post(s)
