A Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM is on the way [CR2]

kaptainkatsu

1DX Mark II
Sep 29, 2015
166
62
the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...

Yeah that’s my beef with this lens. I’d only be able to use it with one body and not with two.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
308
157
Maybe it got some lenses what move and can change flange distance? . Then that TC patent picture would make sense
No idea if its possible make without losing image quality.
but you never know what canon can do :)
Changing flange distance and tc could be fully automated ,you just turn zoom ring 300-450-600 .like normal zoom lense :)

100-400mm works good as ''macro'' but RF 300 with 2x would give better reach if focusing to 1meter too
i wonder if they make new 100-400 too ,f5,6 is slightly diffraction affected with 32mpixel crop,if it matters any
RF or EF 100-400mm f4,8?
 
Last edited:

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
129
39
the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...
Maybe an RF->FE adapter will come along. I'm using my 300 f/2.8 on my Sony A9 with good success even with 2x TC.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
278
107
On one hand, the existing telephotos 135/2.0 and up don't have glass back anywhere near the camera. The film/flange distance improvement of the R's from 44mm to 18mm isn't going to help the RF 300/2.8 by itself be any better than the EF version, I don't think.

However, the teleconverters WILL be (or at least could be if that makes the best image quality(IQ)) right up next to the camera and for all I know, the freedom to get closer will improve IQ.

I'm reminded of the Leica SLR telephotos: they have front-halfs and back-halfs that can be combined at will. I think they had two front halfs and three back halfs. So rather than taking an existing "back half" of the EF 300/2.8 for instance, and adding a third half to it with a teleconverter, the back half itself was swappable. I don't know how Canon could use something similar (and if they did it certainly wouldn't be new) but still maybe this gives someone some ideas.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
118
58
except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.
It was given as an alternative, as on the one hand switching between external teleconverters increases the chances of dust or moisture entering the camera or lens, and on the other hand adding a built in teleconverter such as the 200-400 (read: Canon has already gone this path once) increases the bulk of the lens. Also, having a two-for external teleconverter allows it to be sold as an additional item to work with existing lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
194
119
and on the other hand adding a built in teleconverter such as the 200-400 (read: Canon has already gone this path once) increases the bulk of the lens.
There's not a lot of bulk to the extender in the 200-400, just a bulge. It doesn't make it longer than it would have been without it because the 1.4x optics are inserted in the void ahead of the final mount elements:




The Nikon 200-400 is 358mm long, the Canon with internal 1.4x is 374mm.

Given that RF lenses have a extra 20mm+ of void with a supertele, they could probably fit a 2x section in there.
 
Last edited:

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,076
281
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
If they can make FE -> Z adapters with 2mm difference in flange distance, they can also make RF -> FE adapters. But not the other way round.
The big challenge isn't the flange distance but the RF protocols, which are by all accounts far more advanced than the EF protocols from 1986. Building something that can even tell an RF lens to change aperture would be impressive on its own. A 'metabones' style RF->FE autofocus adaptor seems like utter fantasy to me.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
118
58
There's not a lot of bulk to the extender in the 200-400, just a bulge. It doesn't make it longer than it would have been without it because the 1.4x optics are inserted in the void ahead of the final mount elements:
Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,034
919
Alberta, Canada
The more I hear of all the ideas and possibilities the more I see $$$$ and people talking about selling kidneys.;)

Some time back, shooting every day for hours, mostly with 2X attached I often wished I could quickly get down to 560 from 800. Right now at least, there is no zoom option that would allow what I'm enjoying at 800 so going 100-400, as appealing as it is, is not a step I've taken. A higher resolution sensor can accomplish post processing zoom but it doesn't do anything for spot focus accuracy or visibility at the time of shooting.

In other words, with the 400 DO II I'd be thrilled to have a switchable TC! Including X1 seems out of the question but as others have said that would be crazy good. :p

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,934
262
The 200-400 1.4X is very heavy at my opinion. it is heavier than the 500mm 4 II !! Of course its functionality/purpose is different but the weight difference is real.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
308
157
zoom tubes got nearly half more lenses. 200-400 got lot of metal
185308185309
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nitram