A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon

[GMCPhotographics]

The problem with a 300-600 is it leaves a large hole between 100 to 300, so you’re likely going to need to fill that, either with the 100-300mm for the super rich or the 100-500mm for more ordinary mortals. Ho hum then you need to swap out doors or have yet another body!

I suspect that is Canon’s intention. Why sell one lens when you can sell three that make a complete system?
35/85/135 or 16-35/24-70/70-200 or the new 24-105 2.8/100-300 2.8 and the next 300-600.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I suspect that is Canon’s intention. Why sell one lens when you can sell three that make a complete system?
35/85/135 or 16-35/24-70/70-200 or the new 24-105 2.8/100-300 2.8 and the next 300-600.

Oof, I certainly hope it won't be a counterpart to the 100-300L in terms of price.

For me, if I really wanted to have the range covered, I'd just put a 1.4x on my 70-200Z: a 98-280mm f/4.0 is close enough, and it would match the rumored/alleged 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 at 300mm. A stop slower than the 100-300L f/2.8 of course, but saves you about $8k by comparison.

The 70-200Z with a 1.4x loses a bit of sharpness and contrast vs. the 100-300L (also wide open), but honestly not that much (comparing 280mm and 300mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0.

 

[pablofu]

Guys, I have been patiently waiting for this lens to come out...But I do not want to wait any longer. I keep renting telephoto lenses for my rocket launches (and occasionally bird hunting), and at one point, it might be cheaper to just purchase an existing lens.
Considering that many of the rocket launches happen at night, that I am normally shooting from 5 miles distance to the rocket before departure, and that I like cropping images, what would you recommend? I own an R6 Mark II and an R6 Mark III, and I am planning to sell the Mark II and replace it with an R5 Mark II. Thanks for your advice!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Oof, I certainly hope it won't be a counterpart to the 100-300L in terms of price.

For me, if I really wanted to have the range covered, I'd just put a 1.4x on my 70-200Z: a 98-280mm f/4.0 is close enough, and it would match the rumored/alleged 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 at 300mm. A stop slower than the 100-300L f/2.8 of course, but saves you about $8k by comparison.

The 70-200Z with a 1.4x loses a bit of sharpness and contrast vs. the 100-300L (also wide open), but honestly not that much (comparing 280mm and 300mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0.

I've not tried the new 70-200/2.8 Z, but I am very familiar with the older EF 70-200/2.8 II counterpart. It was an astonishingly sharp lens even with a 1.4x tc. It af our resolves any of the current Canon sensors. The 2x less so, still sharp but want's great with close objects and generally needed stopping down 2/3 stop to remove the slight haze around highlights. The thing is, a pair of teleconverters is a lot lighter than lugging around another sized lens. Even the 2x TC works well if that's the only thing you have on you. I appreciate that this new RF Z version is a tad sharper again, but it's still in the same ball park with teleconverters.
The RF 70-200/2.8 is a miracle in packaging and light weight construction by comparison, but we all know of the lack of TC support for this sweet lens.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is a very different beast. With tele converters, it's pushing into wildlife and birding reaches. Even with a 2x TC (making a 600mm f5.6) it just about keeps up with the R5's resolution of it's mighty sensor. It's a very viable and versatile lens range (100-300/f2.8 > 140-420/f4>200-600/f5.6) and it only cost you the size and weight of a pair of teleconverters. It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.
I have a few friends who regaulrly use a EF300mm f2.8 II LIS with a pair of teleconverters as their long lens of choice. It's a back friendly size and weight with a nice price point with an excellent reach / brightness. One of them is considering swapping over to the RF 100-300/2.8 so they can ditch the need fro their EF 70-200/2.8 lens and just use the one lens. If Canon made a RF 400-600 f2.8 - F4 zoom lens that's a simular weight to my EF 400mm f2.8 II L and it's as sharp, then my ears might prick up and colour me curious.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.

For me, the 100-300/2.8 is an event lens. Bare lens indoors and for night sports (with high school lighting), I add a 1.4x for daytime field sports and I don't typically use it with the 2x (I have the 600/4 II for that). I also have the RF 70-200/2.8 (non-Z) that I use when I want to be less obtrusive (not that often).

 

[Ozarker]

What ever happened to the 0x, 1.4x, 2x TC?

I have 3 of the 0x.

 

[AlanF]

I've not tried the new 70-200/2.8 Z, but I am very familiar with the older EF 70-200/2.8 II counterpart. It was an astonishingly sharp lens even with a 1.4x tc. It af our resolves any of the current Canon sensors. The 2x less so, still sharp but want's great with close objects and generally needed stopping down 2/3 stop to remove the slight haze around highlights. The thing is, a pair of teleconverters is a lot lighter than lugging around another sized lens. Even the 2x TC works well if that's the only thing you have on you. I appreciate that this new RF Z version is a tad sharper again, but it's still in the same ball park with teleconverters.
The RF 70-200/2.8 is a miracle in packaging and light weight construction by comparison, but we all know of the lack of TC support for this sweet lens.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is a very different beast. With tele converters, it's pushing into wildlife and birding reaches. Even with a 2x TC (making a 600mm f5.6) it just about keeps up with the R5's resolution of it's mighty sensor. It's a very viable and versatile lens range (100-300/f2.8 > 140-420/f4>200-600/f5.6) and it only cost you the size and weight of a pair of teleconverters. It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.
I have a few friends who regaulrly use a EF300mm f2.8 II LIS with a pair of teleconverters as their long lens of choice. It's a back friendly size and weight with a nice price point with an excellent reach / brightness. One of them is considering swapping over to the RF 100-300/2.8 so they can ditch the need fro their EF 70-200/2.8 lens and just use the one lens. If Canon made a RF 400-600 f2.8 - F4 zoom lens that's a simular weight to my EF 400mm f2.8 II L and it's as sharp, then my ears might prick up and colour me curious.

The EF 300mm f/2.8ii + 1.4x and 2xTCs used to be my lens of choice, and I sold it when the EF 400mm f/4 DOii came out. It's too heavy for me now a dozen years on. The Sony lens at about a kg lighter is tempting and almost worth getting a Sony body for one.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The EF 300mm f/2.8ii + 1.4x and 2xTCs used to be my lens of choice, and I sold it when the EF 400mm f/4 DOii came out. It's too heavy for me now a dozen years on. The Sony lens at about a kg lighter is tempting and almost worth getting a Sony body for one.

Yes...almost, but not quite!
The EF 400mm f4 DO ii is a darling of a lens that is often overlooked. Canon develped the tech of DO, trail blazed and pioneered it and then let Nikon run ahead. It's a bit bizarre, we all thought that Canon was going to bring out a range of DO super white tele's but they seemed to have just brought out the one option.

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I've not tried the new 70-200/2.8 Z, but I am very familiar with the older EF 70-200/2.8 II counterpart. It was an astonishingly sharp lens even with a 1.4x tc. It af our resolves any of the current Canon sensors. The 2x less so, still sharp but want's great with close objects and generally needed stopping down 2/3 stop to remove the slight haze around highlights. The thing is, a pair of teleconverters is a lot lighter than lugging around another sized lens. Even the 2x TC works well if that's the only thing you have on you. I appreciate that this new RF Z version is a tad sharper again, but it's still in the same ball park with teleconverters.
The RF 70-200/2.8 is a miracle in packaging and light weight construction by comparison, but we all know of the lack of TC support for this sweet lens.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is a very different beast. With tele converters, it's pushing into wildlife and birding reaches. Even with a 2x TC (making a 600mm f5.6) it just about keeps up with the R5's resolution of it's mighty sensor. It's a very viable and versatile lens range (100-300/f2.8 > 140-420/f4>200-600/f5.6) and it only cost you the size and weight of a pair of teleconverters. It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.
I have a few friends who regaulrly use a EF300mm f2.8 II LIS with a pair of teleconverters as their long lens of choice. It's a back friendly size and weight with a nice price point with an excellent reach / brightness. One of them is considering swapping over to the RF 100-300/2.8 so they can ditch the need fro their EF 70-200/2.8 lens and just use the one lens. If Canon made a RF 400-600 f2.8 - F4 zoom lens that's a simular weight to my EF 400mm f2.8 II L and it's as sharp, then my ears might prick up and colour me curious.

I can't imagine the pricetag on a 400-600 f/2.8-4.0 being less than $15-20k, so about twice as much as I'm willing to put down lol . But certainly that would be a feat of engineering. Like I mentioned a bit earlier, if Canon can churn out longer zooms like the 70-200Z, then they will be very compelling at least for those who can afford any given offering.

Regarding the 100-300L, I'd take one any day if the stork came and dropped it off . Certainly an outstanding lens. The 70-200Z definitely handles the 2x teleconverter better though: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0.

There's a reason The Digital Picture called the 70-200Z the sharpest interchangeable zoom they've ever tested! Its teleconverter performance is extremely good. Of course, 400mm is a somewhat limited reach, we can't have everything.

In the comparison with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II, it's really not even close though in the images available at 400mm, the old design and teleconverters don't keep up with newer glass: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0. I have an old EF 200mm f/2.8 L (maybe an L II?) and 2x III teleconverter, and the 70-200Z at 400mm is far better than the old prime with an old 2x.

Got some fun shots of this Egret on Saturday with the 70-200Z + 2x (and R5II):

 

[lindt1]

Any news regarding this lens?

 

[Olli]

Sadly not as Canon bring just one Body after the next. Really annoying me to not finally getting a new tele lens which seems to have a need for a lot people dont want to spend +10k on one but need a lighter than the existing ones...
Of course just my 2 cents...

 

[WildlifeWanderer]

As we head into New Year, any word on the RF 300-600mm L kens delayed release? If in testing, and intended release was Nov 2025, wouldn’t Canon want to push it out in beginning of 2026 to make the most of its investment into this lens? Or is it a supply chain and/or tariff issue?

 

[AUGS]

As we head into New Year, any word on the RF 300-600mm L kens delayed release? If in testing, and intended release was Nov 2025, wouldn’t Canon want to push it out in beginning of 2026 to make the most of its investment into this lens? Or is it a supply chain and/or tariff issue?

So far, Canon themselves has not officially announced or declared when (or if) this lens will be released. Dates or other information, may be informed or otherwise, but have not come directly from Canon themselves. So any rumored dates and/or details should be taken with a grain of salt. There are many product development steps and any or all of them may lead to a delay.

 

[AnthonyHayzen]

I do hope that when Canon finally releases the RF300-600mm lens it has a built-in 1.4 teleconverter. This would make it ideal for bird and wildlife photography.