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

[Ozarker]

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!

Well, if I'm shooting birds at my place, 100mm-300mm would be useless. Even 400mm is a little short where I'm at.

I used to have the Ef 400mm f/5.6L. For me, it was far too short for much in the way of birding.

 

[mkush]

Assuming this lens is north of $5K as people assume, I can’t imagine it NOT being an internal zoom. If it is, I’ll find the money and buy it. Even more so if it had a 1.4x teleconverter built in. Any chance of that?

 

[john1970]

Well, if I'm shooting birds at my place, 100mm-300mm would be useless. Even 400mm is a little short where I'm at.

Even if shooting larger mammals like bears I find less than 300 mm usually too short. A 300-600 mm f4-f5.6 is an ideal mid-weight wildlife lens (assuming it takes 1.4x TC).

 

[VivaLasVegas]

There was a patent months ago of a 300-600 f2.8-4.5L, this would be a nice continuation of my 100-300 f2.8, a 100% buy for me. With my 1.4x TC attached; 140-420 f4 and 420-840 f4-6.3(better than Sony’s 400-800 f6.3-8). It’ll cost arm&leg, but it’ll cost way more if i were to buy it individually(300f2.8, 400f2.8, 600f4 and two L zooms) without the versatility. For me, the versatility will outweigh the weight for me, majority don’t go out hand holding these for extended periods of time.

RF300-600 f2.8-4.5L

 

[Jethro]

Go for a new nice stick from which the kingfisher can hunt. They cannot resist the new toy and WILL sit on it. A ghilly 3D suit or a camu tent nearby does the trick. they are not shy and will get used to a tent with a couple of hours! Good luck!

A ghillie suit is some hard-core birding!

 

[SvO2]

If this actually comes in at $6-7k, would be one hell of an offering and would help alleviate much of the jealous I have over the telephoto options in Sony and Nikon land.

I have a hard time believing it'd be less than $10k though

 

[AlanF]

Let's hope Canon satisfies all of our wishes: from those who want a light zoom that is ideal for walking around with; to those who don't mind a slightly heavier one with a long zoom up to 800mm or so; and those who want a wide aperture internal zoom, possibly with a built in TC, and aren't concerned about weight, size and cost. And throw in some very light primes.

 

[Distinctly Average]

Indeed, I’m beginning to think that. I may order a new one from Wex. I had a kingfisher stock still in great light and the 2x + 100-500 was mush. The 100-500 alone was good, but small. I could walk half way across the river to get closer, I’ve not mastered that trick yet.

It is quite simple really, stick a nearer perch in the river. Kingfishers cannot resist a new perch.

 

[john1970]

I used one recently, sharpness is just fine if your goal is to bring something full in the frame. A lot of what I have seen is people trying to bring smaller things into the frame but are still too far away.

This statement is 100% correct. A 2x TC works great to fill the frame for a subject that in a reasonable distance. With that said, I have found that one of my 2X TCs is a bit sharper than the other on the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens.

 

[john1970]

Assuming this lens is north of $5K as people assume, I can’t imagine it NOT being an internal zoom. If it is, I’ll find the money and buy it. Even more so if it had a 1.4x teleconverter built in. Any chance of that?

I doubt it because Canon would probably want to keep the weight of the lens as light as possible, but what do I know. Pure speculation on my part.

However, I know when Canon designed the RF 100-300 f2.8 lens that they did consider a design with a built-in TC, but at the end of the day they went with the bare lens for reduced weight.

 

[Chig]

I doubt it because Canon would probably want to keep the weight of the lens as light as possible, but what do I know. Pure speculation on my part.

However, I know when Canon designed the RF 100-300 f2.8 lens that they did consider a design with a built-in TC, but at the end of the day they went with the bare lens for reduced weight.

Wish they had included a built-in T.C, I wouldn't mind a couple hundred grams extra especially at the mount end if I could have the option of 420mm f/4 at the flick of a switch

 

[Ian K]

Well, if I'm shooting birds at my place, 100mm-300mm would be useless. Even 400mm is a little short where I'm at.

I used to have the Ef 400mm f/5.6L. For me, it was far too short for much in the way of birding.

Sure, but there are other animals in the world. Like lions and tigers and bears. Oh my.

 

[john1970]

I could see this 300-600 mm lens pair nicely with the 70-200 mm f2.8 lens and a couple of 1.4x TCs. One would have 70-840 mm covered in terms of focal range and from 70-600 mm you are at f5.6 or faster. Not a bad combo IMO.

 

[Chig]

The article brings up variable aperture multiple times like it's some awful thing to some people.

With a super telephoto lens like this, the aperture at the long end is obviously going to be the limiting factor. So we're at 600mm f/5.6. Why is getting f/4 at the short end a bad thing? Who would prefer 5.6 throughout? If you want 5.6 throughout, set it to 5.6. I think this is an old idea that needs to die off.

Yep, and I don't understand why camera companies use constant aperture in their premium zooms: can't see any advantage and imagine for example a 70-200mm f/2.0-2.8 or a 100-300mm f/2.0-2.8 maybe even a 70-200mm f/1.4-2.0 ?

 

[Chig]

I'm ok with the variable aperture. If they make it a constant F4 it would be almost as heavy and big as the sigma. The sigma is almost 9lb. I would like to have the canon 300-600 not far over 6lb - preferably even less than 6 lb. The canon 100-300 weighs 5.8lb. That has to be the goal. You still can't hold it in your hand for two hours straight, but you can for a few minutes.

I fail to see how a constant aperture version would be heavier than a variable one

 

[grilled_rooster]

I fail to see how a constant aperture version would be heavier than a variable one

a 600mm F4 lens has to be bigger than a 600mm F/5.6. Simple optics.

 

[john1970]

I'm ok with the variable aperture. If they make it a constant F4 it would be almost as heavy and big as the sigma. The sigma is almost 9lb. I would like to have the canon 300-600 not far over 6lb - preferably even less than 6 lb. The canon 100-300 weighs 5.8lb. That has to be the goal. You still can't hold it in your hand for two hours straight, but you can for a few minutes.

I think it could be around 6 lbs. I also hope it is as light as possible. It is a two times zoom while the 100-300 is a three times zoom so maybe the zoom mechanism can be smaller (and lighter)?

 

[Chig]

a 600mm F4 lens has to be bigger than a 600mm F/5.6. Simple optics.

You didn't read my comment very well: "I fail to see how a constant aperture version would be heavier than a variable one"
Where did I mention f/4 versus f/5.6?
I was talking about lenses which start off at bigger apertures at the wide end but have the same aperture at the long end e.g.: a 300-600mm f/4-5.6 versus a 300-600mm f/5.6
Perhaps you were comparing a 300-600mm f/4-5.6 with a 300-600mm f/4 but I thought you were only talking about constant versus variable aperture zooms so maybe it's me that was confused and my comment wasn't relevant to you post

 

[Ozarker]

Sure, but there are other animals in the world. Like lions and tigers and bears. Oh my.

True. I'd like to be 100mm close to all of them. I've got coyotes, skunks, possum, raccoons, etc. I'd want more than 300mm for all.

 

[Ian K]

True. I'd like to be 100mm close to all of them. I've got coyotes, skunks, possum, raccoons, etc. I'd want more than 300mm for all.

I’ve sat in a jeep in Africa and had an elephant walk right past the back of the vehicle. I used every focal length from a EF 200-400 f4L 1.4x to a EF 24-70 f2.8L. Such fun. My point is only that you don’t want massive gaps in your focal length range. That said I’m not sure I want three bodies either.