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

[tron]

So where are our 500mm and/or 600mm DO lenses

 

[unfocused]

These threads are like when a child gets told Santa is going to bring them something nice and that's it...
Jack

Always a recipe for disaster. For children it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips any parents' ability to pay or provide whatever magical unicorn they dream of. For Canon Rumors forum readers, it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips Canon's ability to provide whatever magical unicorn forum readers dream of. The final result is always the same...disappointment when the actual toy appears under the tree.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Always a recipe for disaster. For children it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips any parents' ability to pay or provide whatever magical unicorn they dream of. For Canon Rumors forum readers, it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips Canon's ability to provide whatever magical unicorn forum readers dream of. The final result is always the same...disappointment when the actual toy appears under the tree.

My thoughts precisely. It makes it tough even for us realists because we get caught up in it, even if we're consciously trying not to!

Jack

 

[tron]

Ha ha quite right. But we can always make do with the equipment we already have

 

[Jethro]

It would be possible with incorporated lens elements, like a TC.

Sure - but that's more than a usual mount-to-mount adaptor. I'd love such a hybrid adaptor, by the way!

 

[Quirkz]

A built-in mount adapter so it's compatible with both EF and RF mounts.

So the box contains the current EF 300, plus the EF-RF adaptor

 

[Yasko]

A built-in mount adapter so it's compatible with both EF and RF mounts.

Meaning it would have to collapse somehow when mounted on RF?

 

[Pape]

Meaning it would have to collapse somehow when mounted on RF?

Or RF lense would have collapsing back structure ,zoom structure on back side . Lot more light weighting than making 300-600mm front zoom, saves like 3kg weight

 

[Ladislav]

I wish this could massively drop a price of second hand Mk.II lenses. Right now price on used marked for mint (visual) condition is somewhere 20-25% cheaper than new. It defends purpose of buying second hand when it is generally the same price like buying grey market.

 

[FramerMCB]

Maybe it's about

Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter

This would be my guess to.

 

[Hector1970]

I can't think of what the unique feature would be. A Switchable 1.4 & 2.0X teleconvertor - do people mean built in. That would push the price of the lens through the roof. I have the EF 300mm 2.8 II and its a most beautiful lens. Given its size the weight is reasonable but the picture quality is great. I use it alot on a 7DII (the 7DII - I'm not a huge fan off but works very well with a 300 2.8 II). Sport looks great with it. I'd highly recommend it as your first big white. I have the 600 F4II as well but its just a beast. I compare that to an an aircraft carrier. You have to bring so much gear with it (sturdy tripod, gimbal head, special bag etc).
I assume the RF version will be every bit as good. I'm not sure it needs anything fancy to go with it.

 

[tron]

I can't think of what the unique feature would be. A Switchable 1.4 & 2.0X teleconvertor - do people mean built in. That would push the price of the lens through the roof. I have the EF 300mm 2.8 II and its a most beautiful lens. Given its size the weight is reasonable but the picture quality is great. I use it alot on a 7DII (the 7DII - I'm not a huge fan off but works very well with a 300 2.8 II). Sport looks great with it. I'd highly recommend it as your first big white. I have the 600 F4II as well but its just a beast. I compare that to an an aircraft carrier. You have to bring so much gear with it (sturdy tripod, gimbal head, special bag etc).
I assume the RF version will be every bit as good. I'm not sure it needs anything fancy to go with it.

I agree. To make it special they have to keep it as small and as light as possible. Anything fancy like embedded teleconverters will increase the weight and sie. Not to mntion the price.

 

[AlanF]

The current 300/2.8 II is a really great lens, and I got great use from mine. It's not quite as popular as it was since the introduction of the 400mm DO II, which, according to Art Morris, has pushed its used price down in the birding community. I personally would prefer a lightweight 300mm f/4 DO to rival Nikon's 300mm f/4 PF, which a very desirable lens.

 

[Danglin52]

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.

The versatility is worth the additional weight in some situations. This is a great safari lens. Pop on a 2x TC III and you have a 400-800 zoom @f8 with decent IQ.

 

[AlanF]

The versatility is worth the additional weight in some situations. This is a great safari lens. Pop on a 2x TC III and you have a 400-800 zoom @f8 with decent IQ.

It needs only a 1.4xTC popped on to give 400-800mm as it has an internal 1.4xTC.

 

[tron]

I understand that 200-400 can be a great safari and sports lens but for me who shoot birds it would be a heavy burden. My 400DOII weighs 2.1Kg and even my 500II weighs less than the 200-400 and is a stop brighter.

 

[Pape]

2m minimum focus gives same magnification with f8 than 100-400 with 5,6
And 2m distance makes bug shooting easy

 

[privatebydesign]

2m minimum focus gives same magnification with f8 than 100-400 with 5,6
And 2m distance makes bug shooting easy

What does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification?

 

[Pape]

What does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification?

1,4 convertor ,and another 1,4x gives f8
okie i guess 100-400 is lot sharper as naked so you right

 

[privatebydesign]

1,4 convertor ,and another 1,4x gives f8

Again, what does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification.