An image of the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM has leaked ahead of the official announcement

[EOS 4 Life]

Out of topic Question but shouldn't we have already heard about a camera announcement already? C200mark ii/c700 mark ii during NAB?

Yes, it is not going to happen.
It would have been announced before NAB and demoed at NAB.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I thought they would want to compete with the Sonys and Panasonics

Panasonic's lens line up is kind of a joke.
Sony's used to be but they are coming on strong.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

How does the 200-400’s “0x” setting work? Isn’t that basically the same challenge?

It is 1x.
If you want 0x put the lens cap on.

 

[wsmith96]

Not what I was expecting, but still looks like an interesting lens. I agree with the majority that without the integrated teleconverter, I'm not as excited about it (but still happy to see it arrive). That said, I still think that the zoom range can replace both 70-200 and 300 lenses. Maybe this will be the new zoom trinity - 15-300mm at F/2.8, at least for people with that level of income. I'm late to the mirrorless party, actually not there yet, but with 1 kid in college and second about to go to college, I'm thinking my best course of action is to be happy with my 5D4/7D2 and 300 mk ii prime (and zoom trinity) for now. I'll just have to keep window shopping for a while

I do see this lens being very relevant for the '24 Olympics, especially with the enhance autofocus features with the R3. It will also make many happy shooting school sports, indoor sports, auto sports, and portraits.

 

[mxwphoto]

I suppose I was biased towards Canon, having used their stuff for 20+ years, and that was my mistake. I was optimistic, when I guess I shouldn't have been. I thought they would want to compete with the Sonys and Panasonics for the average shooter, the content creators and the entry level professionals, but it does not seem that they do. At the end of the day, you are right, it appears I made a bad choice on what mirrorless system to enter and I suppose that is where a lot of my frustration comes from.

If you truly believe you made a bad choice, the financial cost of selling and buying a different system is actually not that much, if anything at all (you may even have funds left over if you sell expensive gear and buy more "average" gear), unless if you insist on buying new.
That said, I have never met a situation where a desired EF lens has not lived up to my expectations in speed in the mirrorless world. You can see the fully compatible list below. Basically all modern EF lenses can perform well on RF. As an added bonus, I get pro quality and large aperture used for the same price as "average" new lens. https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html

 

[unfocused]

I’m perplexed as to how anyone got the impression that this would have an integrated extender. I don’t remember any rumors to that effect, just wishful thinking among forum participants.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would not get my hopes up for internal zooming.
Canon seems to prefer compactness.

True and I appreciate the benefits but it comes at a cost of not accepting TCs or limiting the focal range in the RF100-500mm.
Canon would prefer us to buy another lens in that case!

 

[unfocused]

Sigma would bring a similar lens for less than half the price, if it got permission.

I doubt it. Unless by similar you mean not as good. But you also seem to be providing a pretty good reason for Canon not to license their mount to Sigma.

 

[Chaitanya]

While I appreciate the size of the Canon RF 100-500, the price, aperture value, and performance of the Sony 200-600 is incredibly appealing. I still can’t understand the pricing of the 100-500 at all…Canon gave us 100mm, a slower aperture, and reduced weight for an $800 premium over the fabulous EF 100-400. That is still one of the best lenses I ever owned and I’m still hesitant to say the 100-500 is an improvement.

Its not just 100-500 that has questionable design choices even RF 100mm Macro is questionable lens in RF line up.

 

[unfocused]

I’ve been a trusty Canon customer for over 45 years but even my patients are wearing thin waiting for lenses Sony and even Nikon can make yet Canon focus on £10K plus zoom rather than f1.4L primes like a 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 that we should have had after 5 years of the RF system. Canon has virtually nothing in the middle ground it’s either entry level or high end fast glass save for the RF 16-35mm f4L, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L but zero primes in that category.
Do they bother listening to customers other than high level pros?

Prime lenses are a niche product. Zooms sell much better. So it’s no surprise Canon would prioritize the most popular items.

It’s not high level pros that are driving the market. It’s enthusiasts with disposable income and no need to justify a return on investment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’m perplexed as to how anyone got the impression that this would have an integrated extender. I don’t remember any rumors to that effect, just wishful thinking among forum participants.

Perhaps we got the impression from the fact that a Canon patent for a 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x was recently published.

Canon Patent: RF 100-300mm F2.8 x 1.4 Extender Lens

A new Canon patent application for another RF mount lens. Canon patent application 2023018429 (Japan, published 2/8/2023) discusses optical

www.canonwatch.com

Just a thought…

 

[David - Sydney]

Its not just 100-500 that has questionable design choices even RF 100mm Macro is questionable lens in RF line up.

I don't have any complaints about the RF100-500mm. f7,1 at 500mm is perfectly acceptable with modern sensors and similar to EF100-400mm + 1.4TC but sharper. The trade-off of collapsible vs limited focal range with TC is a good choice for me. I haven't seen any issues/complaints about weather sealing for the external zoom

Focus breathing and whether DS is useful seem to be the only issues for RF100mm. The latter can be ignored even if it is built into the cost.
Magnification/MFD and focus speed/quietness seem to be the main benefits of RF vs EF.
Have I missed anything?

 

[R.kuz]

Panasonic's lens line up is kind of a joke.
Sony's used to be but they are coming on strong.

The Panasonic lineup is obviously not the Canon L series. That being said, I think they actually offer some appealing lenses, like their 1.8 lineup of primes for example. Again, they are not L Series, but they at least have a relatively complete lineup of affordable primes at a decent price, and their PRO f2.8 and f4 zooms are actually quite nice in my opinion. When you include the Leica L and Sigma L lenses into the mix, it is actually a pretty large and diverse selection, from budget friendly up to premium. Canon has budget friendly OR premium, and that is where they are frustrating me.

For what it's worth, I think that the R5 is one of the best, if not the best, photo camera on the market right now when you take price and performance into account. I absolutely love my R5 for photography. But as I am shooting more and more video, I wish they had a few more prime lens options and a few less head-scratching decisions on their hybrid cameras.

 

[Czardoom]

I’ve been a trusty Canon customer for over 45 years but even my patients are wearing thin waiting for lenses Sony and even Nikon can make yet Canon focus on £10K plus zoom rather than f1.4L primes like a 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 that we should have had after 5 years of the RF system. Canon has virtually nothing in the middle ground it’s either entry level or high end fast glass save for the RF 16-35mm f4L, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L but zero primes in that category.
Do they bother listening to customers other than high level pros?

It's quite possible - and even likely - that customers want two things most of all - inexpensive lenses (which Canon has) and really high level pro lenses (which Canon has). Zooms also outsell primes by a large margin, So maybe Canon is listening to their customers a lot more than you think.

 

[Czardoom]

While I appreciate the size of the Canon RF 100-500, the price, aperture value, and performance of the Sony 200-600 is incredibly appealing. I still can’t understand the pricing of the 100-500 at all…Canon gave us 100mm, a slower aperture, and reduced weight for an $800 premium over the fabulous EF 100-400. That is still one of the best lenses I ever owned and I’m still hesitant to say the 100-500 is an improvement.

Pricing is pretty easy to understand. You get 100mm extra reach. Aperture at the same focal lengths is essentially the same, it's smaller and lighter, and only $500 more than the EF 100-400 II, not $800. Is it expensive - of course. Is the EF 100-400 II expensive, well, yes it is. A really good pro lens is expensive, but people seem to forget - or just don't understand - that a lens like this will last for decades. So peole will buy a $4000 camera that they will probably replace in 4-6 years, but complain about a $2900 lens that will last 20-30 years. Go figure!

 

[R.kuz]

3 time

" 20-30 year old Canon EF glass " i wont waste my time replying to that... troll or ignorant

Sorry, 10-30 year old lenses. That better? Pretty convenient to pick out one sentence of my reply to justify not responding to the rest of it. The EF 24mm 1.4 II is 15 years old, the 85mm 1.2 is 17 years old, the 50mm 1.2 is 16 years old and the 1.4 is 30 years old, the 100mm macro is 14 years old, the 24-70 2.8 and 4 are 11 years old. Basically the only L series EF lenses that were released in the last decade are the 16-35mm 2.8, the 70-200mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.4.

 

[R.kuz]

If you truly believe you made a bad choice, the financial cost of selling and buying a different system is actually not that much, if anything at all (you may even have funds left over if you sell expensive gear and buy more "average" gear), unless if you insist on buying new.
That said, I have never met a situation where a desired EF lens has not lived up to my expectations in speed in the mirrorless world. You can see the fully compatible list below. Basically all modern EF lenses can perform well on RF. As an added bonus, I get pro quality and large aperture used for the same price as "average" new lens. https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html

"Bad choice" is not really the best choice of wording, I suppose. "Impractical choice" would be better. I love the R5 for photography, I think it is the best choice on the market when taking price and performance into account. I love the images I get off of it. On the other hand, it has limitations in build, performance and lens selection when it comes to video. What I am ultimately doing is buying a Lumix S5ii and a few mid-range Panasonic and Sigma primes to shoot with it. Certainly not the most practical way to do things, and as I admit, that largely comes down to my decision making and bias towards Canon. The plus side is that I can do that for the same price as buying the RF 24mm and 35mm primes when they do eventually come out, because the Panasonic cameras and Panasonic and Sigma lenses are so much more affordable. I still get my second body and the video feature I want, just at the cost of being invested into two different systems rather than one.

 

[Talys]

Sorry, 10-30 year old lenses. That better? Pretty convenient to pick out one sentence of my reply to justify not responding to the rest of it. The EF 24mm 1.4 II is 15 years old, the 85mm 1.2 is 17 years old, the 50mm 1.2 is 16 years old and the 1.4 is 30 years old, the 100mm macro is 14 years old, the 24-70 2.8 and 4 are 11 years old. Basically the only L series EF lenses that were released in the last decade are the 16-35mm 2.8, the 70-200mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.4.

That's not accurate. In addition to the ones you listed..

400/2.8III
600/4III
11-24/4
35/1.4
24-105/4II
70-200/4II
TSE 50 /2.8
TSE 90 /2.8
TSE 135/4

Might have missed some, too.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

That's not accurate. In addition to the ones you listed..

400/2.8III
600/4III
11-24/4
35/1.4
24-105/4II
70-200/4II
TSE 50 /2.8
TSE 90 /2.8
TSE 135/4

Might have missed some, too.

The EF 16-35mm was released in 2014 so that’s within the last decade.

 

[Berowne]

10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!