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

Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
Maybe this will be the new zoom trinity - 15-300mm at F/2.8
I hope they go wider than 15 mm.
I also hope to see this one:

That would make one heck of a trinity.
 
Upvote 0

photographer

CR Pro
Jan 17, 2020
86
59
86
Many are still on the first version of EF 400L 2.8 IS USM and 300L 2.8 IS USM (as second or third owner even), as well as the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II (i dislike my RF 70-200 2.8, the zoom ring is too stiff for fast action sports and it's also the main reason why many wont transition from EF 70-200 to RF 70-200). These lenses are legendary and should not be compared to amateur IS lenses.
For action sports, the zoom on the RF is worse, but the size is great. Thanks for the reply - I wouldn't expect zoom lenses with IS to last that long.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,351
22,524
For action sports, the zoom on the RF is worse, but the size is great. Thanks for the reply - I wouldn't expect zoom lenses with IS to last that long.
The first version of EF 400L 2.8 IS USM would definitely last longer than a current zoom with IS for me: it weighs 5.7kg, 14.4lb, and I wouldn't be able to hand hold it so it would remain unused.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Mar 17, 2020
436
322
Dude, I don't care about Lens Rentals. I care about what people with zero experience spew around here and lash onto "i read that someone said something".
Derogatory name calling and "I have observed" is no substitute for stats built on hundreds - if not thousands - of repairs involving thousands of use cases:

"All of that being said, do I want an autofocus lens that zooms and has a stabilized image? Yes, I do. But the simple reality is the more complex a lens is, the more likely it is going to be to fail someday. It is no coincidence that the lenses that last 120+ weeks at Lensrentals are generally primes without image stabilization, and the ones that frequent the most repaired list are usually zooms with image stabilization.


I’ll pause a second here for those of you who don’t believe in the laws of physics to say, “Well, my IS zoom has lasted 10 years without a problem.” That’s cool; statistics suggest many IS autofocus zooms will last 10 years if you’re careful with them.


But if we look at large numbers the failure rate will be higher for zooms than primes, for lenses with IS than lenses without it, and even for autofocus lenses than for manual focus lenses. I’m not certain about mechanical versus electronic apertures – we see similar numbers of failures in both."


You are welcome...
 
Upvote 0
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.
Three of those lenses cost $3000, $7000 and $13000. Another three are TS lenses that cost $2200. Those 6 combined make up half of Canons 12 most expensive EF lenses. If you add the 35 1.4, which I did forget about, that makes 7 of Canons 14 most expensive EF lenses, with the others being “big whites“ that cost $2500-12000- most of which are on the high end of that spectrum. Apart from the 35 1.4, none of those are practical lenses, in terms of price or use case.

I see your point, technically there are more than the three I listed, but my point is that they are not practical, nor cheap, alternatives to the holes in the RF lineup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

photographer

CR Pro
Jan 17, 2020
86
59
86
Derogatory name calling and "I have observed" is no substitute for stats built on hundreds - if not thousands - of repairs involving thousands of use cases:

"All of that being said, do I want an autofocus lens that zooms and has a stabilized image? Yes, I do. But the simple reality is the more complex a lens is, the more likely it is going to be to fail someday. It is no coincidence that the lenses that last 120+ weeks at Lensrentals are generally primes without image stabilization, and the ones that frequent the most repaired list are usually zooms with image stabilization.


I’ll pause a second here for those of you who don’t believe in the laws of physics to say, “Well, my IS zoom has lasted 10 years without a problem.” That’s cool; statistics suggest many IS autofocus zooms will last 10 years if you’re careful with them.


But if we look at large numbers the failure rate will be higher for zooms than primes, for lenses with IS than lenses without it, and even for autofocus lenses than for manual focus lenses. I’m not certain about mechanical versus electronic apertures – we see similar numbers of failures in both."


You are welcome...
Thanks for the link. It can be expected that a more complex (zoom, stabilization) product will have more faults than a simple one. I'm not sure if people treat borrowed lenses as their own, which may also have an effect on the failure rate.
 
Upvote 0
You missed focus shifting, didnt really think focus breathing was a big issue with RF100 compared to EF 100. That DS is certainly a useless feature add, as it seems like event and wedding photographers seem to avoid using that lens either carrying forward EF 100 or downright not even using it(even fellow herpers here have avoided that lens like a plague due to bad value for money compared to EF 100 which many already own and have carried forward to RF system).
I regularly use the EF100mm that I got second hand and am happy with it. Faster focus speed and quieter operation would be nice. 1.4x magnification could be helpful sometimes. I will probably upgrade if my EF100mm dies but it is still going strong for the moment
More than f7.1 aperture of 100-500 its TC quirks and increased price(for owners of EF 100-400) make that lens not a good upgrade. Also TC compatibility has been removed from even RF 70-200mm lenses(EF lenses were compatible and I remember quite a few part time birders who used 2x TC with 70-200mm as it was better than 100-400 mk1 also for them 70-200 was part of their event shooting kit)
I had EF70-200/2.8 with 1.4x/2x TCs with my 5Div and the TCs really slowed down focus and image softness.
The RF70-200mm/2.8 was a no brainer for me to replace it due to size/weight for indoor sports but it couldn't address the 200-400mm range I previously had. I accept that the consequence of a collapsible design was the inability to use TCs.

If I previously had the EF100-400mm then changing to the RF100-500mm would have been a more difficult decision. At the time, I was able to get a 20% discount on the RF70-200mm/2.8 and later on the same discount for the RF100-500mm. The pricing for the EF100-400 + 1.4TC wasn't much different price at the time so a no-brainer for me. I never had need for >400mm focal length before but 500mm has been very useful!
if this RF 100-300 carries forward the same bad design choice of RF 70-200 with regards to TC compatibility then it is going to be a massive deal breaker for its target audience.
We will find out soon enough. A built-in 1.4x TC would have been massive advance and was in a patent but it looks to be unlikely.
The question is whether Canon has tried to minimise the size which would restrict the focal length with TCs or allow the current RF TCs for the full focal length.
I feel that Canon will sell (like most of their other RF L lenses) as many as they can make irrespective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
The first version of EF 400L 2.8 IS USM would definitely last longer than a current zoom with IS for me: it weighs 5.7kg, 14.4lb, and I wouldn't be able to hand hold it so it would remain unused.
It is the reverse for me.
I would use the original 400 f/2.8 more since I can actually afford to buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
38
Pune
I regularly use the EF100mm that I got second hand and am happy with it. Faster focus speed and quieter operation would be nice. 1.4x magnification could be helpful sometimes. I will probably upgrade if my EF100mm dies but it is still going strong for the moment

I had EF70-200/2.8 with 1.4x/2x TCs with my 5Div and the TCs really slowed down focus and image softness.
The RF70-200mm/2.8 was a no brainer for me to replace it due to size/weight for indoor sports but it couldn't address the 200-400mm range I previously had. I accept that the consequence of a collapsible design was the inability to use TCs.

If I previously had the EF100-400mm then changing to the RF100-500mm would have been a more difficult decision. At the time, I was able to get a 20% discount on the RF70-200mm/2.8 and later on the same discount for the RF100-500mm. The pricing for the EF100-400 + 1.4TC wasn't much different price at the time so a no-brainer for me. I never had need for >400mm focal length before but 500mm has been very useful!

We will find out soon enough. A built-in 1.4x TC would have been massive advance and was in a patent but it looks to be unlikely.
The question is whether Canon has tried to minimise the size which would restrict the focal length with TCs or allow the current RF TCs for the full focal length.
I feel that Canon will sell (like most of their other RF L lenses) as many as they can make irrespective.
For use in field I have found Venus Laowa lenses to be a perfect compromise between carrying EF 100mm and MP-E 65mm lenses number times mag ratio over 2x is quite rare. Without the current discounts(US only it seems) that RF 100 is extremely costly as Canon shooters can easily get both EF 100mm(L or non L) on used market in great condition and add either Laowa 100mm or 90mm Macro and still have save quite a significant amount of money.

Once who were using 70-200mm with TC were part time birders and they rarely came out for birding and drop IQ didnt matter to them much.

If you got a sizable discount plus some good chunk of cash from sale of old lens then its quite justifiable for upgrade. Over here RF 100-500 is quite expensive(prepandemic price differnce was massive but now it has narrowed down as Canon raised prices of EF lenses).
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,857
Quote: "there are new autofocus improvements built-in for the Canon EOS R3 and other future Canon EOS R cameras."
I wonder what we can expect in that department?
I suspect it means that like the RF 400/600 great whites, it will have Dual Power Focus Drive. So far, that only works with the R3.

Canon states, "Both the RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm F4L IS USM feature a second power connection that provides more power when they are partnered with compatible future camera models. The benefit of this extra power is that the focusing motor can be driven even faster, helping photographers in the field obtain initial focus even more quickly than ever."
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
More than f7.1 aperture of 100-500 its TC quirks and increased price(for owners of EF 100-400) make that lens not a good upgrade. Also TC compatibility has been removed from even RF 70-200mm lenses(EF lenses were compatible and I remember quite a few part time birders who used 2x TC with 70-200mm as it was better than 100-400 mk1 also for them 70-200 was part of their event shooting kit) if this RF 100-300 carries forward the same bad design choice of RF 70-200 with regards to TC compatibility then it is going to be a massive deal breaker for its target audience.
I hate how the 1.4TC on the 100-500 makes you give up the first 100-300mm. For me, it makes the teleconverter not worthwhile in most instances on this lens, because the extra reach isn't worth losing the lower range of the lens, plus obviously the loss of a stop of light.

However, that said, I disagree about it being a great upgrade for the EF100-400. I thought the same thing - until I bought one. I kept my 100-400LII, so I have them both, and in my opinion, the 100-500 is better in pretty much every way than an adapted 100-400. The 100-500 is a faster autofocusing lens, is a better handheld lens, weighs less, supports the nifty native RF perks, and the extra 100mm compensates for the TC downside, if you simply don't use a TC.

Another way to look at it is that with a TC, you're comparing a 140-560 on the EF with TC versus a 100-500 on the RF without TC... just take the RF. As a super special bonus, it uses the same lens hood as the new RF70-200/2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

davidhfe

CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
346
518
Thanks for the link. It can be expected that a more complex (zoom, stabilization) product will have more faults than a simple one. I'm not sure if people treat borrowed lenses as their own, which may also have an effect on the failure rate.
Not just how people treat it; my guess is lens rental lenses get used way more than a typical "owner/operator" lens. And they get shipped all around the country twice a week. It's not like UPS is exactly delicate with packages.

On top of that, lens rentals has posted some absolute horror stories to that blog. I think I remember seeing a teardown of a (sealed!) lens that was used to shoot a color run. Ultra fine blue and red cornstarch EVERYWHERE.
 
Upvote 0
For use in field I have found Venus Laowa lenses to be a perfect compromise between carrying EF 100mm and MP-E 65mm lenses number times mag ratio over 2x is quite rare. Without the current discounts(US only it seems) that RF 100 is extremely costly as Canon shooters can easily get both EF 100mm(L or non L) on used market in great condition and add either Laowa 100mm or 90mm Macro and still have save quite a significant amount of money.

Once who were using 70-200mm with TC were part time birders and they rarely came out for birding and drop IQ didnt matter to them much.

If you got a sizable discount plus some good chunk of cash from sale of old lens then its quite justifiable for upgrade. Over here RF 100-500 is quite expensive(prepandemic price differnce was massive but now it has narrowed down as Canon raised prices of EF lenses).
OEMs can't dictate the selling price in Australia although they can have a recommended retail price. The pricing is all over the place with both discounting and/or rebates and times when everything is just expensive. Floating exchange rates also changes the local pricing. When the R5/RF70-200/RF100-500mm were released 3 years ago the regular pricing was pretty close to the US prices (plus 10% GST). I pre-ordered to R5 and RF100-500 but baulked at the RF100-500mm price when released. A month later they had a sale so it was ~USD2500 (no tax). Currently ~USD2800.

Aren't the Laowe macro lenses manual? I couldn't use them underwater in a housing so AF performance is pretty important when both subject and you are moving. Rare to use a tripod down there :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
38
Pune
OEMs can't dictate the selling price in Australia although they can have a recommended retail price. The pricing is all over the place with both discounting and/or rebates and times when everything is just expensive. Floating exchange rates also changes the local pricing. When the R5/RF70-200/RF100-500mm were released 3 years ago the regular pricing was pretty close to the US prices (plus 10% GST). I pre-ordered to R5 and RF100-500 but baulked at the RF100-500mm price when released. A month later they had a sale so it was ~USD2500 (no tax). Currently ~USD2800.

Aren't the Laowe macro lenses manual? I couldn't use them underwater in a housing so AF performance is pretty important when both subject and you are moving. Rare to use a tripod down there :)
yes, Laowa lenses are Manual(in case of 100mm it has option for either electronic aperture or manual aperture with manual focus). One of my fellow herper recently took to scuba and underwater photography so I can understand need for AF in those conditions. Also for underwater photography generally compatibility of housing is quite restricted for 3rd party lenses so you are better off getting 1st party lenses. Currently RF 100-500 is selling for INR264199(~US$3218) so it is stupidly overpriced compared to US prices or any other RF lenses being sold here.
 
Upvote 0