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

[Czardoom]

Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.

Being "more prone" to break down (which is likely true) does not mean that it is likely to happen. If Lensrentals gives actual numbers or percentages, please share. If 2% of IS lenses break down within 20 years compared to 1% of non-IS lenses, then it is much "more prone" but still not likely. Still, I think my point is valid. A lens can be a long term (even a lifetime) investment, a camera will not likely be.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

No issues with housing compatibility but you may need a different port length to accommodate the lens length. The ports themselves are pretty simple but they don't sell many so are expensive. All housing manufacturers have widened their ports to handle almost any size lens including the EF11-24/4 and fisheye etc. 3rd party lenses are common underwater and Ikelite includes Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Rokinon etc in their port chart.
https://docs.ikelite.com/reference/port-chart-dl-system.pdf

Port length too long = vignetting, port length too short = can't fit it in. Same issue if you added a filter to the lens eg yellow for fluorescence or close-up lenses. You can always add an external/wet lens to the end of the port as an option but it is harder to keep clean. Wet lenses are more important if you want super macro eg +10 diopter etc. or if a competition doesn't allow significant cropping.

 

[Berowne]

Re failure rates of zoom lenses with IS: Canon 100-400mm IS L Mk II Teardown: Best Built Lens Ever? Roger said:

I will say that the insides look more like what we’d expect to see in a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, rather than a telezoom. It’s by far the most heavily engineered zoom lens Aaron and I have ever seen; and we’ve seen the insides of dozens of lenses in this range.

Well done, Canon engineers, well done!

 

[Mountain Dave]

RE: RF 100-500. I was really reluctant to change from my 100-400 vII. It wasn't a cheap upgrade. I found the AF on the 100-400 didn't benefit as much on the R5 as my other EF lenses. Eventually the prospect of an extra 100mm, lighter weight and better AF performance won out. What I found: The AF performance is light years better. The tracking and eye detect on birds is simply amazing. I also found color and contrast to be better. Mounted on a R5, the weight is exactly 5 lbs. which makes it pretty comfortable carrying long periods. My 300 2.8L II produces better images even with a 1.4X but the zoom is far more practical in the real world most of the time.

 

[Tremotino]

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.

What's your problem?!
For you, RF lenses are too pro and to expensive. Ok. But EF lenses are too old?!

I only have EF-L glas. And it is amazing.
I bought all lenses on the second hand market in optimal condition and the quality and AF is ok. They were all "cheap" lenses. Paid often half or a third of the full price.
I'm not a pro, so the outdated and old L EF glas does it's job perfectly. l mean pro have used the L glas for years, they must have shot al very low quality photos and videos back in the days...

If RF 85 1.2 is too pro for you (pro users are happy to pay 5k€ for a lense, they are also happy to pay 50k€ for a lense) buy the 85 1.4 from Sigma or Canon for a few 100 bucks.

 

[unfocused]

Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.

I’m not sure a rental agency’s stats are directly transferable to individuals. Rental lenses get a lot more use than a typical user and a lot more abuse. It’s just human nature that renters won’t treat lenses with the same care as owners and Lens Rentals insurance program protects renters when they use lenses under adverse conditions.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’m not sure a rental agency’s stats are directly transferable to individuals. Rental lenses get a lot more use than a typical user and a lot more abuse. It’s just human nature that renters won’t treat lenses with the same care as owners and Lens Rentals insurance program protects renters when they use lenses under adverse conditions.

Likely the absolute values for failure rates are not directly relevant for individual users, the absolute values for the latter should be much lower. But the relative values for failure rates, e.g. this lens fails twice as often as that lens, should be relevant for individual users.

 

[unfocused]

Likely the absolute values for failure rates are not directly relevant for individual users, the absolute values for the latter should be much lower. But the relative values for failure rates, e.g. this lens fails twice as often as that lens, should be relevant for individual users.

Maybe. But there are a lot of variables packed into there that aren’t being controlled for. There is a certain logic that says an IS lens has more parts to fail than a non-IS lens. But if the odds of a rental IS lens being dropped is 200x that of a individually owned lens (which is not unreasonable) then it’s hard to make a relevant comparison.

 

[lnz]

What's your problem?!
For you, RF lenses are too pro and to expensive. Ok. But EF lenses are too old?!

I only have EF-L glas. And it is amazing.
I bought all lenses on the second hand market in optimal condition and the quality and AF is ok. They were all "cheap" lenses. Paid often half or a third of the full price.
I'm not a pro, so the outdated and old L EF glas does it's job perfectly. l mean pro have used the L glas for years, they must have shot al very low quality photos and videos back in the days...

If RF 85 1.2 is too pro for you (pro users are happy to pay 5k€ for a lense, they are also happy to pay 50k€ for a lense) buy the 85 1.4 from Sigma or Canon for a few 100 bucks.

Don't waste your time and energy replying, it's a troll registered 2 days ago, all his post are on this topic.

 

[Chaitanya]

Gordon's initial preview:

Edit: it weighs similar to Nikon 200-500mm lens so not particularly heavy for lens of its category.

 

[kaihp]

Gordon's initial preview:

Edit: it weighs similar to Nikon 200-500mm lens so not particularly heavy for lens of its category.

Thanks.
Highlights: 70mm longer, no drop-in filter, takes extenders, +190gr (to 2590gr), dual nano USM motors (like the 100-500).
The hood is shorter, so if you compare lens+hood, the new is slightly shorter than the old, especially when considering using the EF-RF adapter.

I think I'll happily keep my EF 300/2.8 around

 

[Skux]

I have neither the need or the wallet for this lens but damn it looks impressive. For the pros shooting indoor sports on this, please enjoy it on my behalf lol

 

[kaihp]

One thing I find really peculiar is the choice to make a black 'ring' close to the mount. Sure gives the visual impression that the lens is shorter when it's mounted directly on the camera, but when you start using an extender, it stands out like a big black sore thumb (after you've hit it with a Canon-hammer).

 

[ata bora]

Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon

thanks, i have this lens and i knew quite a bit about its sharpness before i bought it. (y) We all make mistakes. I've made a twirp of myself here more than once ;)

www.canonrumors.com

 

[LSXPhotog]

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!

You failed to draw on any relation of my pricing comparison with the Sony 200-600mm which costs $2,000, has a faster aperture, longer focal length, and (arguably) better lens design and build quality over the Canon RF 100-500. When the EF 100-400 was released, it was not $2400. It's price went up a couple years ago. The RF 100-500 price also was increased around this same time. So it was wrong of me to say $800...but that's the difference in what I would have paid for my EF 100-400 back in 2014 compared to what I paid for my RF 100-500 back in 2020.

 

[R.kuz]

What's your problem?!
For you, RF lenses are too pro and to expensive. Ok. But EF lenses are too old?!

I only have EF-L glas. And it is amazing.
I bought all lenses on the second hand market in optimal condition and the quality and AF is ok. They were all "cheap" lenses. Paid often half or a third of the full price.
I'm not a pro, so the outdated and old L EF glas does it's job perfectly. l mean pro have used the L glas for years, they must have shot al very low quality photos and videos back in the days...

If RF 85 1.2 is too pro for you (pro users are happy to pay 5k€ for a lense, they are also happy to pay 50k€ for a lense) buy the 85 1.4 from Sigma or Canon for a few 100 bucks.

My “problem” is that I have spent well over $10,000 on RF and EF glass in the last few years, and would appreciate being able fill out my collection without spending another $10,000.

 

[Fischer]

Being "more prone" to break down (which is likely true) does not mean that it is likely to happen. If Lensrentals gives actual numbers or percentages, please share. If 2% of IS lenses break down within 20 years compared to 1% of non-IS lenses, then it is much "more prone" but still not likely. Still, I think my point is valid. A lens can be a long term (even a lifetime) investment, a camera will not likely be.

The number over 2 years are there for everyone to analyze if you follow the link. I have not claimed cameras outlast lenses - only that modern IS lenses are less robust due to the several factor lens rentals have observed: electronics, IS, complexity etc.

 

[blackcoffee17]

You failed to draw on any relation of my pricing comparison with the Sony 200-600mm which costs $2,000, has a faster aperture, longer focal length, and (arguably) better lens design and build quality over the Canon RF 100-500. When the EF 100-400 was released, it was not $2400. It's price went up a couple years ago. The RF 100-500 price also was increased around this same time. So it was wrong of me to say $800...but that's the difference in what I would have paid for my EF 100-400 back in 2014 compared to what I paid for my RF 100-500 back in 2020.

The Sony 200-600 is not considered a pro lens by Sony. It's "only" a G lens. Their own 100-400 is also more expensive.
The 200-600 has slower autofocus and it's much bigger and heavier - a different category of lens almost.

 

[LSXPhotog]

The Sony 200-600 is not considered a pro lens by Sony. It's "only" a G lens. Their own 100-400 is also more expensive.
The 200-600 has slower autofocus and it's much bigger and heavier - a different category of lens almost.

Might want to read this and other reviews from professional wildlife photographers...the lens's autofocus isn't slow at all from what everyone says - including Canon shooters familiar with both systems. The size of the lens is certainly an element that brings its price down. I love that the 100-500 fits in the same place in my bag as the 100-400 did.

I'm pretty sure well all unanimously trust Dustin Abbot.

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Review - DustinAbbott.net

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Review | Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough review of the "affordable" way to reach 600mm - the 200-600G

dustinabbott.net

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Might want to read this and other reviews from professional wildlife photographers...the lens's autofocus isn't slow at all from what everyone says - including Canon shooters familiar with both systems. The size of the lens is certainly an element that brings its price down. I love that the 100-500 fits in the same place in my bag as the 100-400 did.

I'm pretty sure well all unanimously trust Dustin Abbot.

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Review - DustinAbbott.net

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Review | Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough review of the "affordable" way to reach 600mm - the 200-600G

dustinabbott.net

Add me to the list of people who do not trust Dustin Abbot and that is my definitive review.

The Sony 200-600 is just not the type of lens that Canon makes.
With Nikon also having a similar lens on their roadmap Canon should probably have something as well.
People would complain but I think Canon should probably just make an L lens costing twice as much.
Being bigger, heavier, and starting a 200 mm would be enough to differentiate it from the RF 100-500L.
I think people who have a 600 f/4 would still opt for the 100-500 as a companion lens.