And a stop slower at the tele-end.10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!
The Nikon 120-300/2.8E is the same price.
Upvote
0
And a stop slower at the tele-end.10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!
As an (non-optical) engineer I'd assume any 1x wouldn't be an empty tube but would instead have lenses.As much as that would sound ideal, a "normal" 1x pass through should not be possible as that would be similar to adding the R mount adapter to an existing RF lens. The only way you could do it is to add it into the lens in the first place or to have Canon replace the shiny bit on the RF400/600/800/1200 big whites. Happy to be corrected of course.
A 1.4x/2x TC would be significantly more expensive option than the current single ones but effectively just packaging the 2 into a switchable adapter. I don't know how it would get around the issue of where the TC inserts into the lens though unless it is a complete redesign. I reckon 3 times the 2x TC's price ie USD1800.
You are assuming the zero position has no glass between the end of the lens and the body. The extender moves the lens away from the body so it would have to glass elements in it to refocus by that distance, which I think the FD to EF adapters have. It may alter the focal length by a tad. It will be in the Canon patent for the multi-TC.As much as that would sound ideal, a "normal" 1x pass through should not be possible as that would be similar to adding the R mount adapter to an existing RF lens. The only way you could do it is to add it into the lens in the first place or to have Canon replace the shiny bit on the RF400/600/800/1200 big whites. Happy to be corrected of course.
A 1.4x/2x TC would be significantly more expensive option than the current single ones but effectively just packaging the 2 into a switchable adapter. I don't know how it would get around the issue of where the TC inserts into the lens though unless it is a complete redesign. I reckon 3 times the 2x TC's price ie USD1800.
The L mount lens line up isn’t good for sports but for almost all other types of stills and video it has a better one than than Canon imo.Panasonic's lens line up is kind of a joke.
Sony's used to be but they are coming on strong.
Variable aperture and doesn't take an extender. And those of us who have it are confined to contrast detect AF. Just saying.10.000$ - I cannot believe it, the Leica 90-280 is cheaper!
Canon will soon announce the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM, which will be the first of its kind from Canon. Sigma does have an EF 120-300mm f/2.8, but it was never that highly regarded, mostly due to autofocus performance when compared to Canon L lenses. We are told that the new lens will be
See full article...
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 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?
Maybe "old" - but still unsurpassed."Optical performance" is a bit vague. It can be a bit better in some type of CA and they can already claim it's better. The 300 prime is also an over 10 year old lens.
Size and weight will be important. Already 70 - 200 is too heavy for someone.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.
Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.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!
Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) say to me his IS malfunctioned on his big white lens, or even the 70-200 2.8L, and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.Canon IS lenses do not last that long on average. Lens Rentals stats show that IS-lenses are somewhat more prone to break down.
You are welcome to contact Lens Rentals on your vast experience.Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) that would say to me IS malfunctioned on his big white lens and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.
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".You are welcome to contact Lens Rentals on your vast experience.
Your other points may be valid but this undermines your overall argument - 500mm f/7.1 is almost exactly the same physical aperture as 400mm f/5.6 (any difference is within the rounding error). How can adding 100mm on to the long end of a tele zoom be a drawback? (Especially as by all accounts it's without compromising image quality). It's misleading to keep stating the aperture ratio as if they've made the newer lens slower, when they absolutely haven't.f7.1 aperture of 100-500
At that price I would expect it to meet or exceed even the highest expectations.Call me skeptical - but: Not even considering this before I have seen "proof" it is on par with the 300mm IS L II prime.
If it magically does this feat - AND its not a "disguised" 100-260/270/280mm lens - AND is lighter than the 300mm IS L II prime I will probably sell my RF 70-200mm IS L to fund part of the cost and be done with it.
I put the likelihood of Canon delivering a lens living up to the extraordinary claims announced <20%. Of course happy to be proven wrong one day soon.
How old are their lenses?Again some BS claim. I have not heard any professional sports photographer in my area (european union) say to me his IS malfunctioned on his big white lens, or even the 70-200 2.8L, and I meet plenty on a weekly basis.
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.How old are their lenses?