Best of Canon 2023: #3 RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Richard and I decided to do one of those “Best of 2023” lists for Canon’s new gear that was announced in 2023. As most of you know, Canon had a pretty busy year product-wise, while they didn’t make every segment of our community happy, they did release a lot of great products. Craig’s #3: Canon

See full article...

 

[perfpix]

RE: "My one knock on this lens is the tripod collar. Why does Canon still refuse to put an Arca mount on their feet?"
Does any manufacturer put an Arca mount on their tripod mounts? The Nikon lenses I've owned never had them. The mounts are generally replaceable in the higher end lenses with companies like Kirk Enterprises make replacement Arca
mounts, which work better than attaching a plate. I see Kirk make the replacement mounts for the new Nikon Z S-Line superteles as well which I'm guessing don't come on even their $15,000+ lenses.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

The Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM sounds like a fantastic lens. Way out of my range. But one to dream of.

I wish I could be enthusiastic about the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. I'm an APS-C shooter, and impatiently waiting for Canon to release their first interesting RF-S lens. But for ultra-wide I will so far be sticking to EF-S options, while looking at Sigma and wishing Canon was thinking more like them (For just 100g extra weight they made a 2 stops faster 10-18mm f/2.8).

My top 3 would be:

1) Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM
This is a lens I can dream of, and though it is not ordered yet, it is not completely out of my range. The main reason (besides investment price) I haven't ordered this yet, is the transport length and size. I have the 800mm/f11 and it is only JUST possible to fit in my bags. The new zoom is 3cm longer than the 800/11, and that will force me to also look into new types of bags. Or the zoom would be something I would carry only at very very rare occasions...

2) Canon RF 10-20mm F4 L IS STM
If I was a fullframe shooter, I would lie sleepless at night thinking about this lens. Eventually crying because I didn't feel I could justify using that much money on such a "small" lens ;-)

3) Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Yes, I'm impressed.

Unfortunately no RF-S lenses on this APS-C shooter's list this year (or yet at all) :-(

 

[AlanF]

The Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM sounds like a fantastic lens. Way out of my range. But one to dream of.

I wish I could be enthusiastic about the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. I'm an APS-C shooter, and impatiently waiting for Canon to release their first interesting RF-S lens. But for ultra-wide I will so far be sticking to EF-S options, while looking at Sigma and wishing Canon was thinking more like them (For just 100g extra weight they made a 2 stops faster 10-18mm f/2.8).

My top 3 would be:

1) Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM
This is a lens I can dream of, and though it is not ordered yet, it is not completely out of my range. The main reason (besides investment price) I haven't ordered this yet, is the transport length and size. I have the 800mm/f11 and it is only JUST possible to fit in my bags. The new zoom is 3cm longer than the 800/11, and that will force me to also look into new types of bags. Or would only be something I would carry very very rarely.

2) Canon RF 10-20mm F4 L IS STM
If I was a fullframe shooter, I would lie sleepless at night thinking about this lens. Eventually crying because I didn't feel I could justify using that much money on such a "small" lens ;-)

3) Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Yes, I'm impressed.

Unfortunately no RF-S lenses on this APS-C shooters list this year :-(

Hardly any of us have had the opportunity to use the RF 200-800mm, the available reviews are either perfunctory pre-release with little hands-on by established reliable reviewers, or Youtubers dribbling out factoids. I'm hoping it will be good and have one on order but I am reserving judgement until there are some decent reviews or until I've done some comparisons.

 

[Maximilian]

I have no “Best of 2023” list.
Though the 100-300 is fascinating somehow I don‘t like it. I offen favour the small and cheaper lenses.

So Richards choice seems closer to what I like.

 

[AlanF]

I have no “Best of 2023” list.
Though the 100-300 is fascinating somehow I don‘t like it. I offen favour the small and cheaper lenses.

So Richards choice seems closer to what I like.

His choice of an RF-S 10-18 is for a crop camera and not for your R6 II.

 

[danfaz]

RE: "My one knock on this lens is the tripod collar. Why does Canon still refuse to put an Arca mount on their feet?"
Does any manufacturer put an Arca mount on their tripod mounts?

Yes, Tamron and Sigma do.

 

[Maximilian]

His choice of an RF-S 10-18 is for a crop camera and not for your R6 II.

I know.
That‘s why I wrote

… seems closer to what I like.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, Tamron and Sigma do.

Shhhhh. Don't tell Walrus...

 

[SereneSpeed]

[…]the available reviews are either perfunctory pre-release with little hands-on by established reliable reviewers, or Youtubers dribbling out factoids.[…]

I thought Jan Wegener’s review was pretty decent:

 

[neuroanatomist]

My one knock on this lens is the tripod collar. Why does Canon still refuse to put an Arca mount on their feet? Plates aren't overly convenient and have their own quirks.

I prefer a replacement foot instead of adding a plate. I have the RRS LCF-53 on my 100-300/2.8 (and one on my 600/4 II, also).



My knock is that I’d prefer the collar to be removable.

Does any manufacturer put an Arca mount on their tripod mounts?

Yes. Oly/OM does.

 

[AlanF]

I thought Jan Wegener’s review was pretty decent:

There are many unanswered questions from his and all the reviews out there: here, for example, is what I asked him on his most recent review:
"RF 200-800mm on FF versus RF 100-500mm on R7A

nice review as always from you, so thank you. The 100-500mm on the R7 is equivalent to 160-800mm on the R5/R6/R3/R8, and conversely the 200-800 on FF equivalent to 125-500mm on the R7. The effective reach of the R7 at 500mm is slightly less than that of the R5 at 800mm but better than the R3/R6/R8.
So, so how do they compare in practice? First, IQ. What is the IQ of the R5 at 800mm f/9 like compared with the R7 at 500mm f/7.1? Secondly, AF. You point out that the AF of the 200-800 on the R5 isn't as good as with the RF 100-500mm, but the R7 AF isn’t as good as that as the R5. So, how does the R5 at 800/9 compare with the R7 at 500/7.1 for fast moving birds, not just easy slow ones at a distance?Thirdly, you are not enthusiastic about the use of extenders on the 200-800 but you show some good images. However, how do the images at 1120mm and 1600mm compare with that at 800mm in terms of additional real resolution. I would guess not much in practice."

All of these reviews are bland and point out what the lenses can do and sometimes can't. Before I finally buy, I want to know how it compares with alternatives. Will I find, for example, as for my questions above, can I get the same reach and IQ with the lighter and sharper RF 100-500mm on the R7? Or, if I am going somewhere I'll need 800mm can I get sharper images with the lighter RF 800mm f/11? How does it compare for reach vs the RF 100-500 + 2x TC? There are pros and cons of having a longer heavier and larger zoom versus the alternatives and there's not enough information out there yet.

 

[bhf3737]

Hardly any of us have had the opportunity to use the RF 200-800mm, the available reviews are either perfunctory pre-release with little hands-on by established reliable reviewers, or Youtubers dribbling out factoids. I'm hoping it will be good and have one on order but I am reserving judgement until there are some decent reviews or until I've done some comparisons.

Hello & Merry Christmas.
I have been playing with RF 200-800 for a week now. As far as I could evaluate it subjectively so far, the AF speed and image quality are comparable to RF 100-500 on R3 (with extender) and R7 (without extender). Roughly, it has equivalent image quality and AF speed when using 100-500 with 1.4x extender.
Some con of the lens so far, are its long twist to go from 200 to 800mm and it is a bit front heavy when fully extended. On R7, my copy is surprisingly sharper at 800mm than 100-500 at 500mm. I did not expect this. Of course, the inconsistencies in AF are there in R7 but when it is in focus, it is almost perfect.

 

[AlanF]

Hello & Merry Christmas.
I have been playing with RF 200-800 for a week now. As far as I could evaluate it subjectively so far, the AF speed and image quality are comparable to RF 100-500 on R3 (with extender) and R7 (without extender). Roughly, it has equivalent image quality and AF speed when using 100-500 with 1.4x extender.
Some con of the lens so far, are its long twist to go from 200 to 800mm and it is a bit front heavy when fully extended. On R7, my copy is surprisingly sharper at 800mm than 100-500 at 500mm. I did not expect this. Of course, the inconsistencies in AF are there in R7 but when it is in focus, it is almost perfect.

Thanks bhf! Good to hear. Enjoy your new lens and keep us informed.

 

[Birdshooter]

RE: "My one knock on this lens is the tripod collar. Why does Canon still refuse to put an Arca mount on their feet?"
Does any manufacturer put an Arca mount on their tripod mounts? The Nikon lenses I've owned never had them. The mounts are generally replaceable in the higher end lenses with companies like Kirk Enterprises make replacement Arca
mounts, which work better than attaching a plate. I see Kirk make the replacement mounts for the new Nikon Z S-Line superteles as well which I'm guessing don't come on even their $15,000+ lenses.

 

[Birdshooter]

I think the reason for not using a arca swiss style foot comes down to liability. People may claim that it was due to the foot that their new expensive lens fell to the ground. By us changing the foot, or putting a swiss arca plate on the foot, the consumer would be the one that altered the foot and the manufacturer would not be liable. Not as big a deal as some might make you think, as a new replacement foot is not that expensive.

 

[Del Paso]

There are many unanswered questions from his and all the reviews out there: here, for example, is what I asked him on his most recent review:
"RF 200-800mm on FF versus RF 100-500mm on R7A

nice review as always from you, so thank you. The 100-500mm on the R7 is equivalent to 160-800mm on the R5/R6/R3/R8, and conversely the 200-800 on FF equivalent to 125-500mm on the R7. The effective reach of the R7 at 500mm is slightly less than that of the R5 at 800mm but better than the R3/R6/R8.
So, so how do they compare in practice? First, IQ. What is the IQ of the R5 at 800mm f/9 like compared with the R7 at 500mm f/7.1? Secondly, AF. You point out that the AF of the 200-800 on the R5 isn't as good as with the RF 100-500mm, but the R7 AF isn’t as good as that as the R5. So, how does the R5 at 800/9 compare with the R7 at 500/7.1 for fast moving birds, not just easy slow ones at a distance?Thirdly, you are not enthusiastic about the use of extenders on the 200-800 but you show some good images. However, how do the images at 1120mm and 1600mm compare with that at 800mm in terms of additional real resolution. I would guess not much in practice."

All of these reviews are bland and point out what the lenses can do and sometimes can't. Before I finally buy, I want to know how it compares with alternatives. Will I find, for example, as for my questions above, can I get the same reach and IQ with the lighter and sharper RF 100-500mm on the R7? Or, if I am going somewhere I'll need 800mm can I get sharper images with the lighter RF 800mm f/11? How does it compare for reach vs the RF 100-500 + 2x TC? There are pros and cons of having a longer heavier and larger zoom versus the alternatives and there's not enough information out there yet.

When buying a longer focal, zoom or fixed focal, the only reliable reviewer can be found on Canonrumors.
We all know him...
PS: his pseudo begins with "A"

 

[koenkooi]

When buying a longer focal, zoom or fixed focal, the only reliable reviewer can be found on Canonrumors.
We all know him...
PS: his pseudo begins with "A"

Ahsanford uses more than 50mm?!?!? Or do you mean ‘Arryfilm?

 

[john1970]

I prefer a replacement foot instead of adding a plate. I have the RRS LCF-53 on my 100-300/2.8 (and one on my 600/4 II, also).

View attachment 213717

My knock is that I’d prefer the collar to be removable.


Yes. Oly/OM does.

+1 on substituting a acra-swiss foot on the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens. RRS, Kirkphoto, and Wimberley make acra-swiss feet for the lens. I prefer the Wimberley foot because it is lower profile than the other two feet and takes up less room in a camera bag.

 

[a.jiang]

+1 on substituting a acra-swiss foot on the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 lens. RRS, Kirkphoto, and Wimberley make acra-swiss feet for the lens. I prefer the Wimberley foot because it is lower profile than the other two feet and takes up less room in a camera bag.

Yes. Wimberley's AP-601 replacement foot works very well.