Canon Gets 300mm Creative

[Ozarker]

Well, for me, 300mm wouldn't be long enough. 420mm is too short for me too. (Aspc x 1.6? Can't remember.)

I had the EF 400mm f/5.6L on a 70D. I really liked that lens. Unfortunately, it just seemed too short for birding in the area I lived at the time (Mojave Desert). I had a Canon 2x, but the lens just wasn't sharp with that on there.

If I needed a birding lens and was going to drop $11k, I'd save a little more for something with more reach. Yes, I know there are more uses.

 

[P-visie]

It's better than you think. I used to shoot the RF 300mm f/2.8 II with the 2xTCIII and found it excellent. It stands up well, even on Craig's dishonourable 5DSR vs the RF 600mm f4 on the R5. I'm jealous of the Sony 300/2.8 as it gives a very sharp and light 600/5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I did not say it was bad, I stated that the image quality and AF speed would no be a good as a 600 mm f4 lens. The comparisons you posted confirm that, specially for the Sony 300mm.

 

[AlanF]

I did not say it was bad, I stated that the image quality and AF speed would no be a good as a 600 mm f4 lens. The comparisons you posted confirm that, specially for the Sony 300mm.

One of the best bird photographers for BIF and stills I follow who is great on testing and comparing gear is now using exclusively the Sony 300/2.8. I'll PM you his flickr page.

 

[kaihp]

Well, for me, 300mm wouldn't be long enough. 420mm is too short for me too. (Aspc x 1.6? Can't remember.)

I had the EF 400mm f/5.6L on a 70D. I really liked that lens. Unfortunately, it just seemed too short for birding in the area I lived at the time (Mojave Desert). I had a Canon 2x, but the lens just wasn't sharp with that on there.

Most lenses suffered a lot with the 2x TC, except the 300/2.8 and - I think - the 400/2.8.
I've used the 2x TC Mk III with the 300 f/2.8 II with great satisfaction. It would take something extraordinary to make me part with the 300/2.8.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It would take something extraordinary to make me part with the 300/2.8.

I started looking for a 300/2.8 II as they were becoming less widely available, and since I knew I’d be switching to the R series soon, I was reluctant to buy one anyway. I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was initially disappointed when the 100-300/2.8 was announced, mainly because of the 75 mm / 3” greater length.

I have had the 100-300/2.8 for quite a while now, and it’s definitely an extraordinary lens. The convenience of the zoom is more than worth the extra length.

 

[Ian K]

A 0x teleconverter is a lens cap.

The rumored 1x-1.4x-2x TC came about from misinterpretation of a patent, such a lens would be extremely complex because the 1x setting would require reducing optics (otherwise, it would be an extension tube and limit distant focusing). So, such a lens would need to have 1x optics and two sets of 1.4x optics that swing in/out. I highly doubt we'll ever see such a product. The patent on which that rumor is based had four elements. Four, with two of them sliding back and forth. It's not what some people seem to think it is.

I knew it would require reducing elements for 1x, but assumed that was the point. The swinging elements seem a bad way of adding and removing lens elements as they don’t guarantee the elements are perpendicular to the light path. Sliding in sideways, like the 200-400 seemed a more viable option.

From the animation I see that the sliding forward and backward is designed to prevent the alignment issue I worried about.

 

[P-visie]

I knew it would require reducing elements for 1x, but assumed that was the point. The swinging elements seem a bad way of adding and removing lens elements as they don’t guarantee the elements are perpendicular to the light path. Sliding in sideways, like the 200-400 seemed a more viable option.

From the animation I see that the sliding forward and backward is designed to prevent the alignment issue I worried about.

Canon has a recent patent application for a motorized unit for inserting the extender into the optical path. The application mentions a “variable magnification lens” which might suggest a zooming capability.

Google translated link to Asobinet.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This is the patent diagram aligned with the EF 300/2.8 block diagram at the front element, with the front element diameters matched.

View attachment 227529

There's about the same amount of glass in the rearward groups (behind the aperture stop). Stronger converging lenses in front of the aperture stop in the patent enable the rearward groups (and the aperture stop itself) to be shifted forward, essentially relocating the empty space that is in front of the aperture in the EF 300/2.8 II to the back. That, combined with the extra space because the patented design is longer (and remember that the flange distance is 24 mm shorter with RF), allow room for the TC elements to drop in. No special optical trickery required.

It looks like, according to your diagram that Canon are retaining the rear gel fitler slot for this new RF 300mm f2.8 LIS design. I'm guessing that's what the last lens element is in bother block diagrams.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's better than you think. I used to shoot the RF 300mm f/2.8 II with the 2xTCIII and found it excellent. It stands up well, even on Craig's dishonourable 5DSR vs the RF 600mm f4 on the R5. I'm jealous of the Sony 300/2.8 as it gives a very sharp and light 600/5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1556&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's still a common lens combo on some of the wild life / irish sea birds workshops I go on. It's more than sharp enough for a R5, it's an amazingly light weight 600/5.6 and it's AF and IS are excellent too. I think it's price on the used market makes it even more appealing. I see similar results with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and a 2x TC. I suspect that when Canon move to 60mp + sensors we might see some optical resolution issues with a number of extended lenses, including some of the current RF lenses. I thnk it's still apopular lens because it's a sweet spot and Canon haven't yet improved upon in that use case scenario. Not everyone wants the RF100-300/2.8 even though it's a remarkable optic. It's nearly as sharp as the mkII prime (which is one of Canon's sharpest), it's only a bit heavier and it negates the need for an additonal 70-200/2.8 and camera body.

The Sony 300mm f2.8 is the current state of the art, where 300mm f2.8's are concearned. It's a size and weight marvel. However, the older EF 400mm f4 LIS DO II is comparible in size but slightly heavier in weight. This comparison shows that Canon is behind in the developement of a number of it's super white tele's. While Canon is developing stunning lenses like the RF100-300/2.8, Sony puts or their 300mm f2.8 offering and reminds us all that they have serious capability. Let's face it, Sony's 1.4kg 300mm f2.8 is in the 70-200/2.8 ball park for size an weight.
While Canon are considering big white zooms to give us a versatile wider reach, Nikon have intergrated their larger big black tele's with integrated TC's, which extends the over all reach at the long end. The Nikkon integrated TC's look on paper shaper than Canon's RF seperated tele converters. No one has yet integrated a 1.4x in to a 300mm f2.8, only the 400/2.8. With a larger and heaver lens, the increase in size and weight isn't too detrimental, but on a super light 300mm f2.8 (such as Sony's) it would start to make big factor in the lens' over all weight.
One wonders on the size and weight impact of this kind of integration. If it can be done and if the whole package from Canon comes in at over 2Kgs on the scaled then it's a missed opportunity.
For me, I've often thought about aquiring a EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II as a smaller "walkabouts" super tele when I don't want to take my bigger 400/2.8 out. However, when i need it, my 400 always delivers and the mass of the lens is worth while. It's then that I realise that I already have all my optimal lenses.

 

[AlanF]

It's still a common lens combo on some of the wild life / irish sea birds workshops I go on. It's more than sharp enough for a R5, it's an amazingly light weight 600/5.6 and it's AF and IS are excellent too. I think it's price on the used market makes it even more appealing. I see similar results with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and a 2x TC. I suspect that when Canon move to 60mp + sensors we might see some optical resolution issues with a number of extended lenses, including some of the current RF lenses. I thnk it's still apopular lens because it's a sweet spot and Canon haven't yet improved upon in that use case scenario. Not everyone wants the RF100-300/2.8 even though it's a remarkable optic. It's nearly as sharp as the mkII prime (which is one of Canon's sharpest), it's only a bit heavier and it negates the need for an additonal 70-200/2.8 and camera body.

The Sony 300mm f2.8 is the current state of the art, where 300mm f2.8's are concearned. It's a size and weight marvel. However, the older EF 400mm f4 LIS DO II is comparible in size but slightly heavier in weight. This comparison shows that Canon is behind in the developement of a number of it's super white tele's. While Canon is developing stunning lenses like the RF100-300/2.8, Sony puts or their 300mm f2.8 offering and reminds us all that they have serious capability. Let's face it, Sony's 1.4kg 300mm f2.8 is in the 70-200/2.8 ball park for size an weight.
While Canon are considering big white zooms to give us a versatile wider reach, Nikon have intergrated their larger big black tele's with integrated TC's, which extends the over all reach at the long end. The Nikkon integrated TC's look on paper shaper than Canon's RF seperated tele converters. No one has yet integrated a 1.4x in to a 300mm f2.8, only the 400/2.8. With a larger and heaver lens, the increase in size and weight isn't too detrimental, but on a super light 300mm f2.8 (such as Sony's) it would start to make big factor in the lens' over all weight.
One wonders on the size and weight impact of this kind of integration. If it can be done and if the whole package from Canon comes in at over 2Kgs on the scaled then it's a missed opportunity.
For me, I've often thought about aquiring a EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II as a smaller "walkabouts" super tele when I don't want to take my bigger 400/2.8 out. However, when i need it, my 400 always delivers and the mass of the lens is worth while. It's then that I realise that I already have all my optimal lenses.

You are stronger than me! Once the EF 400mm f/4 DO ii came out I traded in the 300mm/2.8 ii for it as the 800mm with the 2x was more useful. I occasionally hanker for another copy of the DO ii (bought and sold 2 copies). But, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp with such good AF and light, and the RF 200-800mm is at 800mm of the same sharpness as the DO ii with 2xTC, I never bite the bullet.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You are stronger than me! Once the EF 400mm f/4 DO ii came out I traded in the 300mm/2.8 ii for it as the 800mm with the 2x was more useful. I occasionally hanker for another copy of the DO ii (bought and sold 2 copies). But, the RF 100-500mm is so sharp with such good AF and light, and the RF 200-800mm is at 800mm of the same sharpness as the DO ii with 2xTC, I never bite the bullet.

Funnily enough as I get older, I'm starting to eye those lighter lenses with a but more interest. I'm currently 55 and I literaly could not handle a mk1 like I used to. My Mkii is getting on the portly side for me. I can see me ending up with a mkIII purely for age related concearns!

 

[kaihp]

I have had the 100-300/2.8 for quite a while now, and it’s definitely an extraordinary lens. The convenience of the zoom is more than worth the extra length.

Zoom is definitely a great convenience and I have no doubt that it is optically extraordinary. As you say, the extra length is roughly half offset by the back focus distance.
The price is - unfortunately - also extraordinary. (Edit: price in Denmark is 98.000DKK incl sales tax - almost USD15.400 - vs the USD10.600/11.540 at B&H [ex/incl NY sales tax]).

My primary gripe with the lens is the cost - it's 3x what I paid for the 300/2.8 in HK back in 2014, that it doesn't take drop-in filters, and that I'm not using super teles enough to (mentally) justify the cost of a new lens. As an amateur, the economical payback ratio is pretty close to zero.