Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM next from Canon
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
This has stimulated me to compare Canon's MTFs of the very sharp EF 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC @ 600mm, f/5.6 with the RF 100-500mm @ 500mm, f/7.1. They are very similar for the centre of the frame and still good towards the edges. So, the zoom is pretty close in sharpness but loses 17% in focal length and 1.2 in stops. I wonder what the hypothetical zoom 100-300 + TC will be like?
Upvote
0
But you also lose a lot of lens weight and unwieldiness
I picked up the RF 100-500 this Friday and so far it's a pleasure. I'm impressed by how quick and silent the AF is.
I'm firmly in the "long lenses camp" with the 300/2.8 II, the 200-400 and now the 100-500.
I had been using the 200-400 over the 300 for the past couple of years, and when I recently tested them back-to-back I was surprised about how much smaller, lighter and less unwieldy the 300 is vs the 200-400.
Upvote
0
Yes the RF 100-500mm handles extremely well, and for most people is probably a much better choice than the 300/2.8 + TC. A fraction of the weight, much more compact, more manoeuvrable, far cheaper, and as Alan's MTF charts indicate, for all practical purposes just as sharp.
The 300 + TC is sharper in the corners, but how often is maximum corner sharpness essential with the type of photography such a combo would be used for (mainly sports and wildlife)?
Of course, for people who need/want to shoot at F2.8 the 300/2.8 is the way to go, and a TC makes it more versatile.
Upvote
0
Also, the most important reason why the AF structure of the 100-500mm lens is quiet and fast is the Dual Nano USM motor. USM motor technology is still used in current fixed 2.8 -4 and higher tele lenses. Canon may surprise you and use a Dual Nano USM motor for the AF of the 100-300mm f/2.8. But this is an optimistic request.
Upvote
0
It depends on the design. If the focusing group is heavy, ring USM will be needed.
Upvote
0
Absolutely! For my purposes, it's the best telephoto lens I have ever owned.
Upvote
0
Disappointing to me. Very difficult to imagine that any zoom can rival the overall "best Canon" IQ of the EF 300 f/2.8 IS L II. Also, I'd rather bring the relatively light and smallish R 70-200mm f/2.8 L with me than a heavy and bulky 100-300mm L-quality zoom and just make a crop from the 50+ megapixels down to 30+ megapixels if needed for the shots over 200mm. Seems like an expensive, poor and expensive substitute for the stellar 300mm f/2.8 L's we have come to be used to.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It’s not in the signature, but if he adds it real fast, he can claim it was always there !I infer from yourthat the link is in the signature, but in fairness signatures don’t show up in the mobile version of the site.
Good point about the mobile version, thanks.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I‘m using the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 on a R5 for soccer. AF is a lot better than on a DSLR. PQ is very good. Especially for my press agency that limit the longest side of a picture to 4000px.
Yeah, the RF 100-300 would be my dream lens. But 9500$ is out of my budget. But even if i could afford it right now, i‘m not sure if it’s that big of an upgrade for my work.
Yeah, the RF 100-300 would be my dream lens. But 9500$ is out of my budget. But even if i could afford it right now, i‘m not sure if it’s that big of an upgrade for my work.
Upvote
0
Thanks. Canon has sensibly opted to optimize for the best MTF at the long end.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
