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

[Ph0t0]

Well, if you'd put that in your signature, @Ph0t0 wouldn't find himself in such an embarrassing situation !

Did you read my entire comment?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

200-600 with built-in TC

200-600 f/4 would be quite unwieldy,
200-600 f/5-6.3 would be quite welcome.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The Sony equivalent of the RF 100-500mm is their excellent 200-600mm, f/6.3

It is not.
The Sony lens is not a GMaster lens and the Nikon one will not be an S lens.
Their equivalents are their 100-400 lenses.
Canon does not have any lens to compete with those 200-600 lenses.
They really should have something but it is not the 100-500L.

 

[SwissFrank]

A question no-one's asked: is the 100-500 so good that we don't need this? With today's low-noise sensors, IS and IBIS, and the fact we don't need f/2.8 to activate all the AF sensors, does anyone actually NEEEEEED this? Can anyone point to a published 300/2.8 shot that simply would have been unsalable with the DOF or more noise of f/5.6? I've argued for a couple years now that the real trinity is the f/4 zooms and 100-500, no longer the f/2.8 zooms.

 

[grilled_rooster]

A question no-one's asked: is the 100-500 so good that we don't need this? With today's low-noise sensors, IS and IBIS, and the fact we don't need f/2.8 to activate all the AF sensors, does anyone actually NEEEEEED this? Can anyone point to a published 300/2.8 shot that simply would have been unsalable with the DOF or more noise of f/5.6? I've argued for a couple years now that the real trinity is the f/4 zooms and 100-500, no longer the f/2.8 zooms.

I‘ve used EF 100-400 II and a EF 300 f/4 for soccer. Yeah, it works. But my shots look a lot better with my Sigma 120-300 2.8. I‘m able to shoot at lower ISO with the same shutter speed. And background blur is nice.

This focal range range with 2.8 is perfect for me while shooting soccer. A fixed 300 2.8 is getting quickly to narrow when you sit at the goalline and players running towards you. Switching to my second body with a 70-200 resulted in loosing some shots.

With the 120-300 i only switch to my second body after a team scored a goal and the players run to the corner flag for the cheers. i now have a 50 1.4 on my second body.

 

[SwissFrank]

I‘ve used EF 100-400 II and a EF 300 f/4 for soccer. Yeah, it works. But my shots look a lot better with my Sigma 120-300 2.8. I‘m able to shoot at lower ISO with the same shutter speed. And background blur is nice.

This focal range range with 2.8 is perfect for me while shooting soccer. A fixed 300 2.8 is getting quickly to narrow when you sit at the goalline and players running towards you. Switching to my second body with a 70-200 resulted in loosing some shots.

With the 120-300 i only switch to my second body after a team scored a goal and the players run to the corner flag for the cheers. i now have a 50 1.4 on my second body.

Thanks for the feedback Rooster.

OK, so to illustrate the point I'm asking about, would you be able to show us some shots at 300/2.8 and 300/5.6 and let us see how the 5.6 has higher noise and/or too much DOF that just makes the photo not work? It doesn't have to be in-game footage, just a shot of a player standing there waiting for something to happen would be fine, but something with the right kind of scene, apparel, subject distance, lighting etc. that you normally photograph in.

Also to be clear I'm talking about on the latest bodies. If you're talking about EFs maybe you're shooting with 6-8 year old bodies? Nothing wrong with that, I shot an EOS-1DsMkIII for 12 years before moving to R. But I just want to make sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

OK, so to illustrate the point I'm asking about, would you be able to show us some shots at 300/2.8 and 300/5.6 and let us see how the 5.6 has higher noise and/or too much DOF that just makes the photo not work?

Noise is one thing but there is just no way to make up for the background separation difference between those two apertures.

 

[AlanF]

It is not.
The Sony lens is not a GMaster lens and the Nikon one will not be an S lens.
Their equivalents are their 100-400 lenses.
Canon does not have any lens to compete with those 200-600 lenses.
They really should have something but it is not the 100-500L.

Sony has a 100-400 GMaster, their older lens which is expensive, and then brought out their 200-600mm. Those who use both claim that the 200-600mm is sharper than the 100-400mm where they overlap. It scores incredibly highly on opticallimits tests https://opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1097-sony200600f5663oss
When it comes to build quality this is what they say as well: "In fact, it has a lower price tag than the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4-5.6 GM OSS which may be a little surprising. So what's the catch? When it comes to build-quality there is certainly none. On the contrary, unlike most other super-tele zoom lenses, the Sony lens does NOT extend when zooming. This also means is that it doesn't suck in air and as such dust. It's also formally dust- and moisture-resistant." For some reason, Sony chose to build a superb lens, up to GMaster quality, and sell it at a bargain price. Apparently, I have read, it had AF problems with the A7RIV but works very well with the A1 (and A9), but the 100-400mm works fine with the A7RIV. In the UK, the Sony FE 200-600mm f/6.3 is only £1600. To get the RF 100-300mm + 2xTC to have a 200-600mm f/5.6 would cost £12000. Anyway, both are too heavy for me.

 

[grilled_rooster]

Thanks for the feedback Rooster.

OK, so to illustrate the point I'm asking about, would you be able to show us some shots at 300/2.8 and 300/5.6 and let us see how the 5.6 has higher noise and/or too much DOF that just makes the photo not work? It doesn't have to be in-game footage, just a shot of a player standing there waiting for something to happen would be fine, but something with the right kind of scene, apparel, subject distance, lighting etc. that you normally photograph in.

Also to be clear I'm talking about on the latest bodies. If you're talking about EFs maybe you're shooting with 6-8 year old bodies? Nothing wrong with that, I shot an EOS-1DsMkIII for 12 years before moving to R. But I just want to make sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

Was a bit lacy so i was only able to find an image at 330mm f/5.6 to compare with an image at 300mm f/2.8
You can see, that the DOF is noticable smaller at 2.8. Background blur at 5.6 is noticable, but not so strong. And the background is further away than in the second image.

ISO was at 2.500 in the first image and ISO 5.000 in the second. The noise you see in the frist image ist heavy rain ;-)
Shutter Speed: 1/2500 first image, 1/3200 second image

 

[SwissFrank]

Noise is one thing but there is just no way to make up for the background separation difference between those two apertures.

OK but again I'm hoping someone can show a few examples. I've always been a big-aperture fan, with the EF 50/1.0, 85/1.2 MkI, 135/2, and 600/4, but I'm suggesting that might no longer be compelling, but also suggesting I could easily be proven wrong with just a couple examples.

 

[SwissFrank]

Was a bit lacy so i was only able to find an image at 330mm f/5.6 to compare with an image at 300mm f/2.8
You can see, that the DOF is noticable smaller at 2.8. Background blur at 5.6 is noticable, but not so strong. And the background is further away than in the second image.

ISO was at 2.500 in the first image and ISO 5.000 in the second. The noise you see in the frist image ist heavy rain ;-)
Shutter Speed: 1/2500 first image, 1/3200 second image

Thanks Rooster but I kind of feel this might prove my point, at least to me if no-one else. Intellectually I know f/2.8 should have twice the OOF circle with four times the area but the DOF seems to work in both to separate the action and background, and the noise also seems to be acceptable in both. This is really a question of personal opinion of course, but...

 

[takesome1]

OK but again I'm hoping someone can show a few examples. I've always been a big-aperture fan, with the EF 50/1.0, 85/1.2 MkI, 135/2, and 600/4, but I'm suggesting that might no longer be compelling, but also suggesting I could easily be proven wrong with just a couple examples.

Enter this search on google wide aperture vs narrow aperture and go to images. You will have more examples than you ever wanted.
If you are using the wide aperture lenses only to reduce noise that is a very insignificant reason. Separation, low light and the need for shutter speed are all far more relevant IMO.

You are the only one can prove yourself wrong on this. You may prefer to have your background in focus, where someone else would prefer to have the background blur to highlight their subject.

 

[neuroanatomist]

OK but again I'm hoping someone can show a few examples. I've always been a big-aperture fan, with the EF 50/1.0, 85/1.2 MkI, 135/2, and 600/4, but I'm suggesting that might no longer be compelling, but also suggesting I could easily be proven wrong with just a couple examples.

It depends on your definition of unusable. For many of the indoor events I shoot, at 200mm f/2.8 I'm at at ISO 12800-25600, and I need to crop a bit so a 100-300/2.8 would be ideal. I did try the RF 100-500 in that setting, but looking back I didn't keep any of those shots, which tells me what I need to know.

 

[grilled_rooster]

Thanks Rooster but I kind of feel this might prove my point, at least to me if no-one else. Intellectually I know f/5.6 should have twice the OOF circle with four times the area but the DOF seems to work in both to separate the action and background, and the noise also seems to be acceptable in both. This is really a question of personal opinion of course, but...

I'm using my Sigma 120-300 again on sunday during a match. Maybe i find time to shoot a not moving subject in the same place from the same disctance. Here the difference betwenn 2.8 and 5.6 will be more noticable. DOF/Background blur also has a lot to with distance between photographer and subject.

And of course, you get some separation from the background with 5.6. But it's not as good a creamy as with 2.8.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm using my Sigma 120-300 again on sunday during a match. Maybe i find time to shoot a not moving subject in the same place from the same disctance. Here the difference betwenn 2.8 and 5.6 will be more noticable. DOF/Background blur also has a lot to with distance between photographer and subject.

And of course, you get some separation from the background with 5.6. But it's not as good a creamy as with 2.8.

Well, when you need background separation than the difference in aperture is a big deal.
If the background is far enough away then it would make no difference whatsoever.

 

[grilled_rooster]

It depends on your definition of unusable. For many of the indoor events I shoot, at 200mm f/2.8 I'm at at ISO 12800-25600, and I need to crop a bit so a 100-300/2.8 would be ideal. I did try the RF 100-500 in that setting, but looking back I didn't keep any of those shots, which tells me what I need to know.

I'm using my 70-200 2.8 indoor when i need focal length flexibility. But i often switch to my 85 1.4 or my 135 1.8 for more light. Slowest shutter speed i use ist 1/2000 for sports. But fastes is better. So even a 2.8 lense is a bit slow ;-)

 

[grilled_rooster]

Don't get me wrong: i'm not saying the RF 100-300 is a must have. I do like this focal range. It's my go to focal range (Sigma 120-300) for soccer. The new canon lense is far to expensive if you're not making a lots of money with the pictures you shoot. And it's to expensive to replace the Sigma 120-300. My sigma is getting the job done. And i bought it used in very good condition for 2.200 €. The Canon RF 100-300 will be sold for 12000 € in Germany.

 

[grilled_rooster]

Thanks Rooster but I kind of feel this might prove my point, at least to me if no-one else. Intellectually I know f/5.6 should have twice the OOF circle with four times the area but the DOF seems to work in both to separate the action and background, and the noise also seems to be acceptable in both. This is really a question of personal opinion of course, but...

In my example: the second picture was shot at ISO 5000 with a shutter speed of 1/3200. If i want to have the same shutter speed with a 5.6 lense, the ISO would have been at ISO 20000.

 

[SwissFrank]

Enter this search on google wide aperture vs narrow aperture and go to images. You will have more examples than you ever wanted.

Thank you Captain Obvious :-D I know your advice is well-meant but I may not have been clear on how narrow a question I'm asking.

I think my question is pretty much limited to sports shooting with the 100-300/2.8, right? In fashion you can stick with a 300/2.8 and just zoom with your feet. In travel you don't need the artsy bokeh, and instead need more portability. Wildlife you probably need more reach, etc. etc. Fine Art: I'm sure the control over DOF IS necessary, so I'm not even contesting that.

What that leaves, and what I'm talking about, is:

-- pair of photos with comperable venues, subject distance, lighting and so on, with f-stop < f/5.6 and >= f/5.6

-- where someone would feel the f-stop < f/5.6 image is substantially more usable or strongly more appealing than the f-stop >= f/5.6 image, whether that's on grounds of DOF or noise (or arguably, subject movement)

-- discussion of CURRENT tech: R5 or similar, not SLRs, not film era, etc.

I think it'd be hard enough to google up the first point, and almost impossible to google up the second point.

But additionally this is social media, so I wish to be a little social :-D I got to know Grilled Rooster above just a little bit from conversing. That's more fun than googling for my own personal elucidation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thank you Captain Obvious :-D I know your advice is well-meant but I may not have been clear on how narrow a question I'm asking.

I think my question is pretty much limited to sports shooting with the 100-300/2.8, right? In fashion you can stick with a 300/2.8 and just zoom with your feet. In travel you don't need the artsy bokeh, and instead need more portability. Wildlife you probably need more reach, etc. etc. Fine Art: I'm sure the control over DOF IS necessary, so I'm not even contesting that.

What that leaves, and what I'm talking about, is:

-- pair of photos with comperable venues, subject distance, lighting and so on, with f-stop < f/5.6 and >= f/5.6

-- where someone would feel the f-stop < f/5.6 image is substantially more usable or strongly more appealing than the f-stop >= f/5.6 image, whether that's on grounds of DOF or noise (or arguably, subject movement)

-- discussion of CURRENT tech: R5 or similar, not SLRs, not film era, etc.

I think it'd be hard enough to google up the first point, and almost impossible to google up the second point.

But additionally this is social media, so I wish to be a little social :-D I got to know Grilled Rooster above just a little bit from conversing. That's more fun than googling for my own personal elucidation.

With action in poorly lit venues (e.g., indoors or outdoor night lights at the high school level), 1-2 stops is meaningful in terms of noise. Hopefully you don’t need comparison photos to see a difference between ISO 25600 and ISO 51200 or 102400.