Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM will start shipping on May 31, 2023

[neuroanatomist]

I have a slightly different take on those MTFs from my perspectives of use.

That depends on your use. I’m a firm believer in using a focal length appropriate to frame your subject at its distance, if possible. MTFs can be compared, but I wouldn’t use a 300mm lens for a subject better served by a 500mm lens. The 85/1.2 may have a wickedly sharp MTF, but I’m not going to use it for a distant flying bird.

Conversely, as we discussed earlier with the badly framed horse example, the 100-500 will not outresolve the 100-300 with both at 300mm, if that’s the right focal length to frame the subject.

The 100-300/2.8 is going to be great for field sports and indoor events/sports, and for portraits. The extra focal length of the 100-500 at 500mm can, in principle, outresolve the 100-300 at 300mm, which might enable me to see individual nose hairs on a subject, but that’s not an advantage if the chin and ears are cut out of the tighter framing. Then again, if the 100-300 needs to be at ISO 6400 for the required shutter speed, the 100-500 would be at ISO 40000 and very well might not outresolve the 300/2.8 image.

 

[davisphotog]

I was writing about the 100-500mm at 500mm, not at 420mm. Read it: the 600mm outresolves the 500mm because of the 20% extra focal length outweighing the slightly inferior MTFs; and conversely 500mm outresolves a sharper 420mm because of the extra focal length. No way would the 100-500mm zoomed out to 420mm outresolve the 300 with a 1.4xTC on it.

All good points!

 

[Ozarker]

I bought 5 lottery tickets and 100 scratchers today. Fingers crossed!

 

[SonicStudios]

Sorry, but your post is a bit cracked.

First off, about the 100-300/2.8 Canon stated, “We also considered a lens with a built-in extender, but we decided to achieve 3x zoom without a built-in extender as it offered the best balance between size, performance, and spec.” It was about more than weight. I’d guess it was mostly about length, the lens is already significantly longer (75 cm / 3”), a built-in TC would have added significantly to that difference.

Second, they haven't 'added it back to the 200-500/4' nor have they 'claimed it's lighter than the 500/4'. Canon has said nothing about a 200-500/4. You seem to be confusing rumors with reality. Yes, Canon patented a 200-500/4 + 1.4x. They also patented a 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x, but they made the lens without the TC. As for the upside of leaving out the TC, it's obvious that Canon saw one, since they did just that even though they obviously considered (and patented) a design with it.

The claim of 'lighter than the 500/4' is something stated by CRguy. Certainly just making the prime into a zoom is likely to increase the weight, as we saw with the 300/2.8 II (which is the same design age as the 500/4 II). Adding a TC would only increase that difference. Not sure why CRguy claims that, but he's arguing with physics and that's never a good idea.

Regarding the TCs, @john1970 previously posted the MTFs of the 100-300 w/ TCs, along with the 100-500. I suspect you're right that an internal TC would be optimized and result in less of an IQ detriment than the external version. However, the resulting 140-420/4 bests the 100-500, and the 200-600/5.6 is not much worse. As the MTFs above show, the bare 100-300/2.8 is as sharp as the EF 300/2.8 II prime, which is truly impressive given that the prime is one of the sharpest lenses made.

Ya you're right, I got caught up in the chatter. I'm actually looking forward to using it in a couple of weeks.

 

[RaPhoto]

I have a slightly different take on those MTFs from my perspectives of use. The RF 100-500 does have at 500mm slightly better MTFs than the 100-300 at 600mm, but its 20% extra focal length means it will outresolve the 500mm when focussed on the same target at the same distance. Conversely, the 500mm will outresolve the the 300 at 420mm - I found the 100-500 did outresolve the old EF 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTCIII.

 

[AlanF]

The 100-300/2.8 is going to be great for field sports and indoor events/sports, and for portraits. The extra focal length of the 100-500 at 500mm can, in principle, outresolve the 100-300 at 300mm, which might enable me to see individual nose hairs on a subject, but that’s not an advantage if the chin and ears are cut out of the tighter framing. Then again, if the 100-300 needs to be at ISO 6400 for the required shutter speed, the 100-500 would be at ISO 40000 and very well might not outresolve the 300/2.8 image.

Regarding your last point. When the 100-300 at 300mm is cropped to give the same framing as the 100-500 at 500mm, the S/N advantage of f/2.8 vs f/7.1 is reduced to 1 stop - at the same shutter speed, iso 6400 on the f/2.8 will give only twice the number of photons per duck as the f/7.1 at iso 40,000.

Actually, you got the wrong message from what I was trying to say: I was pointing out that the 100-300mm at 600mm would outresolve the 100-500mm at 500mm despite the better MTFs of the 100-500. For several years, my main lens was the EF 300mm f/2.8 II, and the 2xTC was nearly always on it.

 

[Fischer]

EF 300/2.8L II vs. RF 100-300 @ 300:
View attachment 208917

Essentially, Canon has made a zoom lens that is just as sharp as the corresponding prime lens, only in this case that prime lens is among the sharpest lenses available.

MTF charts are a nice indication, but they are also missing info such as on distortion, chroma and flare. Just like the pre-reviews I want more. Also, MTF charts show performance at the ideal focusing distance. Finally, 300mm performance - although the most important FL for most of us - does not say anything about performance through the entire range. For the price I would never buy a lens based on the best MFT-chart a manufacturer can wring out of the lens. YMMV.

 

[john1970]

Should i buy this and get a 2x tc or wait for the possible 200-500 rumored to be on the way? When do you guys think the 200-500 will be released

The EF 500 mm f4 lens replacement was recently rumored to be announced later in 2023. At this time, the exact specifications remain a mystery. Note, there there is also a rumor of a 500 mm f4.5/4 DO lens to be released at a future date as well.

In terms of 500 mm fast glass I would speculate the following possibilities:
1) 200-500 mm f4 with a built-in converter
2) 200-500 mm f4 without a built in conver
3) 500 mm f4.5-5 DO lens

Lastly, in terms of announcement dates I would speculate on a 500 mm f4 being announced before the flagship R1 camera, which I would expect to be announced Q4 2023 to Q1 2024.

Good luck,
John

 

[neuroanatomist]

Regarding your last point. When the 100-300 at 300mm is cropped to give the same framing as the 100-500 at 500mm, the S/N advantage of f/2.8 vs f/7.1 is reduced to 1 stop - at the same shutter speed, iso 6400 on the f/2.8 will give only twice the number of photons per duck as the f/7.1 at iso 40,000.

Actually, you got the wrong message from what I was trying to say: I was pointing out that the 100-300mm at 600mm would outresolve the 100-500mm at 500mm despite the better MTFs of the 100-500. For several years, my main lens was the EF 300mm f/2.8 II, and the 2xTC was nearly always on it.

I do think we're talking at crossed purposes here. For example, my last point was not about, "When the 100-300 at 300mm is cropped," my overall point is about using the lens when 300mm is the right focal length for the desired framing and 500mm would be too tight. I suppose it comes down to what's more important for the image, e.g. resolving nose hairs or seeing the full crazy going on up top:



If I want to put more photons on the duck, I'd be using my 600/4 II (with a TC if needed).

For the same reason, I don't see myself using the 2x TC with the 100-300/2.8 very much if at all. I can see myself using the 1.4x with it, a 140-420/4 will be useful for daytime/early evening outdoor sports/events. While not quite up to the EF 200-400/4, still very good IQ (and the RF 100-300 + 1.4x ends up 746 g / 1.6 lbs lighter and 23 cm / 1" shorter than the 200-400).

 

[AlanF]

I do think we're talking at crossed purposes here. For example, my last point was not about, "When the 100-300 at 300mm is cropped," my overall point is about using the lens when 300mm is the right focal length for the desired framing and 500mm would be too tight. I suppose it comes down to what's more important for the image, e.g. resolving nose hairs or seeing the full crazy going on up top:

View attachment 208933

If I want to put more photons on the duck, I'd be using my 600/4 II (with a TC if needed).

For the same reason, I don't see myself using the 2x TC with the 100-300/2.8 very much if at all. I can see myself using the 1.4x with it, a 140-420/4 will be useful for daytime/early evening outdoor sports/events. While not quite up to the EF 200-400/4, still very good IQ (and the RF 100-300 + 1.4x ends up 746 g / 1.6 lbs lighter and 23 cm / 1" shorter than the 200-400).

View attachment 208932

Remove him!

 

[neuroanatomist]

MTF charts are a nice indication, but they are also missing info such as on distortion, chroma and flare. Just like the pre-reviews I want more. Also, MTF charts show performance at the ideal focusing distance. Finally, 300mm performance - although the most important FL for most of us - does not say anything about performance through the entire range. For the price I would never buy a lens based on the best MFT-chart a manufacturer can wring out of the lens. YMMV.

Certainly the MTF charts don't tell the whole story. We'll get a more complete picture eventually. From the MTF charts, it is apparent that performance at 300mm is better than at 100mm (though the latter remains very good).

I would hope no one is buying any lens based on the MTF charts. As I stated previously (in another thread):

For me, the prime parameter is the overall specification vs. my needs. Shooting indoor events with a 70-200/2.8, I’m wide open at the highest ISO I am comfortable with, and I need more reach. I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8, since I was reluctant to buy the EF at this point, but really the 100-300 is ideal since it allows framing a small group or an individual without changing lenses.

Other significant considerations are overall image quality (particularly sharpness and bokeh, most aberrations are relatively easy to correct effectively) and size/weight. I know the size and weight, and while there aren't yet formal tests of IQ, I honestly can't see a lens of this caliber having less that excellent IQ. Can you?

 

[Ozarker]

But is it a difference one can see? Or is it something only a bench test reveals?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But is it a difference one can see on a photo?

That all depends on what you’re taking a picture of…

 

[Ozarker]

That all depends on what you’re taking a picture of…

View attachment 208940

That's what I thought. Is it fair to compare resolution on two different lenses, one at 300mm to the other at 500mm? I wouldn't think so. Maybe I misunderstood. I sher ain't the brightest bug zapper here.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's what I thought. Is it fair to compare resolution on two different lenses, one at 300mm to the other at 500mm? I wouldn't think so. Maybe I misunderstood. I sher ain't the brightest bug zapper here.

All’s fair n love, war, and lens testing?

It's not a problem to compare different focal lengths in lens testing. For example, on the chart I posted a picture of those arrowheads pointing to aspect ratio lines are framing guides, e.g. with a Canon ILC the sensors are 3:2 so you position the camera the distance from the chart to exactly frame the proper chart area, then you're comparing apples to apples as far as image quality goes (though you're at different distances as determined by the focal length).

Incidentally, if that chart looks familiar it's because those are the same 'enhanced' ISO 12233-type that Bryan/TDP uses for his lens sharpness comparison tool, but you only see crops of it in his images (they come in four different sizes, that one is the second smallest and is useful for supertele lenses when one doesn't have a football field to set up the test).

But that's only one way to compare lenses – testing for sharpness with the same framing. Another way is more 'real world', where the scenario is that you're a certain distance from a subject (e.g. a bird blind to the usual perching spot), and want to see which lens provides the most detail. When I tested the 600/4 II with solo and stacked EF and RF extenders, I used both methods.

 

[koenkooi]

That all depends on what you’re taking a picture of…

View attachment 208940

I have a slightly smaller version for macro lenses:

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have a slightly smaller version for macro lenses:
View attachment 208941

Do you really want to play the 'mine is smaller than yours' game? Well, ok then!

I have an even smaller version (different format, though – based on NIST 1010a instead of ISO 12233) for testing resolution of microscope objectives:

 

[koenkooi]

Do you really want to play the 'mine is smaller than yours' game? Well, ok then!

I have an even smaller version (different format, though – based on NIST 1010a instead of ISO 12233) for testing resolution of microscope objectives:
View attachment 208942

That one would be useful for the MP-E!

 

[neuroanatomist]

That one would be useful for the MP-E!

Indeed, and I used it on a lightbox for just that purpose (almost a decade ago, in fact). For example, here are the EF 100/2.8L Macro at 1x and the MP-E 65mm with the EF 2xIII extender for 10x final mag, shot with the 1D X (these are downsampled to 2000 pixels wide for upload).





They were part of a full comparison series I did including using both the 1D X (18 MP FF) and EOS M (18 MP APS-C) with EF 100L Macro, EF 24-70/2.8L II at 24mm with the EF 12 extension tube, EF 70-200/2.8L II with the 500D closeup lens ± the 2x TC, and the MP-E 65 at 1/2/3/4/5 and 10x. I captured the full series with both a US quarter coin and the above-pictured microscope slide.

 

[john1970]

My local camera shop had a vendor day and I was able to handle a preproduction model of the RF 100-300 mm f2.8. It is amazingly light and the throw for the zoom is reasonably short. I was able to mount it on a R3 camera, but since it was a preproduction model I was not allowed to take any pictures. It also felt very well balanced in the hand with the R3.