Canon RF 24-300mm f/2.8-5.6L IS USM optical formula patent published

shocked its not a 7.1 aperture.... I really hope Canon lives up to the hype it's built around its ability to build new and unique lenses. We went into the RF mount expecting a lot of innovation, but to the same degree that we've been impressed, we've also been pretty disappointed. I still cant forgive that 100-500 L lens with that eye watering price point. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I had the EF 28-300L for a while, the lens was good but not great, but also very convenient. IQ was on par with the EF 24-105L through the range but not as good as the EF 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300L, so I ended up selling the 28-300 (I had bought it used, kept it for two years, and sold it for more than I paid).

If the IQ is similar to the RF 24-105/4 that is my primary lens, I’d consider buying an RF 24-300L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I still have the EF 28-300L which replaced my much-loved EF 35-350L. I tend to use the 100-400L rather more these days, but always miss the wide end. When the R1 arrives, I will move over to RF, with the 100-500L planned as my first RF lens, but I would be hugely drawn to a RF 24-300mm f/2.8-5.6L - loving the extra light at the wide end!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I’m ALL in on this lens! For 10 days straight every year the 24-240 becomes my main lens for the biggest/longest race I shoot. There’s simply no replacement for a mega zoom during that event. As surprisingly good as the 24-240 has been, it’s still a major step backwards from L series performance - especially the handling of chromatic aberration and distortion.

So if this comes out, I will be locked and loaded for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
I would also have interest in this one as an all rounder, but given the price tag for those "I Want" lenses, once again another cure for G.A.S. is coming.

BTW, I do a massive amount of auto racing as well, but only sports cars, I.E. IMSA, Le Mans stuff. When I did Watkins Glen 6 hours this year, I shot about 3500 with my EF 400 f/2.8. The 2.8 allowed me to shoot through catch fencing and not see it in the photos. I probably did 200-300 with my 100-400L mark II, and maybe 4000 or 5000 with the 70-200L Mark II. I did not have an exact purpose for that lens until I got it and found it's sweet spot. I shot nearly 10,000 track & field meet photos with it too. I used the 24-70 maybe 20 times. So far the 70-200 wins for racing.

One other observation I could not find where to add, so it goes here. I might have seen 2-5 people with the R3. I saw a huge number of regular Joes like me with 1DX models. Probably hundreds to maybe even 1000 with the R6's I have, but mostly the R5. (Plus a mountain of 90D, 80D, 5D etc. I saw one guy everywhere I went with an 80D, attached to a 500mm with an extender on it. I asked him, are you shooting their nose hairs? If not Sony or nikon, pro or consumer stuff, the R5 ruled, I asked a few pros with the R5 and the 300mm f/2,8 why and heard the exact same answer, "crop". I said, 24 megapixels is good if you have the glass to get it right on the first shot. I do NOT have the time to go through the 12500 shots over 4 days at a race, or 5000 at a track meet, to sit and edit/crop them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I wonder what the max. magnification is on the 24-300 f2.8-5.6L? I hope it's a relatively high value, but we will see.
This would be a definite purchase for me as my best "single lens & camera" option.
I do wonder what the size & weight of it will be, and I hope it's not too heavy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I wonder what the max. magnification is on the 24-300 f2.8-5.6? I hope it's a relatively high value, but we will see.
This would be a definite purchase for me as my best "single lens & camera" option.
I do wonder what the size & weight of it will be, and I hope it's not too heavy.
technically it will be lighter overall as you wont need to be carrying multiple lenses!!!! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
it’s still a major step backwards from L series performance - especially the handling of chromatic aberration and distortion.
L lenses aren't always very high performance. The original EF 14/2.8, 50/1.0 and 35-350 weren't sharp. Or even the first generation of trinity zooms (20-35/2.8, 28-80/2.8-4 if I remember correctly, and 80-200/2.8). The old book "Canon Lens Work" I believe defined "L" lenses as simply being one with a ground aspherical, fluorite, or UD element. That rule has since disappeared with 3-4 non-L lenses in the 2010 (and maybe earlier) having such elements but not being L.
 
Upvote 0
I had the EF 28-300L for a while, the lens was good but not great, but also very convenient. IQ was on par with the EF 24-105L through the range but not as good as the EF 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300L, so I ended up selling the 28-300 (I had bought it used, kept it for two years, and sold it for more than I paid).

If the IQ is similar to the RF 24-105/4 that is my primary lens, I’d consider buying an RF 24-300L.
Hmmm, I shot with the EF 24-105/4 MkI and never was quite satisfied with the IQ. I'd use it a while then switch back to the 24-70 or the various 50's. I had eye problems throughout the MkII era so never tried it.

The RF 24-105/4 was a huge improvement and I was really happy with it for 2-3 years. I have to say it's actually substantially worse than the 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 100-500, and possibly just better than the 16/2.8. I'm actually shooting the 50/1.8 as my main lens again. But, I think I am being pickier than I need to be. The 24-105/4 photos were always good enough for my needs, just not quite as nice as the other RF's.

I actually assume the 24-300L will be a substantial step down from the 24-105, as quality usually suffers when you make the spec crazier and crazier.

It's a lens that's utterly irreplaceable for some types of shooting, and IQ isn't even the most important thing as so many lenses are more than acceptable.

But I can't get excited about the level of sharpness I'm kind of expecting.

In fact one of my big hopes is for an improved 24-105/4. I'd pre-order one the microsecond I first saw it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I wonder what the max. magnification is on the 24-300 f2.8-5.6L? I hope it's a relatively high value, but we will see.
This would be a definite purchase for me as my best "single lens & camera" option.
I do wonder what the size & weight of it will be, and I hope it's not too heavy.
If you want higher mag, you can try a 250D or 500D or other closeup lens. It would make the lens EXTREMELY macro at 300mm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0