• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

Sort by date Sort by votes
#4
If it's based on the $10,000 RF 100-300 f2.8 why would it be well below $10,000 ? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I'd much rather have a version ii of the 100-300mm f2.8 with builtin 1.4x and 2x extenders and I would expect to pay accordingly
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#5
I don't want a TC on a zoom. They add weight and they lower IQ particularly on a zoom. So, you end up with a telephoto lens that is not optimised for the longest range where the TC kicks in. I want a telephoto zoom that is optimised for the longest focal lengths and is the lightest possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#6
An f4 300-600 would also have faced criticism by the internet experts for being too heavy, too front-heavy, too expensive, lacking an extender etc...
Yet, knowing Canon, below $10000 could stand for $9999...:sneaky:
 
Upvote 0
#7
honestly i think after this canon should just go big with either being lightweight or having the absolute best lens and not caring about size and weight. Some ridiculous designs im hoping for (but its prob never gonna come): 70-200 f1.2-f.18, 300 f2 or in the other direction like nikon is doing maybe a fixed 200 f2.8 (like the ef one) a 300 f4? 400 f5.6? and longer. sorry for just spamming my wishlist
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
I’m not sure a 300-600 5.6 for nearly 7k would be very successful when both Sony and Nikon have access to a 200-600 (or 180-600) 5.6-6.3 for around 2k. At a certain point it’s just cheaper to buy the third party body and lens than it is to stick with Canon’s ecosystem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#10
P-visie said:
The article states “It’s an RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2x teleconverter at the long end”. I hope this is not literally what Canon will do (like they did with the RF 800mm f5.6 and RF1200mm f8 lenses). The RF100-300mm f2.8 and the 2X extender are, as @AlanF and Duade Paton have shown, not a very good combination.
Click to expand...
If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
john1970 said:
If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.
Click to expand...
If you fill the frame, then the differences in sharpness you see in the high crops of mine will disappear. It's when you are working at the limits or need pixel peeping resolution, these differences may be important. What it does show is that the cheaper end even very cheap lenses do perform very well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
john1970 said:
If Canon attached a 2x TC to the 100-300 mm f2.8 it would be a 200-600 mm f5.6 not 300-600 mm f5.6. In my hands the RF100-300 mm f.28 with either the 1.4x or 2x TC is a very good combo.
Click to expand...

I also have had a good experience with the RF 100-300mm F2.8 and the 1.4x and 2x TCs. With the 2xTC I've been happy with the results on the R6II/R5(II)/R3/R1. Not so much with the R7. The 1.4xTC will do ok with the R7, but never liked the result with the 2xTC. But then again, I've always had a bit more trouble with the R7 in that it is really hard to take advantage of the extra pixel density (shooting conditions have to be great).

Owning the RF 100-300mm F2.8, I can't see myself buying an RF 300-600mm F5.6. I would buy the Sigma 300-600mm F4 in a heartbeat if it were available for Canon mount, despite the weight. I will admit my EF 600mm F4 II, which weighs as much as the Sigma, is getting a bit heavy. But the extra flexibility of 300-600mm F4 at $6K would get me to jump on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#13
I have been wanting to see something like an RF 500mm f/5.6 L for a long time now. Basically a slightly longer and updated EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L. that lens is still tack sharp on an R1 or R5. It was the “budget” L lens for the “amateur” nature photographer or weekend warrior. It’s pretty much always with me when I travel. It’s only slightly longer, but skinnier than my 70-200 f/2.8. An RF prime version of either a 400 or 500 mm f/5.6 lens would definitely be able to come in cheaper than a lot of these zoom offerings, and would be pretty light too. The zooms are cool, but they need some sort of middle L series telephoto prime. I have the EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM as well, and I like it, the stabilization was useful on the older bodies from time to time, but the 400 f/5.6 is still way sharper. The 300 is also kind of loud focusing. At least the adaptors work flawlessly on these R bodies, so I don’t see myself selling any of my FL, FD or EF Canon glass, but I would definitely be interested in a lightweight, RF telephoto prime in the f/5.6 area.

Though, if this is small enough, and the price isn’t astronomical… We shall see.

I still use my EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L a lot with my R1 and 1DX MK III. Probably that and my EF 180mm f/3.5 Macro, RF 100mm Macro, and the EF 600mm F/4 L IS USM III are my main 4 lenses I cycle through (leaving so many others sadly left on my desk).
 

Attachments

  • _Z8A6106.jpeg
    _Z8A6106.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 17
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#14
I check out this site every day hoping that one day the rumors will stop and Canon will finally launch a lens that fills this focal range that is faster than the 100-500. Honestly, I'm tired of the rumors, it's time for Canon to start announcing some new glass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#18
H2Oplanet said:
200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4 (w IQ of the 100-300mm L f2.8) please --- don't care how heavy or how much... enough with the pedestrian lenses please... I don't even consider the 100-500mm worthy of L designation based on image quality
Click to expand...
Complete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.

AlanF

Thread 'Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm'

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 +...
  • Like
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Upvote 0
#19
AlanF said:
Complete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.

AlanF

Thread 'Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm'

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 +...
  • Like
Click to expand...
Garbage is even far too polite for such a c..p! :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#20
H2Oplanet said:
200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4 (w IQ of the 100-300mm L f2.8) please --- don't care how heavy or how much... enough with the pedestrian lenses please... I don't even consider the 100-500mm worthy of L designation based on image quality
Click to expand...
And if you don't believe my shots, here is the-digital-pictures comparison of the RF 100-500mm vs RF 600mm on the R5.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

RF600vs100-500mm.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again
Replies
330
Views
24K
john1970
J
Canon Rumors
New Big White Lenses from Canon are Coming in Late Q4 and Possibly a 500mm Prime
Replies
60
Views
9K
Celts88
Celts88
Canon Rumors
A Little Bit of Info on the Canon RF 20-50mm f/4L IS USM PZ
Replies
61
Views
5K
koenkooi
koenkooi
Canon Rumors
Canon to Merge Two Lenses Into an RF 24-70mm f/2L IS?
Replies
149
Views
14K
candyman
candyman
Canon Rumors
A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Replies
174
Views
35K
homebodyMacro2
H
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu