Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[roby17269]

The article didn't mention the possibility of a constant f4 aperture for this zoom? Is it possible or plausible? I´m definitely not in the market for this lens, but as constant f5.6 zoom I´d rather buy the 100-300mm f2.8 and get a 2x TC. I´d get the same lens plus 100-300mm @f2.8... Sure, one could adapt the 2x TC on a 300-600mm F5.6 but then it would be a 600-1200mm F11 if I'm correct. I don't know how many people would go for that...

But you wouldn't, not exactly so.
A 300-600 5.6 native (I mean a lens designed as such, not a lens which is a 100-300 2.8 with a 2x glued on) would conceivably have better IQ than a 100-300 2.8 + 2x extender. All extenders, but especially 2x ones, do have a negative impact on IQ. If they hadn't we'd be using them much more.

If you need the reach, the 300-600 would be the better choice. If you do not often need the reach, then the 100-300 would be the better (and more versatile) choice. The 2 lenses have different use cases. So I'd expect the price of the 300-600 5.6 to be in the same ballpark as the 100-300, but actually a bit more expensive.

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

 

[Pixel]

Do we know for sure it's going to be an "L" lens i.e. the 200-800?
If new super primes are coming this summer as well (400 f2.8, 600 f4) I seriously doubt they'll make this lens a variable aperture and just make straight 5.6 to keep it far away from the new primes.

 

[EricN]

But you wouldn't, not exactly so.
A 300-600 5.6 native (I mean a lens designed as such, not a lens which is a 100-300 2.8 with a 2x glued on) would conceivably have better IQ than a 100-300 2.8 + 2x extender. All extenders, but especially 2x ones, do have a negative impact on IQ. If they hadn't we'd be using them much more.

If you need the reach, the 300-600 would be the better choice. If you do not often need the reach, then the 100-300 would be the better (and more versatile) choice. The 2 lenses have different use cases. So I'd expect the price of the 300-600 5.6 to be in the same ballpark as the 100-300, but actually a bit more expensive.

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

 

[roby17269]

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

 

[EricN]

I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

stm is (lenshood and case sold separately)

 

[roby17269]

stm is (lenshood and case sold separately)

Shocked, sir, I am shocked! I'll have you know I only deign L glass of consideration

 

[EricN]

Shocked, sir, I am shocked! I'll have you know I only deign L glass of consideration

just for that, Canon Japan will make it 45-750mm!

 

[GreenViper]

Looking at this from a Canon Marketing point of view - In the EF days there was the $2K EF 100-400 and then the >$9k SuperTeles into which they dropped the EF 400 F4 DO for $6.5k which was near SuperTele performance for a bit less. This was quite widely used by birders who could afford it but I am guessing was a good but not great seller. It seems sensible that they might drop an RF 300-600 into this slot at $7-8k between RF100-500 @ $2.5k and the superteles at >$10.5k, perhaps thinking that this would have a wider appeal than an RF 400 F4 DO.
So the question becomes what Canon might trim vs 100-300 to reduce the cost by $2-3k. As neuro pointed out that this is 2x rather than 3x which might help. It has been hinted that there is something different about this lens. Perhaps the image needs a small stretch at 600 F5.6 which would reduce the size/weight/cost of elements? This would not matter to those who are pairing this with the R7II which might be expected to the target market. Full-frame users perhaps deemed more likely to use 100-300+2xExt or other superteles. Totally conjecture on my part, but it seems reasonably logical

 

[Exploreshootshare]

But you wouldn't, not exactly so.
A 300-600 5.6 native (I mean a lens designed as such, not a lens which is a 100-300 2.8 with a 2x glued on) would conceivably have better IQ than a 100-300 2.8 + 2x extender. All extenders, but especially 2x ones, do have a negative impact on IQ. If they hadn't we'd be using them much more.

The IQ would definitely take a hit, but my goodness, think about the flexibility. It was just a thought of mine, I´m not really in the kind of mindset of counting pros and cons for these two lenses. I'm just curious if F4 is an option and if not, why so. Are the weight savings that immense?

If you need the reach, the 300-600 would be the better choice. If you do not often need the reach, then the 100-300 would be the better (and more versatile) choice. The 2 lenses have different use cases. So I'd expect the price of the 300-600 5.6 to be in the same ballpark as the 100-300, but actually a bit more expensive.

Whew, even more expansive as the 100.-300mm? I´ll gladly stay with my most costly lens... the RF 100-500mm. It also my favorite lens

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

I´d start saving for that baby!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

At this point, probably the only way we'll ever see 35mm with f1.2

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I would really like is for Canon to introduce an f4 constant aperture version of the 100-300mm. The f2.8 version has been out long enough now for them to consider it.

Get the RF 70-200/2.8 Z and put the RF 1.4x TC behind it. You’ll have a 98-280mm f/4 with excellent IQ, and you can get it right now, no waiting and hoping required.

 

[H2Oplanet]

The article didn't mention the possibility of a constant f4 aperture for this zoom? Is it possible or plausible? I´m definitely not in the market for this lens, but as constant f5.6 zoom I´d rather buy the 100-300mm f2.8 and get a 2x TC. I´d get the same lens plus 100-300mm @f2.8... Sure, one could adapt the 2x TC on a 300-600mm F5.6 but then it would be a 600-1200mm F11 if I'm correct. I don't know how many people would go for that...

I am still hoping against hope that it is a constant f4 ... if not, I will probably wait for gen 2 of RF 600 f4 and carry on with my 100-300 f2.8 w/ TC's... is Canon simply trying to avoid cannibalizing the RF 600 f4 or are there myriad other factors in going to f5.6?

 

[AJ]

Now, a 100-600 2.8-5.6, that would be an awesome lens

Sigma's 60-600/4.5-6.3 is not too far removed from that.

 

[SonicStudios]

Ummmm interesting Canon U.S.A. and B&H photos are now showing RF 400 2.8 out of stock, now I am wondering if the big whites are about to be released

 

[riker]

Let's just hope it's going to be an L lens with great IQ and we don't end up with something that is longer and faster than the 100-500 but actually has worse IQ.

 

[H2Oplanet]

Ummmm interesting Canon U.S.A. and B&H photos are now showing RF 400 2.8 out of stock, now I am wondering if the big whites are about to be released

Yep, RF 600 4.0 is too and has been for several days now....

 

[H2Oplanet]

Yep, RF 600 4.0 is too and has been for several days now....

Scratch that -- Canon USA is showing RF 600 4.0 availability now buy B&H is not...

 

[Dragon]

Apologies for another one of these posts. It did pull something out.

I don't think it's going to be a "normal" design. Who knows what's taking so long, but this isn't the first time for a lens. The 100-400 II, 200-400 took forever. Even the RF 70-200 internal zoom took a year to show up from first mention.

Maybe they found a weak point in testing and have to fix it, maybe manufacturing has an issue, maybe a supply chain thing, maybe the accountants just don't want it out yet. Bleh.

Let's see, a catadioptric zoom with AF and IS and maybe a little DO thrown in for good measure. That would be small and light and definitely not "normal". It would also likely be able to make a whole different price point. I would nab an AF mirror lens in a hot second.

 

[Ph0t0]

I think it would be a great addition to the line, especially if it had a price point closer to $2.5k.

A 300-600mm f5.6 lens with a price point closer to 2.5k would indeed be something. Especially since that is the price point of 100-500mm f4.5-7.1
I'm thinking something like 8k or more ...

 

[Del Paso]

let's go all out and say 35-800mm f/1.2-5.6

Based on a HarryFilm original design.