Strange (in a very positive way) that this particular lens doesn't seem to suffer fron extender addition. This has been convincingly proven by AlanF, even with a 2X extender.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
People complain the 100-300mm + 2X is not sharp at f/5.6. If the new lens was razor sharp all the way to 600mm wide open, that might please all the birders out there. What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6? I have noticed that it is indeed sharper with 1.4x when fully open, but you usually have to pixel-peep to notice. However, this minor sharpness issue plus the possibility to go even further with extenders is very tempting to me.
Upvote
0
EF 500mm f/4 ii is still on the "serviced" list. However, they haven't made lens hoods for that lens for ages, and it is the easiest part to break. Internet is full of people wanting to buy one. It is very disappointing. Well, some might say it is not part of the lens, but a separate product. Yeah well... I wonder how Sigma handles issues like this.
Upvote
0
On a 600 mm f5.6 I would use a 1.4x TC for 840 mm f8 lens. With only the 1.4x TC the degradation of image quality should be minimal.
Upvote
0
And I think that Canon could sell the 100-300 at a profit for less than $5000, maybe less than $3500, but they have decided to go for the high profits. I paid less than $2000 for a Sigma EF 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport and it is just superb.
Upvote
0
I'm not thrilled with the 100-300/2.8 + 2x, but I think my copy of the RF 2x is the main issue. Since I have the EF 600/4 II (that I use mainly with the EF 1.4xIII), I don't typically need to use the 2x on the 100-300/2.8 (but I often use the 1.4x with that lens).
Quite some time back (but after my return window, lazy me), I tested my RF 2x and found that the EF 2xIII was noticeably better, and that the RF 2x yielded IQ about the same as the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x stacked...the RF 2x should be better than that. I don't use it much, to be honest. However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.
Upvote
0
Yeah, people think that a TC should have minimal copy variation because they are relatively simple and have no moving parts. But, I've tested a few in the past and found variation. My RF 2xTC seems good. I was worried about my RF 1.4x but it's the same as two others I've tried.
Upvote
0
Thank you for the reply. Please let us know here if you do and what the results are.
Upvote
0
The part that breaks is the screw that attaches the lens hood to the lens. And the structure around it. That area gets a lot of pressure if the lens hood gets hit while shooting or in the bag. And it is almost impossible to glue or patch, because there is also pressure that comes from the screw itself when tightened against the lens. Small cracks keep getting bigger and so on. Difficult to explain, especially in English. I guess it is the weak point of all the big whites.
Upvote
0
Which is why Canon has blocked all 3rd party native glass from FF RF, and probably will do so in perpetuity.
Sigma's newer mirrorless native 150-600 is better optically than the EF glass while being less expensive, smaller, and lighter. Tamron's 150-500 is also excellent, and has extremely fast magnetic linear drive focus motors. (Sigma's 150-600 predates their magnetic linear AF, I expect their v2 will have that update.)
With no native RF competition, Canon can charge whatever they want for the 100-300/2.8 and 300-600/5.6. And they do/will.
Edit: For reference and comparison, the Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports is US$875+tax here in Japan at the current exchange rate of USDJPY=159.
The Tamron 150-500/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD is US$737+tax:
These are the types of options that RF users miss out on because Canon does not believe in competition.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tried the sigma 300-600 f4 with Z9. Too heavy since we move around a lot on moped during motorsport assignment. Already carry 2 pro bodies, 14-24, 70-200. If stay on a spot like shooting football/soccer, cricket, rugby etc should be ok.
Hopefully the RF300-600 will complement our RF70-200mm Z nicely on the R1
Hopefully the RF300-600 will complement our RF70-200mm Z nicely on the R1
Upvote
0
Canon believes in profit, and they already outcompete all the other camera brands. Canon sells more cameras than any other manufacturer, and they sell more mirrorless cameras than any other manufacturer (or are you going to lie again and claim that Sony does, with no data to back up your lies?).
Yes, it would be nice for Canon users to have 3rd party lens options for FF MILCs (and to have had them for longer for APS-C MILCs). But Canon's domination of the market means they get to set the terms, and of course they're going to do so in a way that is best for their bottom line. That's the reality of business.
Upvote
0
I may have had my Japan market numbers mixed with global numbers, or my numbers may have been out of date. Regardless, I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term. When you hate your customers and try to bleed them for all they've got, most of them eventually figure it out.
Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony. Based on the limited data we get such as Amazon or B&H rankings, this is due to the very high volume of low end junk cameras like the R50 and R100 that Canon effectively shovels out the door. Sony does not compete well at those price points right now. I'm not sure if Sony will start to produce junk tier cameras like that as well, but I suppose if there is profit there, they might.
Upvote
0
Yes, I can see the screw being an issue. They did sell them separately but they were outrageously expensive - £500-600 I think?
Upvote
0
More precisely, they engage in external competition with other brands. You want those lenses, buy a rival's body. Sorted!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
