Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[scyrene]

I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term.

Here we go again! Just like when marginally lower DR was going to sink them. Why not cite Nokia or Kodak - go the full cliché.

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.

You understand that low end devices will always dominate most markets, because most people don't want to commit a lot of money to what they buy? No need for the sneering "junk" and "shovel". What a strange mix of superiority and fake concern for the brand's future. Each manufacturer makes decisions, some will fail. If they followed forum warriors' advice, they'd all have gone bust years ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I may have had my Japan market numbers mixed with global numbers, or my numbers may have been out of date.

So now you're finally going to half-assed, sort of admit that you were wrong? 'May have had?' Lol. When I first disputed your false claim with actual data, I suggested that you were referring to Japan-specific numbers from the BCN Awards, but you doubled down with an asinine inference that because Canon announced they are #1 (again) in ILC sales but didn't specifically say #1 in mirrorless, they weren't. Numbers out of date? Sure, by several years.

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.

Lol, sure, sure. YAPODFC. Yet Another Prediction Of Doom For Canon. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that Canon knows the market better than you do.

Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony.

Deluded much? This is what 'slightly more market share than Sony' looks like:


Sure, I know you will next say that you really mean just mirrorless, or just full frame mirrorless, or just cameras sold in Japan, or just cameras sold at MAP Camera in Tokyo, or just cameras sold at MAP Camera in Tokyo on some specific Tuesday in 2025. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[mimbu]

Here we go again! Just like when marginally lower DR was going to sink them. Why not cite Nokia or Kodak - go the full cliché.

Interesting you bring up Kodak. I'm not sure I would equate the two just yet, but Canon dumping another FSI sensor into the R6 III was not a sign of strong R&D at the company.

You understand that low end devices will always dominate most markets, because most people don't want to commit a lot of money to what they buy? No need for the sneering "junk" and "shovel". What a strange mix of superiority and fake concern for the brand's future. Each manufacturer makes decisions, some will fail. If they followed forum warriors' advice, they'd all have gone bust years ago.

Of course I understand, which is why I pointed out that Canon effectively shoveling garbage tier cameras (and let's be clear, the R100 is absolutely garbage tier, with the R50 not being all that much better) out the door is why the sales numbers are higher. If I didn't understand that, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

And I'm not sure why you think I have "fake concern" for Canon. I don't have any concern for Canon.

 

[mimbu]

You want those lenses, buy a rival's body. Sorted!

Which is exactly what the smart people are doing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which is exactly what the smart people are doing.

Yes, smart people buy Sony and not Canon. And it turns out that you did, too...but that was just dumb luck.

 

[DSB]

Anyone hoping this theoretical lens will cost significantly (or even at all!) less than 100-300 will be sorely disappointed.

Canon already sells RF 100-500, which is a really great lens, but it's not internal zoom and the f-stop at long end is limiting.

A 300-600 seems like a logical pair to the 100-300 f2.8 and will be squarely aimed at pros, with pricing to match. My guess is a nice round $10k - middle ground between the 100-500 and $14k RF 600 f4.

 

[mimbu]

[blah blah blah ... angry man yells at cloud]

Let's keep comparisons apples to apples.

We'll see how Canon does long term. If Sony chooses to develop garbage tier cameras like the R50 and (especially) R100, I would expect the gap to close quite a bit. For now, Canon owns the market for garbage. That's something you can be proud of.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That wording seems to derive from the prices of the RF 100-500L and the RF 600/4L, which seem like reasonable bookends for a L series lens covering 400-600mm. Of course, I'd argue that the RF 100-300/2.8 + RF 2x TC at $11,300 currently (though I paid $10,100 for the combo) falls right in that range and can be bought today.

I agree with you. Unless Canon wishes to pull another one of their "non L" suprise stunts like the RF 200-800, this lens is likely to be priced around the RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS. I really can't imagine that Canon pouring all their best tech, design, manufacturing and top tier excellence into a zoom lens like this and then sell it at a loss and make it a cheapie. The RF 100-300/2.8 tells us the rpice range to expect. Anyone who thinks this is going to be in the RF 100-500/f7.1 price range are in for a big shock.
Considering how sharp their latest white zooms have been (RF70-200/2.8 VCM and RF100-300/2.8), one can only image how stunning this lens will be on a R7ii....with its very high resolving sensor. You might be able to put a 1.4x TC on this thing (on a R7ii) and still be tack sharp wide open. Considering the focal length and extra reach....that's a sweet combo. I hope Canon does go with the roumoured variable aperture f4-f5.6 version. On a 1.6x crop camera this would make an effective 500mm f5.6 - 1000mm f9, pretty versatile and an amazing reach.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Let's keep comparisons apples to apples.

Like I said...whatever you need to tell yourself. Sony sells the most mirrorless cameras. Ok, well, no but they sell almost as many as Canon. I mean, Canon only sells 26% more than Sony so that's really close, right? And Canon only sells more because most of their cameras are cheap crap. And smart people like you buy Sony. All clear.

 

[mimbu]

Yes, smart people buy Sony and not Canon.

Something we can agree on.

And it turns out that you did, too...but that was just dumb luck.

The timing was good, but it wasn't just luck. I no longer needed my huge full pro kit and wanted to downsize to a compact mirrorless setup. Access to 3rd party glass was extremely important to me as I've always enjoyed having choice. I considered Fuji but decided I wanted to stay with full frame. Since neither RF nor Z was allowing any 3rd party glass at that time, the decision was between Sony and Panasonic. At the time Panasonic was still refusing to implement PD AF so even though I liked the idea of L mount it wasn't a realistic choice. So, E mount it was. No regrets.

 

[mimbu]

Like I said...whatever you need to tell yourself. Sony sells the most mirrorless cameras. Ok, well, no but they sell almost as many as Canon. I mean, Canon only sells 26% more than Sony so that's really close, right? And Canon only sells more because most of their cameras are cheap crap. And smart people like you buy Sony. All clear.

Low end cameras will always sell the most volume. I think even to someone like you, that should be obvious. Canon is the master of shoveling garbage tier cameras like the R100 out the door. And yes, it is truly garbage tier. Embarrassingly bad camera, but Canon sells them by the truckload. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And yes, it is truly garbage tier.

Despite your characterization of Canon's entry level models, if you can't take excellent pictures with one then the only thing that is rank garbage at the bottom of the trash pile is your skill as a photographer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...smart people buy Sony and not Canon.

Something we can agree on.

Smart people can recognize sarcasm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Dragon]

Something we can agree on.


The timing was good, but it wasn't just luck. I no longer needed my huge full pro kit and wanted to downsize to a compact mirrorless setup. Access to 3rd party glass was extremely important to me as I've always enjoyed having choice. I considered Fuji but decided I wanted to stay with full frame. Since neither RF nor Z was allowing any 3rd party glass at that time, the decision was between Sony and Panasonic. At the time Panasonic was still refusing to implement PD AF so even though I liked the idea of L mount it wasn't a realistic choice. So, E mount it was. No regrets.

If you bought Sony and love it, why are you wasting your time bashing Canon? Is Sony paying you or are you just a volunteer evangelist. In either case, you are wasting your time on this forum.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I'd rather see a an L version of the 200-800 with 6.3 aperture and L build quality but $5K.

 

[DocInfoSci]

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.

I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird using an Opteka 500mm with T2 adapter on my R6 with basically some in-camera sharpening and clarity applied. I have to emphasis ultra-cheap third party trash lens, and yet this.



I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described. And it would be hilarious. I mean, recall the horror when the f/11 primes were released — the Internet would burn down on this one!

 

[DocInfoSci]

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.

I dunno. I looked at my friend's Sony the other month and it looked like junk. My R6 is totally sexier.

 

[Dragon]

I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird.

View attachment 228522

I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described.

I posted a bunch of hummer shots with various mirrors starting here and on the following pages. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1616#post-1034065 . Some of the old mirrors are pretty sharp. The catch is nailing focus, so AF would be a huge improvement.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I posted a bunch of hummer shots with various mirrors starting here and on the following pages. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1616#post-1034065 . Some of the old mirrors are pretty sharp. The catch is nailing focus, so AF would be a huge improvement.

Sweet! Fantastic work with the tools at hand! Mirrors are not my go to by any means, but creating a solid outcome based much more on years of experience than digital trickery sometimes makes the result all the sweeter. Especially when your good pal right beside you is still faffing about to get the same shot with a lens worth more than the cameras.

 

[AlanF]

I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird using an Opteka 500mm with T2 adapter on my R6 with basically some in-camera sharpening and clarity applied. I have to emphasis ultra-cheap third party trash lens, and yet this.

View attachment 228522

I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described. And it would be hilarious. I mean, recall the horror when the f/11 primes were released — the Internet would burn down on this one!

It is horrible. Blurred and poor contrast.