Is A Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM The New Big Zoom That’s Coming?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I'm currently shooting tele with EF 500mm f4 IS II and RF 100-500mm.
I would really like to see something like a RF 200-500mm f4 or RF 300-600mm f4 for sports and wildlife (when shooting from a hide) to replace my EF lens.
And if they release a light zoom lens with a bit more range like 100-600 or 200-600 f5,6 to f6,3 I would probably also trade my 100-500mm for the new toy. Though I can't say I have any real complaints about the RF 100-500mm.
I would really like to see something like a RF 200-500mm f4 or RF 300-600mm f4 for sports and wildlife (when shooting from a hide) to replace my EF lens.
And if they release a light zoom lens with a bit more range like 100-600 or 200-600 f5,6 to f6,3 I would probably also trade my 100-500mm for the new toy. Though I can't say I have any real complaints about the RF 100-500mm.
Upvote
0
Some people are happy to believe it is magical and buy the cameras. Others understand the reality and buy a crop accepting the limitations or paired with a full-frame. In terms of Canon, Fuji, and OM finance, it is magical. Arthur C Clarke had a quote (paraphrased) that if the technology is sufficiently more advanced than the person observing it can understand, it appears magical.
Is it much worse than letting our kids sit on the lap of a drunk guy with a fake beard because it makes them happy?
Upvote
0
The knock-on effects of crop factor are not immediately obvious to most of us and it’s something we learn. And the myths are exploited by manufacturers and salespeople. OM systems will sell you that for example their 300mm f/4 is equivalent to a 600mm on FF but they don’t tell you that it’s equivalent to a 600mm f/8 for depth of field etc and the smaller sensor loses the equivalent of two stops of iso.
Upvote
0
The RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 is equivalent to 100-400 f/3.15-4.5 on m4/3 and thus rivals the expensive OM 150-400 mm f/4.5. Further, the 45 mpx sensor on the R5 has a 1.4x reach advantage over 20 mpx on m4/3, which givesmore than the 1.25xTC on the OM lens.
Upvote
0
It comes pre-broken in two - it's half the length and f-number.Does that lens also spontaneously break in half?
Upvote
0
I'm talking about the 100mm macro lens from OM-systems, it can do 2:1 (yay!), but they market it as 4:1, which isn't the magnification it projects onto the sensor.
Upvote
0
The Panasonic FZ-200 really packs a massive lens into a compact space. Sort of like the Tardis.
Upvote
0
Unless my math is wrong, I noticed the smaller sensors' resolution doesn't add up quite as much as saying "micro 4/3 is twice full frame" because the highest resolution is only 25mp, so it would be equivalent to cropping a 100mp full frame image, but when you say twice 45mp it should be 180mp. It's somewhat misleading, which is not great, but if it gets enough satisfied customers, that's what the company needs.
Upvote
0
Absolutely right. People whinge about "only 24 mpx" on the R1 but that's all they get on M4/3. I'm not knocking OM systems - they make very good gear - it's the misselling.
Upvote
0
(1) Much more reliable AF, in particular for action (flying birds). I sold my Tamron 150-600 G2 for that reason, and I know from many birding trips meeting Sigma users that both zooms (C and Sports) suffer from the same problem - compared with an original Canon lens. (2) F = 5.6 is faster than f = 6.3, and the Sigma Sports in particular is known to be on the darker side of such zooms since it closes already down to f = 6.3 at about 320 mm already, at least according to the table in Bryan Carnathan's thorough review: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx. Not sure what you find when you try that. Both Tammys still allow for f/5.6 @ 400+ mm. That's why I decided to get the Tamron G2 some years ago, but its AF performance never satisfied me - optically and mechanically it is nice lens.
Upvote
0
I think such a zoom might be more interesting for wildlife... in fact, I would be very interested in testing it, as a birder. Its attraction factor would depend on its weight and price, of course. If it would weigh about 3 kg, I'd stick with my EF 600mm f/4 III prime (or update to the RF version of it).
Upvote
0
I think for those who own the RF 100-300 f/2.8 it indeed wouldn't make sense to change, since you lose the option to have a very fast zoom for the shorter to middle zoom range. Canon's TC's were already so good with the introduction the MK III generation of the EF TC's, and I guess that the RF TCs are again much improved. So there is no reason to switch to such a slower and longer zoom instead.
I think such an RF 300-600 f/5.6 zoom would only make sense in Canon's portfolio if it could compete with Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 on the same price level, which is indeed very popular. I meet frequently birders using it. But then it would be no L lens, of course, and settled in the same category like the RF 200-800 - and then this would lead to the question whether it would cannibalize the market of this hugely popular lens. Plus, such a lens would still leave room for a professional RF 200-400/500mm f/4 L zoom.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
