It’s here, Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM officially announced

[entoman]

I could afford this lens if I could justify it. But, as much as I'd love to, I really kind of can't. Yes, it's considerably faster than my RF 100-500. Yes, it is considerably longer reach than my RF 70-200 2.8. Yes, it is more versatile than my EF 300 2.8. But is costs almost as much as all three of those put together (3 good copies on the used market), is almost as long as the 300 2.8 plus the 70-200 2.8 end-to-end (!), and, overall, is about as subtle as a train wreck. (And, I don't need to compensate for a micro-phallus).

A zoom is for walking around, and unexpected shots. (If you know what you're going to shoot, you take a prime). For walking around, this lens would make an elephant jealous. I just don't see myself walking around with it. In the forest and beach it'll get abused/damaged, and, in the city, I'll probably get mugged for it. (Although it might serve as a decent self-defense weapon). The market for this lens is small and totally niche- (1) indoor fast action, and, (2) people with a crap ton of Bitcoin. In today's world, that probably means it'll be a screaming success. But... I'll wait for a good used copy, for sure.

ONE use for a zoom is "walking around, and unexpected shots". The RF100-300 clearly isn't intended as a casual walkabout lens, it's primarily designed for people who photograph sports and wildlife in low light conditions, and for whom a fixed focal length would be too restrictive.

Wildlife and sports photographers typically work from a fixed position (e.g. a goal mouth, or bird hide), and will be using this lens with some kind of support - a monopod, tripod & gimbal, or a beanbag. The size and weight in these circumstances isn't particularly relevant.

If you are working from a fixed position, with e.g. a 300/2.8 or 500/4, what happens when a subject suddenly appears at a close distance? One option would be to have two cameras, one equipped with a short focal length lens, and swap over to that. But action, by definition, usually happens rapidly and unpredictably. It's considerably faster to zoom back, than to swap cameras.

In the hands of a poor photographer, a zoom is a lazy way to get close to a subject without walking. In the hands of a good photographer a zoom is a lens that considerably increases versatility and results in more images from each shoot.

Of course, it's fairly obvious that all of us would prefer lenses to be smaller, lighter and less expensive. So yes, this is a niche lens. But don't begrudge those professionals who need it, or those affluent hobbyists who can afford it, and are not bothered by the size or weight.

 

[AlanF]

In the hands of a poor photographer, a zoom is a lazy way to get close to a subject without walking. In the hands of a good photographer a zoom is a lens that considerably increases versatility and results in more images from each shoot.

I don't understand the logic or the distinction between good and poor photographers in the use of zooms versus primes. A prime is just as "lazy way to get close to a subject without walking" as a zoom of the same maximum focal length. A zoom also considerably increases versatility of a poor photographer as well as a good one. 99% of my use of a long telephoto zoom is at maximum focal length, with occasional zooming out. But, far more importantly for me, zooms have much shorter minimum focal distances and so enable me to get very close for near macro work.

 

[neuroanatomist]

99% of my use of a long telephoto zoom is at maximum focal length, with occasional zooming out. But, far more importantly for me, zooms have much shorter minimum focal distances and so enable me to get very close for near macro work.

With my 100-500, 36% of the shots in my library are at 500mm, 6% are at 100mm, and the rest are pretty well distributed.

 

[AlanF]

With my 100-500, 36% of the shots in my library are at 500mm, 6% are at 100mm, and the rest are pretty well distributed.

View attachment 208799

My use is actually even more extreme, about 20-30% of my shots are at 1000mm with a 2xTC on the RF 100-500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My use is actually even more extreme, about 20-30% of my shots are at 1000mm with a 2xTC on the RF 100-500.

That's 1% of mine. Mostly because in those situations I'm using the 600/4 II, typically with the 1.4x TC but sometimes with the 2x.

 

[AlanF]

That's 1% of mine. Mostly because in those situations I'm using the 600/4 II, typically with the 1.4x TC but sometimes with the 2x.

I was pretty happy using the 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II and Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF primes for birding walk arounds. The 100-500mm made those redundant for me as it is nearly as sharp and enables the insect shots as well.

 

[entoman]

I don't understand the logic or the distinction between good and poor photographers in the use of zooms versus primes. A prime is just as "lazy way to get close to a subject without walking" as a zoom of the same maximum focal length. A zoom also considerably increases versatility of a poor photographer as well as a good one. 99% of my use of a long telephoto zoom is at maximum focal length, with occasional zooming out. But, far more importantly for me, zooms have much shorter minimum focal distances and so enable me to get very close for near macro work.

I'm not judging others, but I find that when I'm using primes, I make more effort, because out of necessity I'm walking around more, exploring more angles, seeing more options, rather than standing in one spot zooming in and out. That extra effort and the discipline of being restricted to a single focal length, tends to result in more thought going into each image, and hence IMO better photographs. When I use a zoom, I tend to be lazier, less likely to walk around, because I can zoom in and out for different compositions. I know from talking to other people that many feel the same way.

Of course, there are many occasions where a zoom is *essential*, as in my example of a photographer at a goal mouth, or a wildlife photographer on safari, who needs to cover distant shots and closer shots without having to swap lenses, during which vital action could be missed. I've got 3 zooms myself, for precisely that reason. Most of the time however, I'm using them at one extreme or other of the focal length range, so I tend to use my 100-400 as either a 100 or a 400, and rarely anywhere in-between. It was the same with my EF16-35, I nearly always used it at one end or the other.

As for close-ups/near-macro, until recently I've found the performance of zooms way too inadequate - my EF24-105, EF100-400 and EF70-300 were all noticeably soft at or near MFD, compared to the EF100 macro. The RF lenses seem much better in this regard, e.g at 1:3 or thereabouts I see little if any difference in sharpness between the RF100-400 and the RF100 macro, and I find defocused backgrounds more pleasing with the zoom.

 

[AlanF]

I'm not judging others, but I find that when I'm using primes, I make more effort, because out of necessity I'm walking around more, exploring more angles, seeing more options, rather than standing in one spot zooming in and out. That extra effort and the discipline of being restricted to a single focal length, tends to result in more thought going into each image, and hence IMO better photographs. When I use a zoom, I tend to be lazier, less likely to walk around, because I can zoom in and out for different compositions. I know from talking to other people that many feel the same way.

Of course, there are many occasions where a zoom is *essential*, as in my example of a photographer at a goal mouth, or a wildlife photographer on safari, who needs to cover distant shots and closer shots without having to swap lenses, during which vital action could be missed. I've got 3 zooms myself, for precisely that reason. Most of the time however, I'm using them at one extreme or other of the focal length range, so I tend to use my 100-400 as either a 100 or a 400, and rarely anywhere in-between. It was the same with my EF16-35, I nearly always used it at one end or the other.

As for close-ups/near-macro, until recently I've found the performance of zooms way too inadequate - my EF24-105, EF100-400 and EF70-300 were all noticeably soft at or near MFD, compared to the EF100 macro. The RF lenses seem much better in this regard, e.g at 1:3 or thereabouts I see little if any difference in sharpness between the RF100-400 and the RF100 macro, and I find defocused backgrounds more pleasing with the zoom.

If you use the adjective "poor" to describe some photographers and others as "good" based on your own practice, then it does give the impression you are judging others. @SwissFrank posted a thread on how the RF 100-500mm at 100mm is as good as a prime https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...e-rf100-500-4-5-7-1-and-the-rf24-105-4.42155/ and opticallimits mtfs at 100mm show that.

 

[entoman]

If you use the adjective "poor" to describe some photographers and others as "good" based on your own practice, then it does give the impression you are judging others.

Indeed so, but there are good photographers and there are poor photographers, and the differing practices between them are worth exploring.

@SwissFrank posted a thread on how the RF 100-500mm at 100mm is as good as a prime https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...e-rf100-500-4-5-7-1-and-the-rf24-105-4.42155/ and opticallimits mtfs at 100mm show that.

As I stated, "The RF lenses seem much better in this regard, e.g at 1:3 or thereabouts I see little if any difference in sharpness between the RF100-400 and the RF100 macro". I would expect the RF100-500 to be better than the RF100-400 at *any* distance, but I wouldn't personally use the RF100-500 for near macro, as it is heavier, and in my hands far less maneuverable than either the RF100-400 or the RF100 macro. I reserve the RF100-500 for birds and mammals, the RF100-400 is used mainly for butterflies, and the RF100 mainly for smaller insects (and landscapes).

 

[AlanF]

Indeed so, but there are good photographers and there are poor photographers, and the differing practices between them are worth exploring.


As I stated, "The RF lenses seem much better in this regard, e.g at 1:3 or thereabouts I see little if any difference in sharpness between the RF100-400 and the RF100 macro". I would expect the RF100-500 to be better than the RF100-400 at *any* distance, but I wouldn't personally use the RF100-500 for near macro, as it is heavier, and in my hands far less maneuverable than either the RF100-400 or the RF100 macro. I reserve the RF100-500 for birds and mammals, the RF100-400 is used mainly for butterflies, and the RF100 mainly for smaller insects (and landscapes).

I reviewed in Dec 2020 the RF 100-500mm at different distances and compared with the EF 100-400 II, 400mm DO II etc using a £10 as target, posted here. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/

 

[Czardoom]

An electronic distance limiter which allowed the user to choose minimum and maximum distances for the AF the range over would be nice, and could be toggled on/off via a customised button. I would have preferred if Canon had fitted both of the above lenses with a custom button, even if it added a couple of hundred to the price....

Some Olympus cameras (now OM System) have had this in-camera feature for years now. My OM-1 allows me to set 4 different AF limitations, putting in any number of feet for maximum and minimum. I can toggle on and off the one I choose with a custom button on the camera. I have 2 custom modes that are set with AF limiter button customization - one set for more distant shots (50 ft to infinity), the other set for close up shots (min to 30 ft.) . The minimization of the Af focus range is a game changer for those moments when you lose your subject in the viewfinder. AF is regained much quicker. It is the sole reason I use my OM-1 far more than my R7 for BIF especially. Would love to see Canon implement something similar.

 

[Czardoom]

One could also use the R7 and RF 100-400mm for a wildlife setup on an even more modest budget. Having options is good!

B-But haven't you heard? Canon lenses are way too expensive and with the lack of 3rd party lenses, consumers on a budget have no choice but to switch to Sony!

 

[Czardoom]

.....

One relevant question for @neuroanatomist, and for @keithcooper, if you're reading this: Would you like AI tech to be able to correct converging verticals for you in-camera, or would you prefer to always use a tilt-shift lens for that function?

It's a function I never use, so maybe I have it wrong, but I think Olympus has had this in-camera feature for years as well (I believe they call it Keystone correction). Sorry for sounding like an Olympus (now OM System) fanboy, but for years I have been wishing my Canons had features that my Olympus cameras had many years before. Glad they have "caught up" with in-camera focus stacking and pre-burst mode, but there are still features in my OM-1 that I would love to see Canon implement.

 

[neuroanatomist]

B-But haven't you heard? Canon lenses are way too expensive and with the lack of 3rd party lenses, consumers on a budget have no choice but to switch to Sony!

Yes, I've heard that.

 

[AlanF]

It is the sole reason I use my OM-1 far more than my R7 for BIF especially. Would love to see Canon implement something similar.

I've posted in the BIF thread in the last week or two a lot of shots using the R7 with the RF 100-400mm, and RF 100-500mm. And even yesterday the RF 800 f/11, which was agony to locate the bird and AF. But, the AF of the R5 is in a different for BIF - it locates and locks on so fast whatever the distance. I think it could be that the R5 has a much faster responding sensor.

 

[AlanF]

BIF

May I encourage you to post some shots in the BIF thread. There are clearly many good BIF people here and would be nice to have more contributions.

 

[entoman]

Some Olympus cameras (now OM System) have had this in-camera feature for years now. My OM-1 allows me to set 4 different AF limitations, putting in any number of feet for maximum and minimum. I can toggle on and off the one I choose with a custom button on the camera. I have 2 custom modes that are set with AF limiter button customization - one set for more distant shots (50 ft to infinity), the other set for close up shots (min to 30 ft.) . The minimization of the Af focus range is a game changer for those moments when you lose your subject in the viewfinder. AF is regained much quicker. It is the sole reason I use my OM-1 far more than my R7 for BIF especially. Would love to see Canon implement something similar.

I didn't realise that. I have a lot of admiration for Olympus - they provide many features that other brands don't, and there have been times when I've seriously considered switching from Canon to Olympus. As I've said here several times before, M43 has many things in its favour, and OM Systems has huge potential. Once they are able to use AI to get hi-res shots from the low MP count sensors, most if not all of the advantages of larger sensors will be gone. It's the only brand that I'd seriously consider as an alternative to Canon.

 

[AlanF]

@Czardoom @entoman this site spends a lot of time testing cameras for BIF. https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/ I hadn't looked at it for quite a while and stimulated by the current discussion have just visited it and found the updates interesting. The top is the Sony A1 with the Z9 and R3 close behind. The R6 II, R6 and R5 all score excellently, above the OM-1, and the R7 is way down.

He used the only the RF 100-500 with the R3 and R6 II, but also the RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 with the R5 , which wouldn't have helped its scores!

 

[Del Paso]

I didn't realise that. I have a lot of admiration for Olympus - they provide many features that other brands don't, and there have been times when I've seriously considered switching from Canon to Olympus. As I've said here several times before, M43 has many things in its favour, and OM Systems has huge potential. Once they are able to use AI to get hi-res shots from the low MP count sensors, most if not all of the advantages of larger sensors will be gone. It's the only brand that I'd seriously consider as an alternative to Canon.

Me too!
Interesting what an almost "dead" brand achieved in the last few years. The OM1 is a fantastic little camera, the lenses are extremely desirable. Most important, the technology, like handheld Hi-MP pictures, IP certified wheather-proofing etc... would suit some FF cameras well. I still seriously consider getting one...and a few lenses.

 

[entoman]

@Czardoom @entoman this site spends a lot of time testing cameras for BIF. https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/ I hadn't looked at it for quite a while and stimulated by the current discussion have just visited it and found the updates interesting. The top is the Sony A1 with the Z9 and R3 close behind. The R6 II, R6 and R5 all score excellently, above the OM-1, and the R7 is way down.

He used the only the RF 100-500 with the R3 and R6 II, but also the RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 with the R5 , which wouldn't have helped its scores!

Thanks, I haven't checked the site out for a while either, so I'm glad it's been updated. It doesn't surprise me that the Sony was top, or that the Z9 and R3 were the runners up. I've never found my R5 to be particularly good at BIF despite a lot of experimentation with settings, but perhaps that's down to my poor marksmanship. It does surprise me, in view of the glowing reports you've given it, that the R7 didn't score higher.