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

[usern4cr]

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.

However, make an "L" class RF 24-240 f4, Canon, and I'll pre-order 3 of 'em... But, until such time, I think I'll start walking around with:

1. RF 70-200 2.8 on an R7 crop body (effectively 112-320mm f/2.8) and,
2. RF 24-105 f/4 on an R5.

That's 24-320mm- with only the added $1500 purchase of a small R7 body and no lens changes.
Not too shabby!
No lens changes while walking around (except the occasional 14-35 onto the R5 and 600 f/8 onto the R7 (960mm!!!). And, all would fit easily in a medium sized over the shoulder carry bag.

Change my mind...

If they could make a " "L" class RF 24-240 f4, Canon" with (hopefully) a close focus & good max magnification, then I'd buy it as well. I'd even pay good money for it, maybe $4 or 5K. If I ever wanted a single lens & camera walk around combo, it would be this lens on my R5.

Oh, and the 70-200 f2.8 on a crop body would be equivalent to full frame 112-320mm f4.5, which is still good. Of course, I'd still put it on an R5 and then you can crop the inner box yourself (the photo would be pretty close in IQ) and always get the option of the fuller (wider) view when needed.

 

[usern4cr]

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 fit some FF cameras well. I still seriously consider getting one...and a few lenses.

If you get one, get the 300 f4 pro - it is spectacular and can get stunning near-macro shots with huge background blur. My favorite lens when I had my EM1-II.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I have said time after time that the R7 is not as good for BIF. And just a few posts back this evening that the R7 is not in the same league as the R5.

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]

And here’s an earlier response to a question

The AF on the R5 is just incredible: it latches on to BIF really quickly and tracks them; and it is very accurate and consitent for static birds. The R7 AF is very good, but not as good. It's good enough for most of the time. If I go out for action, I take the R5. If I go out and need reach, I take the R7. I am happy with both and use them according to their strengths.

 

[LovePhotography]

In terms of reach, the 600mm on the R7 is 1.37x600mm , ie 820mm, on the R5 as its sensor has more Mpx. I've often pointed this out and TDP now illustrates it nicely. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...an-APS-C-Format-Imaging-Sensor-Increase-Reach

Thanks for posting that article. After studying it, it appears to me that adding an RF 1.4 extender on an R5 body (that I already own 2 of) for less than $500 will give me almost identical IQ as adding a new R7 that costs $1400. Of course one is also getting an extra body, so less lens swapping, so there's that... But, my take home message of that article are than an R7 versus an RF 1.4 extender on an R5 produce practically identical results. You agree?

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for posting that article. After studying it, it appears to me that adding an RF 1.4 extender on an R5 body (that I already own 2 of) for less than $500 will give me almost identical IQ as adding a new R7 that costs $1400. Of course one is also getting an extra body, so less lens swapping, so there's that... But, my take home message of that article are than an R7 versus an RF 1.4 extender on an R5 produce practically identical results. You agree?

In terms of resolving power, that is exactly my experience.

 

[AlanF]

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.

Just a passing thought. Are you holding the camera with the your hand curled into the lens hood as you said was your practice? If so, that could be slowing you down. Speed and fast reflexes are key, and light lenses really can help. The guy who was testing the cameras on the site I posted tested the Z9 with the 800/6.3, and I couldn't use that combination for a close fast moving birds, though I can use an 800mm or 1000mm for predictable movement. He also used the 800/5.6 on the R6, which I would consider to be impossible for most.

 

[entoman]

Just a passing thought. Are you holding the camera with the your hand curled into the lens hood as you said was your practice? If so, that could be slowing you down. Speed and fast reflexes are key, and light lenses really can help. The guy who was testing the cameras on the site I posted tested the Z9 with the 800/6.3, and I couldn't use that combination for a close fast moving birds, though I can use an 800mm or 1000mm for predictable movement. He also used the 800/5.6 on the R6, which I would consider to be impossible for most.

I only hold it in that manner when I want maximum stability, for static subjects such as perching birds. For BIF, I hold in the typical manner, cupping the lens from beneath, around the zoom ring. Over time, I've taken some really good BIF shots of gulls, terns, kestrels, egrets and my favourites - vultures - but my success rate even with gulls is low.

One problem I have is keeping the bird in the frame. The birds are often moving so fast that I can't keep up with them as I'm panning, and they disappear out of the edge of the frame - as I said, poor marksmanship and slow reflexes.

The other problem I have is getting the AF to acquire the subject and lock onto it. Even if a bird (e.g. a gull) is fairly central in the frame, against a clear blue sky, flying towards me, and a decent size in the frame, the AF has a lot of difficulty grabbing the subject, and hunts back and forth, and the lens AF motors don't seem fast enough to keep up with the movement.

I've tried every conceivable combination of settings. At the moment I have it set for servo AF, animal eye tracking, initial servo Auto, case 3 and switch tracked subjects 0. This is with the RF100-500 and distance limiter on 3m-inf. For subjects other than BIF, the AF is fine.

 

[AlanF]

I only hold it in that manner when I want maximum stability, for static subjects such as perching birds. For BIF, I hold in the typical manner, cupping the lens from beneath, around the zoom ring. Over time, I've taken some really good BIF shots of gulls, terns, kestrels, egrets and my favourites - vultures - but my success rate even with gulls is low.

One problem I have is keeping the bird in the frame. The birds are often moving so fast that I can't keep up with them as I'm panning, and they disappear out of the edge of the frame - as I said, poor marksmanship and slow reflexes.

The other problem I have is getting the AF to acquire the subject and lock onto it. Even if a bird (e.g. a gull) is fairly central in the frame, against a clear blue sky, flying towards me, and a decent size in the frame, the AF has a lot of difficulty grabbing the subject, and hunts back and forth, and the lens AF motors don't seem fast enough to keep up with the movement.

I've tried every conceivable combination of settings. At the moment I have it set for servo AF, animal eye tracking, initial servo Auto, case 3 and switch tracked subjects 0. This is with the RF100-500 and distance limiter on 3m-inf. For subjects other than BIF, the AF is fine.

Try zooming out to 400mm - it will help in keeping birds in frame. I have the AF set to Face full screen.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

The two brands work well together if you are looking to have two systems. The zoom, focus and mounts rotate the same direction (unlike Sony and Nikon) and I would consider both of them to have a warmer color bias compared to Sony and Nikon, which I would consider have a cooler color bias. The fact that you get a 2x crop factor negates the need for higher MP count in many circumstances, especially for wildlife.

 

[Czardoom]

@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!

The #1 site I recommend to people on facebook groups when they ask about BIF.

 

[AlanF]

The two brands work well together if you are looking to have two systems. The zoom, focus and mounts rotate the same direction (unlike Sony and Nikon) and I would consider both of them to have a warmer color bias compared to Sony and Nikon, which I would consider have a cooler color bias. The fact that you get a 2x crop factor negates the need for higher MP count in many circumstances, especially for wildlife.

The OM-1 has just a 20 Mpx sensor so the 2x crop factor makes sense for increased resolution or reach only when it is compared against a 20 Mpx FF, like the R6. Against the R5 it's a different matter. The OM-1 20 Mpx has the same pixel density as an 80 Mpx FF, so against the R5, the effective "crop factor" for resolution is only 1.3 (sqrt of 80/45). The R5 with the RF 100-500mm at 500mm has about the same reach as a 400mm on the OM-1.

 

[Copland]

Anybody heard if shipment is on plan?
First info here in europe was 11-13 May, now around 19 of May.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anybody heard if shipment is on plan?
First info here in europe was 11-13 May, now around 19 of May.

Canon USA says estimated arrival May 31. As I posted a few days ago, the 100-300 is on the (short) list of products with expected delivery delays. That doesn't necessarily mean the initial shipping date will slip, but it does mean that if you didn't preorder early enough you may have a long wait.

 

[keithcooper]

I agree that within 5 years or so that may well be the case. Examples I've seen up until now have been pretty unconvincing, applying an overall blur. But distance data transmitted from the lens, combined with AI, should allow for more realistic and progressive blurring of foreground and background. Whether it will compare favourably with the combined effects of depth-of-field and bokeh, to provide aesthetically pleasing blurring remains to be seen.

AI will deliver many ways to make photography easier - it's already extremely useful for subject detection, selective masking, denoising etc. But there are areas where it could be problematic, e.g. creating images of faked situations, or simply making photography of some subjects *too* easy, with resultant loss of a sense of achievement.

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?

I'd like it to level the camera better, but the correction is as much deciding how much to use to fit the camera position, subject and composition. Add in diagonal shifting and I enjoy doing myself. How long that makes business sense is another matter though. Technically, I can retire in four years ;-)

 

[Copland]

Canon USA says estimated arrival May 31.

Yeah, estimate arrival, when you order/preorder today.

The question was rather: will the first lenses be on plan or not and when will it be?

e.g. the EL-5 should be delivered in march they said last november. Now its may and the dealers promised maybe-july.

If you present a device in mid-April and already have the prospect of a short-term delivery a month later, then you should be able to assume that these devices have already been produced at the time of the presentation and then only have to be assembled and shipped.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, estimate arrival, when you order/preorder today.

The question was rather: will the first lenses be on plan or not and when will it be?

e.g. the EL-5 should be delivered in march they said last november. Now its may and the dealers promised maybe-july.

If you present a device in mid-April and already have the prospect of a short-term delivery a month later, then you should be able to assume that these devices have already been produced at the time of the presentation and then only have to be assembled and shipped.

Understood. Probably no one outside Canon knows, we just know what Canon tells us (expected May 31, and to expect delays). The fact that they've announced delays in production suggests it's possible the current arrival date will slip. But AFAIK, the EL-5 was never on the delay list (not sure if that list is lenses only), and it slipped.

As usual these days, if you want a new product order it as soon as it's possible to do so. I did that with the R3 and got mine in the first batch from B&H. I did that with the EL-5, but obviously I still don't have it. I did that with the 100-300/2.8, and we'll see. They announced the postponement of the EL-5 (from end of March to end of June) on March 9th, so if they're going to push the 100-300 back 'officially' they may say so soon.

I do suspect that the 100-300/2.8 is of higher priority for Canon to get out the door than the EL-5, and that the implication of the delay list saying 'shipped sequentially' is that the first units will be on time but the pace of followup allotments will be slow, i.e. if you preordered but don't get it from the first batch, you'll have a long wait and it will be even longer until the lens is actually in stock anywhere.

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

Yeah, me too, and I think many report the same. I try to use that more deliberate way of shooting even with a zoom but I have to do it more consciously and I don't know if I succeed. I started off in EF with a bang in '95: 14, 24TS, 50/1.0, 100Mac, 200/1.8, no zooms. I then got trinity zooms and upgraded them once or twice over the years, but the vast majority of my favorite shots were primes, even though 60% of my shots might have been zooms. In those days the zooms weren't great, as you say, but honestly the primes weren't top-notch either :-D Today's 100-500 is incredible though, as sharp as the RF100 and absolutely sharper than the EF135/2, which was my sharpest lens (except the 600) until 2022.

 

[SwissFrank]

The minimization of the Af focus range is a game changer for those moments when you lose your subject in the viewfinder.

That's how I used the Leica M with the 35/1.4, which had a "knuckle holder" thingy on the focus ring. In daylight I'd leave at f/8 or f/11 or something and it'd just need to be focused very basically near, mid, far. I'd focus the camera before even bringing it to my face. I might be off be as much as 45 degrees from where I "should" be but the subject would still be in focus.

I wanted the same kind of thing for the EF cameras: the focus ring would tell the camera a near-end you wanted for the focus, and it would instead adjust the actual focus AND aperture to capture everything from that point and farther. So set at 1m you'd be f/11 and actually focused at like 2m.

 

[LovePhotography]

It'll be interesting to see if the 100-300 2.8 is as sharp as the 100-500. Some people say that the 100-500 is sharper than the Canon primes at comparable focal lengths. That's pretty amazing, if true. It'll be interesting to see if that big ass front element on the 100-300 softens the focus, like what happened on the EF 50mm f/1.2. (The 1.4 is sharper). I think that will be the determining factor on whether I someday get a 100-300. I've already got a 100-500, which is a little slow for BIF at maximum range. But, if the 100-300 is softer, I can't see paying all that money for a softer lens (unless you are big time indoor fast action activities).