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

Sorry to pick and split hairs...but no the ef 300mm f2.8 II LIS is not THE sharpest Canon ef lens ever made, just ONE of the sharpest ef lenses Canon have ever made. It might be the sharpest lens that you won. However, the ef 400mm f2.8 III LIS technically slightly sharper. This is only really seen when fitting 2x teleconverters. However, produciton variation could easily make one 400IIIL slghtly softer than another 300IIL. Then there's the whole AF accuracy question that can easily make one lens appear softer that it really is.
Sharpness of static subjects is one thing, but getting keeper with (fast) moving subjects is an entirely different game.

A couple of weeks ago, I shot an endurance motorcycle race using the EF 300(+1.4x TC), EF 200-400(w/o extenders), and the RF 100-500.

The Big Whites soundly wiped the tarmac with the RF lens: the EF's hadn't a keeper rate of 17.x %, and the RF was at 8.x%.
 
Upvote 0
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).
Called it. RF100-500 FTW. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops, which, of course largely negates the f2.8 advantage.
Canon- please bring out an RF 24-240 "L" lens for walking around. If you do, people, who now walk around with the iPhone, will go back to walking around with a Canon.
Many Thanks,
LovePhotography
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Called it. RF100-500 FTW. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops, which, of course largely negates the f2.8 advantage.
Canon- please bring out an RF 24-240 "L" lens for walking around. If you do, people, who now walk around with the iPhone, will go back to walking around with a Canon.
Many Thanks,
LovePhotography
Thanks for the heads up. Very useful YouTube. Excellent at 100-300mm bare or 140-420mm with the 1.4xTC. View from 22.30 on for the lens at 200-600mm with the 2xTC. It's disappointing, not as sharp as the Sony 200-600mm or at 500mm the RF 100-500mm.
 
Upvote 0
Called it. RF100-500 FTW. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops, which, of course largely negates the f2.8 advantage.
Canon- please bring out an RF 24-240 "L" lens for walking around. If you do, people, who now walk around with the iPhone, will go back to walking around with a Canon.
Many Thanks,
LovePhotography
Just to be clear. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops WHEN USING THE 2X EXTENDER. Without the 2X extender, you do not need to stop down. Basically, as expected when using a 2X extender, which always reduces IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Just to be clear. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops WHEN USING THE 2X EXTENDER. Without the 2X extender, you do not need to stop down. Basically, as expected when using a 2X extender, which always reduces IQ.
Which, I think, means that it is even slower than the RF100-500, since you have to stop down for sharpness, plus the 2X teleconverter already slows it down 2 f stops just by itself. I've got an EF 300 2.8 and an EF 600 plus 1.4 and 2X teleconverters. I might sell my EF 300 2.8 and 600 primes for an RF 800 and RF teleconverter. But I don't see myself buying the 100-300. I'll "suffer" along with what I've got. I really wish I had an "L" lens RF 24-240 for my long bike rides, though. I've got 10's of thousands of dollars worth of Canon gear, and shoot most of my best shots (on bike rides, my favorite form of exercise) with a fucking iPhone. :( https://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Cerro-Gordo--public-/n-sL7cqC/
Sometimes I'll take two R5 bodies, one with 100-500, the other with 14-35 and 24-105. But that adds a lot of weight and takes a lot of space on my bike. So, iPhone is the usual choice. Which I really don't like. C'mon, Canon. Help us ditch the damn iPhones.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Sharpness of static subjects is one thing, but getting keeper with (fast) moving subjects is an entirely different game.

A couple of weeks ago, I shot an endurance motorcycle race using the EF 300(+1.4x TC), EF 200-400(w/o extenders), and the RF 100-500.

The Big Whites soundly wiped the tarmac with the RF lens: the EF's hadn't a keeper rate of 17.x %, and the RF was at 8.x%.
Yes I agree and it's one the most comon complaints I have about 3rd party lenses. They are often superb optically, but deficient in most other areas such as AF accuracy and image stabilisation.

My ef 400mm f2.8 LIS with a 1.4xTC tracks fast moving objects impressively. Fitted on a DSLR like a 5diii, the lens with a 2x TC was a little more sluggish and less accurate. Often i thought that this combo was a bit soft until I realised that it was a deficiency in the 5Diii's ability to drive that combination accurately. However with my newer Mirrorless bodies...the camera's AF is nailing af point and tracking better than it's ever done before with my 5Diii's. So yes I agree, lens static sharpness and lens AF tracking and accuracy are just as important.

One of the things I love about the ef 300mm f2.8 and ef 400mm f2.8 is their low light ability. When everyone around you is pounding their iso using a rf 100-500mm @ f7.1...we can slip off the TC's and shoot at f2.8, at far lower ISO's and better AF accuracy and just crop later. Those extra stops is why we put up witht he extra cost and bulk fo the fast glass. We get to shoot long after everyone else has gone home of given up and we get the results and coold shots that others don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Photos of Rabbit with RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with RF 2x TC at f5.6

I took out the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with the RF 2cx TC and shot it wide open. Photographic opportunities were not that great, but there was a cooperative rabbit. Over the range of 200-300 mm with 2x TC I am quite content with the picture quality. Focusing is not as quick as the bare lens or with the 1.4x TC, but it is close. Camera is a R3.

Three examples below.

_W9A7887_DxO.jpg

focal length 297 mm f5.6 iso 6400 1/1000 sec

_W9A7925_DxO.jpg

focal length = 225 mm f5.6 iso 5000 1/1000 sec


_W9A7926_DxO.jpg

focal length = 225 mm f5.6 iso 5000 1/1000 sec
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Nice shots @john1970 When you say 200-300mm, that's including the 2x TC, right?

For me, I'm mostly using the extenders (EF 1.4x and 2x TC) at the long end. I assume that this is the common case for most that use extenders.
This would be 400-600mm for the RF100-300. How does it look like at that end?
Yes it is 200-300 mm with the 2x TC attached; basically testing the short end of the lens with the 2x TC attached.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Photo of test subject (kachina doll) at 600 mm f5.6 distance is ~25 ft

Unfortunately I did not get any real world (i.e., outdoor wildlife) photos today with the RF 100-300 mm with the 2x TC at the long end (400-600 mm) so I decided to use my kachina doll as a test subject indoors on my kitchen table. The subject was backlit from the window in the background, but this should give users some idea of the image quality. Overall I am happy with the image quality.

Eventually I will get outdoor test subjects at the long end, just not today.


Photo is a 5x4 crop of the full width of the sensor. ISO 6400, 1/500 sec.

Used DXO PhotoLab 6 with DeepPRIME XD noise reduction.


_W9A8017_DxO2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with RF 2X TC at 600 mm f5.6 ISO 8000 1/500 sec handheld. Distance to subject is 35-40 feet.

Below is a photo of a rabbit in my backyard at 600 mm f5.6. Personally, I am very content with the results. I have cropped the photo to 5x4 dimensions using the full height of the image sensor on the Canon R3.


_W9A8040_DxO.jpg


Have fun,

John
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Some Examples of Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC all taken at 600 mm at f5.6 from 2023 Alaska trip

I know I posted some examples earlier, but this is what I typically obtained after some mild sharpening in DXO Photolab7. Taken with Canon R3. Overall, I was content with the lens's performance. I

_I4A0806_DxO50.jpg_I4A9261_DxO50.jpg


_I4A9638_DxO50.jpg_W9A2821_DxO50.jpg_W9A3434_DxO50.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0
Some Examples of Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC all taken at 600 mm at f5.6 from 2023 Alaska trip

I know I posted some examples earlier, but this is what I typically obtained after some mild sharpening in DXO Photolab7. Taken with Canon R3. Overall, I was content with the lens's performance. I

View attachment 215171View attachment 215172


View attachment 215173View attachment 215174View attachment 215175
Very nice! Did you notice any significant reduction in AF speed or accuracy with the TC?
 
Upvote 0
Very nice! Did you notice any significant reduction in AF speed or accuracy with the TC?
There was a slight reduction in AF speed relative to the bare lens, but it was still very capable of tracking a brown bear running after salmon. Overall, I am very pleased with the combo and will use this lens for planned trips in 2024. I did find that one 2x TC was a bit sharper than the other so I used one 2x TC during the trip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Called it. RF100-500 FTW. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops, which, of course largely negates the f2.8 advantage.
Canon- please bring out an RF 24-240 "L" lens for walking around. If you do, people, who now walk around with the iPhone, will go back to walking around with a Canon.
Many Thanks,
LovePhotography
Only if it's pocket size and also makes phone calls and can surf the web.
 
Upvote 0