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

[neuroanatomist]

Just out of curiosity, is it the annoyance of having to extend barrel to 300 in order to use the extenders? I only ask because from 100-250mm, they don't exceed 500mm, so aren't really useful until you're at 300mm (well, 251mm).

It’s really just the loss of zoom range – it goes from a 5x zoom without an extender to a 1.67x zoom with one. Put another way, a 200-1000mm zoom offers much more framing flexibility than a 600-1000mm zoom.

Worth saving 18mm of lens length? Maybe.

 

[Mountain Dave]

Not complaining about this lens, as I have no interest in it (at least not at this price point) but I do wonder about all the compromises that Canon is making with RF lenses, when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and necessary for them to offer exciting new options.

A few cases in point:

• RF mount design precluded using drop in filters on this 100-300 lens.
• RF design severely limits the zoom range of the 100-500 RF lens when using extenders.
• RF design prevented the use of any extender with the 70-200 F2.8 zoom.
• Focus breathing issues with the 100mm macro (may not be an issue with the RF mount, but it does seem to make the lens less desirable than the EF macro for many buyers).
• Heavy reliance on computer-based interpolation for wide-angle lenses (This doesn't really bother me, but it seems to offend some users).
• Then there are "lazy" bolt-on mount adapters and extenders for certain very expensive super-telephotos. (Again, if I could afford the RF 600 mm I really don't care if its just the EF version with a mount adapter and if the results of the 800 and 1200 RF lenses are good, I don't really care if they got there by using extenders.)

I understand that there are always compromises and you can't defy physics, but still, it seems like there have been a lot of compromises made and I wonder if a little more thought/design had gone into the R system (especially since Canon took their time designing the system) they might have avoided or minimized some of the issues.

I love my R bodies (R5 and R3) and love my R lenses, but it just seems like they didn't plan well for some of these challenges.

I recall that when the 70-200 was introduced, Winston said they chose lighter weight over extender compatibility. A lot of people complained about the EF version's weight, including me. IIRC, the focus breathing issue on the 100 is due to the greater magnification. That's not a choice I would have made and therefore I'm keeping my EF version. I'll withhold judgement on the 100-300's lack of rear filter until I read an explanation from Canon. It wouldn't bother me personally if I were in the market for it and if it saves weight---good. I'm keeping my EF 300 II anyway. My RF 135 1.8 is finally supposed to arrive tomorrow. It would be nice if it was extender compatible but if the choice is more weight, I'll do without thank you.

 

[danfaz]

It’s really just the loss of zoom range – it goes from a 5x zoom without an extender to a 1.67x zoom with one. Put another way, a 200-1000mm zoom offers much more framing flexibility than a 600-1000mm zoom.

Ah, I see what you mean, thanks!

 

[Act444]

Strangely enough there was a time I wished for a lens like this. Something like this would be perfect for ice shows...

...at least on paper. But...for the way I shoot personally - I like to handhold and need the camera to fit in a regular-size backpack... Besides the super high price, there seems to be a relatively long MFD and the added weight and size can't be ignored. In reality I think I would just stick with the 70-200 and if necessary, use a higher-MP camera to make up the difference in reach at the long end. Much lighter and smaller package...(and MUCH cheaper too!!) The 200-600 5.6 2x sounds good as well...but heck, at that price the RF70-200, RF100-500 AND an R5 body could be had...with room to spare!

But, that aside, it certainly is a nice piece of kit...

 

[reef58]

Someone complained that the 112mm filters are too expensive. I don't really understand that feeling, because you're already spending nearly 10,000 and I guess you're using an R3, so that's 6,000. Is another 1000 really going to kill your bank account?

Also, about the lens hood, couldn't you or someone you know cut out an area to use a polorizer or variable nd?

You have to buy the filters, which are unique in size for this lens. Then you have to carry other sized filters for your other lenses, not to mention the care and cleaning with such a large filter. The drop in is a size and convenience plus for sure. I wasn't overly excited about this one, but I am excited if they produce the 200-500f4. If they do please have a drop in.

 

[Mountain Dave]

Just out of curiosity, is it the annoyance of having to extend barrel to 300 in order to use the extenders? I only ask because from 100-250mm, they don't exceed 500mm, so aren't really useful until you're at 300mm (well, 251mm).

You do lose a little flexibility. Sometimes in the field, a situation will suddenly appear when you would want the short focal length. But that's pretty minor. The inability to retract the barrel fully while carrying it around is a bigger annoyance. All in all, not a big deal and if the choice is a bigger, heavier 100-500, then I'm fine with the compromise. The light weight is one of its best attributes MO.

 

[InchMetric]

This lens should have never been released without a drop-in filter. It's a glaring omission and oversight for outdoor sports and motorsports. I'm seriously so mad about this...it's a joke that they expect us to walk around with 120mm filters. On any given day I'll use a CPL and at least 2 ND strengths. So that's 3 massive, expensive filters that I have to worry about and keep clean because they're now exposed externally, and I have to remove the lens hood every time I want to rotate the CPL or change the filter. I'm just astonished they thought this was a good trade off. It makes the lens totally useless for me.

Those crazy Canon engineers. They didn't consider what some guy on the internet thought of! (I wonder if the design left room for a filter, or if there would be a weight penalty?)

 

[Act444]

Not complaining about this lens, as I have no interest in it (at least not at this price point) but I do wonder about all the compromises that Canon is making with RF lenses, when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and necessary for them to offer exciting new options.

A few cases in point:

• RF mount design precluded using drop in filters on this 100-300 lens.
• RF design severely limits the zoom range of the 100-500 RF lens when using extenders.
• RF design prevented the use of any extender with the 70-200 F2.8 zoom.
• Focus breathing issues with the 100mm macro (may not be an issue with the RF mount, but it does seem to make the lens less desirable than the EF macro for many buyers).
• Heavy reliance on computer-based interpolation for wide-angle lenses (This doesn't really bother me, but it seems to offend some users).
• Then there are "lazy" bolt-on mount adapters and extenders for certain very expensive super-telephotos. (Again, if I could afford the RF 600 mm I really don't care if its just the EF version with a mount adapter and if the results of the 800 and 1200 RF lenses are good, I don't really care if they got there by using extenders.)

I understand that there are always compromises and you can't defy physics, but still, it seems like there have been a lot of compromises made and I wonder if a little more thought/design had gone into the R system (especially since Canon took their time designing the system) they might have avoided or minimized some of the issues.

I love my R bodies (R5 and R3) and love my R lenses, but it just seems like they didn't plan well for some of these challenges.

That in part is slowing down my willingness to fully "migrate". I don't like that the 100-500 is slower beyond 250mm (and more expensive) than the excellent EF 100-400 II. Plus some reliability/usability quirks I have with the mirrorless bodies vs. the older DSLRs. A couple RF lenses are great though, the 50 1.2 is a killer and something I wanted in EF form for YEARS. I also like the 85 F2 Macro, it serves the majority of my macro snapshots. Both lenses work quite well on the EOS R.

I figured Canon's early pitch was mostly marketing talk.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll withhold judgement on the 100-300's lack of rear filter until I read an explanation from Canon.

They have already provided one, in the developer interview pdf at the bottom of the product page on Canon USA.

“The drop-in filter was omitted by pursuing a compact size, reduced weight, and an optical design where the lens group is placed close to the mount. As a result, the large diameter of the lens barrel, which was a concern in terms of lens strength, has been removed, and the thinner outer barrel also contributed to further weight reduction.”

The focusing group is in the location where the drop-in slot would otherwise be.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

when the new mount was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread

Canon is a very practical company.
By the way, so is sliced bread.
I would like to see some crazy lenses like what made Canon a legend.
So far, Canon is just offering better versions of what everyone else is offering.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That in part is slowing down my willingness to fully "migrate

I have no plans to fully migrate.
I fail to see the point in such an endeavor.

 

[Act444]

I have no plans to fully migrate.
I fail to see the point in such an endeavor.

Neither do I, at least in the foreseeable future.

 

[john1970]

Glad to see Canon releasing an RF replacement for the 300 mm f2.8 lens. Now if they can release a lightweight 500 mm f4 native in the RF mount. Honestly, that is the one lens in the RF mount that I would still like to use for wildlife. Frankly, I really hope they release the rumored 500 mm f4.5 DO lens.

 

[unfocused]

The extender limitation on the 100-500 is the one that bugs me. Lack of extender compatibility on the 70-200 doesn’t bother me personally, but I can see it being an issue for some.

I agree. That is one that annoys me. Others I don't personally care about.

Just out of curiosity, is it the annoyance of having to extend barrel to 300 in order to use the extenders? I only ask because from 100-250mm, they don't exceed 500mm, so aren't really useful until you're at 300mm (well, 251mm).

For me, it's:

1) Once the extender is on, you are severely limited in zoom range. You can't access any of the range below 420mm, so you have lost everything from 140 mm (100 x 1.4) to just over 400 mm (300 x 1.4 = 420). That leaves a very narrow range for the zoom unless you take the extender off, something that is fraught with risk in the field and which you can't do quickly enough to be practical if you suddenly need less range. When the extender is on, I basically treat the lens like a prime, always at 700mm.

2) With the extender on the lens you lose any advantage that a compact, external zoom offers. It becomes a long lens that won't fit in a lot of bags.

 

[usern4cr]

I was hoping that this would be a similar design as theRF 70-200 f2.8L (or 100-500L), to keep it super light & compact to stow (and I can live without TC's for that benefit), but it was not to be.

It's long, big and heavy and doesn't have a close MFD, and also still has a 2 position distance switch instead of the obvious 3 position one (why ignore those who want just the near range sometimes?) Others miss the drop in filter, but I haven't had the chance to use them anyway. I was really hoping that this might be my first "big white", but it won't be.

 

[unfocused]

...the issues you raise all concern telephoto designs, where I would not expect the shorter flange distance to be a big benefit. Perhaps they’re fighting the perception that the lenses should be shorter because of that shorter flange distance, and they’re responding by making the lenses shorter in other ways that don’t contravene physics.

I understand that Canon can do a lot of things except defy physics. (At least not yet). My point though is that a lot of trade-offs had to be made (apparently) to accommodate the limitations of the RF mount. Yes, we wouldn't miss those trade-offs if we hadn't had decades of practical experience with the EF mount.

Canon certainly has gotten plenty of my money with the RF mount so it obviously isn't hurting them with me, at least. I just think it feels a little weird at times to see so many RF lenses with compromises, when one of Canon's main pitches for the RF mount was that it would allow them to do things that they couldn't do with the EF mount.

Not to quibble too much, but Canon could have made an EF mount 70-200 with an external zoom and they could have made a 100-500 mm EF Mount lens as well, so neither of those lenses owes its existence to the RF mount. Likewise, they could have made a 100-300 f2.8 EF zoom and likely would have been able to include a drop in filter on an EF mount lens.

And, as you have pointed out (at least I think you have), the long big whites are really just EF lenses with mount adapters and, in some cases extenders, built in.

 

[Mountain Dave]

I was hoping that this would be a similar design as theRF 70-200 f2.8L (or 100-500L), to keep it super light & compact to stow (and I can live without TC's for that benefit), but it was not to be.

It's long, big and heavy and doesn't have a close MFD, and also still has a 2 position distance switch instead of the obvious 3 position one (why ignore those who want just the near range sometimes?) Others miss the drop in filter, but I haven't had the chance to use them anyway. I was really hoping that this might be my first "big white", but it won't be.

For half the money, you can buy a very nice EF300 2.8L IS II which many say is the best EF lens ever made. I can tell you it works phenomenally well on a R5 with or without an extender. I found it to be a revelation on how good a lens can be. It's my only big white so far and will likely be in my estate someday!

 

[mimbu]

Not Canon's fault, I presume. But your country's taxes...

Even allowing for the tax differences, most lenses are considerably cheaper in the US than elsewhere. (Except in Japan where due to the current weak JPY, most lens are now cheaper in Japan than at B&H. RF600/4 is $12999+tax at B&H but $11300+tax in Japan.)

 

[Mountain Dave]

I have no plans to fully migrate.
I fail to see the point in such an endeavor.

I think that's a majority view. I had a dozen EF lenses when I bought my R5 18 months ago. It was 8 months before I replaced any. With the 135 1.8 I'm supposed to receive tomorrow, I will have replaced three and I don't have any more on my radar. Rather than replace, I'm hoping Canon comes out with some new concepts that I don't know I want until they're produced. LOL

 

[neuroanatomist]

I understand that Canon can do a lot of things except defy physics. (At least not yet). My point though is that a lot of trade-offs had to be made (apparently) to accommodate the limitations of the RF mount. Yes, we wouldn't miss those trade-offs if we hadn't had decades of practical experience with the EF mount.

Canon certainly has gotten plenty of my money with the RF mount so it obviously isn't hurting them with me, at least. I just think it feels a little weird at times to see so many RF lenses with compromises, when one of Canon's main pitches for the RF mount was that it would allow them to do things that they couldn't do with the EF mount.

Not to quibble too much, but Canon could have made an EF mount 70-200 with an external zoom and they could have made a 100-500 mm EF Mount lens as well, so neither of those lenses owes its existence to the RF mount. Likewise, they could have made a 100-300 f2.8 EF zoom and likely would have been able to include a drop in filter on an EF mount lens.

And, as you have pointed out (at least I think you have), the long big whites are really just EF lenses with mount adapters and, in some cases extenders, built in.

Agreed. As I implied earlier, the benefits of the short flange distance are really in the wide and standard focal lengths, there’s not really a benefit for telephoto designs.

I’m not sure they could have made an EF 28-70/2, or an EF 14-35/4 that takes 77mm filters. An EF 16/2.8 would be much bigger (compare the RF 16/2.8 to the EF 20/2.8).