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

[kaihp]

Price in Germany:

11.999,00 € incl. VAT

97.995DKK here in Denmark, so +9.6% over Germany. This can be partially explained by the difference in VAT rates (19% vs 25%)

 

[photographer]

Absolutely correct:
This even applies to European power tools (Festool, Fein etc...)which are much more expensive in Germany than in the US.

As I wrote - a longer warranty plays a partial role, and then maybe it's simply because the USA is a big and rich country and they sell more lenses, tool sets or drills there, so they just need a smaller margin per piece.

 

[AlP]

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.

I have to disagree on this one: The RF mount does not bring limitations, it brings more options. With more options you have to make choices, and Canon has made choices which do not fit everybody's needs.

One could argue that the EF 70-200 f/4 is a compromised lens as it is heavier and bulkier than the RF equivalent, same for the f/2.8 (even when extended at 200 mm). The EF 100-400 is larger and heavier than the 100-500 and lacks 100 mm at the long end. The EF 16-35 f/4 is larger and heavier than the RF 14-25 f/4 and lacks 2 mm at the wide end. Is image quality of the digitally distortion-corrected 14-35 that bad at the wide end?

None of the RF designs mentioned (including the 70-200, 100-500, 100-300) would have been possible with the EF mount. An EF- 70-200 with external zoom is of course possible, but it would be larger than the RF zoom (with adapter). Same for the other designs. And for those who need the advantages the RF designs, the RF mount is a significant improvement over the EF mount.
On the other hand, all EF designs would be possible with the RF mount. If Canon would have chosen to go for an EF-like design with the RF mount (or just copy-paste the EF design), some would complain that it is a compromised design as it could have been smaller, lighter, or could have had a wider focal length for the size (for wide-angle lenses).
Canon did just that with the long big whites, and the reactions weren't always so positive either.

The EF 16-35 f/4 with a variable ND in the adapter is fantastic, the EF 70-200 f/4 with a 2x extender is a very light 400 mm-capable lens, and so on, just to give a few examples. But if you go hiking and need a <16 mm lens, or only need to go up to 200 mm, you end up with a heavier and larger backpack. It's just a matter of priorities, and the Choices Canon made obviously do not fit the priorities of all Canon users

 

[AlanF]

None of the RF designs mentioned (including the 70-200, 100-500, 100-300) would have been possible with the EF mount.

Why wouldn't the 100-500mm have been possible with the EF mount? Please explain.

 

[AlP]

Why wouldn't the 100-500mm have been possible with the EF mount? Please explain.

Because the rear elements would then be inside the mount and might even block the mirror path. Sorry, I don't have the time to start measuring if the latter would be the case.
I didn't say that a 100-500 mm wouldn't be possible, what I meant is that the actual design of the RF 100-500 mm would not have been possible in the EF mount.

 

[whothafunk]

Just after a few pages into this thread, people, yet again, successfully turned the conversation into arguing over Canon's (poor/not poor) R/RF choices and limitations over EF and justification of their 100-400/100-500 purchase combined with TC. Nice.
While the price is around 1000-1500 EUR higher than I expected, I can still justify it and will get it.

 

[AlanF]

Because the rear elements would then be inside the mount and might even block the mirror path. Sorry, I don't have the time to start measuring if the latter would be the case.
I didn't say that a 100-500 mm wouldn't be possible, what I meant is that the actual design of the RF 100-500 mm would not have been possible in the EF mount.

Your statement "None of the RF designs mentioned (including the 70-200, 100-500, 100-300) would have been possible with the EF mount." was in reply to @unfocused's "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." It would appear to an independent reader that you were telling him that a 100-500mm would not have been possible with the EF mount. Either that or you were obfuscating.

 

[mimbu]

We have grey market lenses in the US.
That means they must be cheaper somewhere else.

My understanding is that B&H and Adorama (the two main grey market dealers in the US) import lenses directly from Canon and Nikon in Japan, without the manufacturer's warranty. This is why Canon and Nikon in the US refuse to work on those lenses even outside of warranty. If you take the lenses to Canon or Nikon in Japan, they'll absolutely work on them without any concerns (obviously no warranty support as they are sold without a warranty card.) Source: I live in Japan.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am having the exact same thoughts for my summer travels. Do I take my RF 100-500 mm lens or rent the RF 100-300 mm f2.8. The extra stops of light are very very enticing.

Though the 100-300 f/2.8 is quite large as a travel lens, the notion of traveling with this one lens and two teleconverters is pretty enticing.

 

[john1970]

Canon releases an evolutionary lens in terms of fast f2.8 aperture, zoom range and weight and everyone complains. Rough crowd. I preordered the lens from my local dealer and was the first one to pre-order the lens. I hope to have the lens in early June. Hope to take it to Africa and Alaska this summer.

 

[AlP]

Your statement "None of the RF designs mentioned (including the 70-200, 100-500, 100-300) would have been possible with the EF mount." was in reply to @unfocused's "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." It would appear to an independent reader that you were telling him that a 100-500mm would not have been possible with the EF mount. Either that or you were obfuscating.

Probably I should have written "None of the RF optical designs in the mentioned focal lengths would have been possible with the EF mount". Would that have been clearer? I was referring to "design" as the whole design of the lens including the optical construction, not just the focal length or external vs. internal zoom.

However, the whole post wasn't in response to that specific sentence, but rather to the initial statement that the RF mount has limitations.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You can stack RF TC and EF TCs (iii) with an extension tube but lose infinity focus. I believe that Sigma and Kenko TCs could stack though without an extension tube.
Would you want to?

When you need to get the shot, you need to get the shot.
Sometimes worse image quality is better than no image at all.

 

[scyrene]

a lot of trade-offs had to be made (apparently) to accommodate the limitations of the RF mount

Is that why though? I don't understand the technical intricacies but I feel like these compromises have nothing to do with intrinsic limitations of the mount and more that Canon decided to start afresh with RF designs instead of carrying over longstanding EF principles and choices.

 

[mimbu]

Probably I should have written "None of the RF optical designs in the mentioned focal lengths would have been possible with the EF mount". Would that have been clearer? I was referring to "design" as the whole design of the lens including the optical construction, not just the focal length or external vs. internal zoom.

I think actually that the 100-300/2.8 would be possible in EF mount if the space to take TCs was removed. It's a 24mm difference and it looks like there's more than 24mm of empty space at the back of the lens.

 

[roby17269]

And I used spend many hours in the mountains, and a few at Foto Gino's... Still have some malts and grappas from there.

Indeed we went there also in summers for hiking. Beautiful mountains, I have taken a lot of photos I like in that area.
Me, I'm partial to the mushroom they collect there

 

[AlanF]

Probably I should have written "None of the RF optical designs in the mentioned focal lengths would have been possible with the EF mount". Would that have been clearer? I was referring to "design" as the whole design of the lens including the optical construction, not just the focal length or external vs. internal zoom.

However, the whole post wasn't in response to that specific sentence, but rather to the initial statement that the RF mount has limitations.

I think the advantages of the RF mount are primarily with short focal length lenses rather than telephotos since their inherent focal lengths are greater than the flange-sensor distance. I don't understand some of Canon's design choices. The one substantive gripe about the RF 100-500mm is that the rear element of the lens retracts so close that the TCs fit only for a 300mm or greater setting, and they didn't have this problem when the lens was even further from the sensor with the EF mount. They have overcome this problem for the RF 100-300mm, but that has upset those who use drop-in filters (which I don't). I don't think these problems are due to any limitations of the RF mount but the designers making compromises for reasons they haven't explained or simply they cocked up.

 

[entoman]

As I wrote - a longer warranty plays a partial role, and then maybe it's simply because the USA is a big and rich country and they sell more lenses, tool sets or drills there, so they just need a smaller margin per piece.

Exactly.

It's nearly always a lot cheaper to buy on the grey market, wherever you live. Most of the exporters are extremely reliable, with fast delivery, and often with a much better warranty than the one provided by the official Canon distributor. Why pay extortionate amounts for local warehousing, intermediate shipping etc, when you can save 25% or more by ordering from Hong Kong and have the items safely in your hands 4 days later? Canon Europe is a huge rip off.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon releases an evolutionary lens in terms of aperture, zoom and weight and everyone complains. Rough crowd. I preordered the lens from my local dealer and was the first one to pre-order the lens. I hope to have the lens in early June.

I preordered as well, from B&H. I am surprised (and pleased) by the expected May availability. I hope they stick to it (the EL-5 that I preordered back in November was supposed to ship in late March, but now is supposed to ship at the end of June).

 

[bbasiaga]

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.

RF mount design did not preclude adding a drop in filter. They chose not to to make the lens several inches shorter.
RF mount design did not preclude extender compatibility with this lens. They chose not to in order to make the lens shorter and lighter
Same for the 70-200
Focus breathing is a side effect of the optical design for 1.4x magnification, not inherent to the RF mount.
Computer based manipulation is not requried by the RF mount. It is used to make cheaper lighter wide angle lenses at the consumer level.
The big white primes optical formulae were pretty new, so this was probably a decision that they couldn't really improve on the clarity, so why reinvent the wheel. I'm just guessing on this one. The point is, the RF mount isn't limiting anything. Canon is just making design choices and while it seems to be ticking off a lot of forum users, their sales numbers generally indicate that the market likes them.

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.

The 100-500 was not possible on most of Canon's DSLR line up. AF capability at greater than 5.6 max aperture was spotty on a lot of bodies. I think the 1 series were only said to be good to f/8. Maybe the 1DXIII surpassed that. It would have had to be faster, larger and more expensive than the RF version. The 600 and 800 f/11 primes are another example of something just not possible on EF Mount (same reason, no AF) that is bringing great IQ at previously inaccessible focal lengths to the consumer AND at a ridiculously high AF keeper rate.

The innovation is there in RF. The problem is mainly that every individual on the forum thinks they know better about what Canon should have done. I'm guilty of that myself - I have preferences but understand Canon can't be expected to meet all of everyone's.

Brian

 

[koenkooi]

I preordered as well, from B&H. I am surprised (and pleased) by the expected May availability. I hope they stick to it (the EL-5 that I preordered back in November was supposed to ship in late March, but now is supposed to ship at the end of June).

But you now have firmware to support it, which wouldn't have been the case if it had shipped on time