New Big White Lenses from Canon are Coming in Late Q4 and Possibly a 500mm Prime
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I had the EF 300mm f2.8 II. It is one hell of a lens. And, the RF 100-300mm F2.8 is pretty much in the same class. If it was lighter and cheaper I might have bought one. It shows how much zoom technology has improved.
Upvote
0
Yes I also had one its a shame they discontinued it is now a none serviceable and the 100-300 is really pricey
Upvote
0
Technically, you’re correct – one is a prime and the other is a zoom, and those are different classes of lenses. But optically, the RF 100-300/2.8 is just as good as the excellent 300/2.8 II at 300mm, and infinitely better from 100-299mm.
The price you pay for the added capability of a zoom lens is an extra 5 cm of length and an extra 200 g of weight (and higher cost, of course). Personally, I was initially hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was not thrilled about the extra 5 cm of the zoom lens. After using it, the additional flexibility of a zoom lens is more than worth it. 35% of my shots with the lens are at 300mm, and 50% of my shots with it are shorter than 250mm.
The zoom is a little bulkier than the prime, but gives up nothing optically. One camera with the 100-300/2.8 is also a lot more convenient than one camera with a 300/2.8 and a second camera with a 70-200/2.8.
Upvote
0
What's the fuzz with built in TCs?
Let's go into details:
The EF200-400 with the 1.4 engaged offered 280-560 5.6 @ infinity (you never shoot at infinity!) I used it for years: Stellar IQ, bad for birds, bad for smaller objects like butterflies, dragonflies: by far too heavy and a lack of shooting distance and magnification at the short end, the effective focal length at minimum distance is just 287mm (metadata lie and tell you 560mm). Magnification 0.21x
The RF100-300 with the added 2x converter offers 200-600 5.6 @ infinity (again: you never shoot at infinity!): Still superb IQ, great for birds, great for butterflies and dragonflies: handhold ablility, focusses down to the ground just infront of your shoes, the effective focal length at minimum distance is 338mm (metadata lie and tell you 600mm). Magnification 0.31x. What a difference in weight @ versatility! (even not thinking about the options to shoot without TC or the 1.4x version)
Friends: The future is zoom! I am so happy with the practical use, I sold the EF 600 4.0 version 2 which gave stellar performance as well but wasn't used too much due to a lack of handhold ability and versatility. Let us not forget: The 100-300 + engaged hood + TC fits in a pack where the v600 without hood and TC does not fit. A lens not being ready to shoot never gives you the intended success (as long as you are not sitting in a photo blind ...)
BTW: The real replacement of the EF180mm Macro is the 70-200 Z with 2x TC: Max magnification 0.66x, effective focal length 173mm (whereas the 180 offers 140mm @ 0.66x mag. . It is f/3.5 vs f/5.6 in these shooting conditions - but who shoots f/3.5 in the wild with a digital sensor at magnification 0.66x??? Don't let us talk about versatility, the zoom is one leg of the 2.8 trinity. And this lens is stellar for closeup work in the wild - all just as a windfall profit of up to date technology!
Friends: Do not stick to legacy experience: My 180 is gone, my 200-400 is gone, my 600 is gone. I am happy!
I am ready for a ultra light 500mm prime (no built in TC) or a 200-600 zoom giving the option to extend to 1000mm/1200mm focal length if "needed" and hot air does not destroy any expected IQ.
All shots with 100-300+2x, none would exist with the previous equipment
Attachments
Upvote
0
Yes, the center of mass being off to the side with the Wimberley MH-100 does create an extra balancing issue. The ProMediaGear tomahawk only partially corrects the issue, but it helps. I hadn't thought of using an extra monopod head to center it. Thanks; I'll give it a try.
Upvote
0
Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.
How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.
Upvote
0
PS I agree that new lenses have changed the landscape somewhat. The RF 100-400 is a great near-macro alternative for insects, although the narrow maximum aperture means less dreamy OOF areas.
Upvote
0
Sony has knocked a huge amount of weight off the 300/2.8. Their prime weighs 1 kg/ 35 oz less than the Canon zoom coming it at 1.74 kg with hood etc. Canon could do the same. That I would buy.
Upvote
0
Had this self same conversation with a reputable optical engineer at a camera / lens rental company yesterday. His view was the RF 100-300mm f2.8 gives up nothing in image quality to the 300mm f2.8 II at 300mm and has much more versatility in his view it was a "no brainer".
Upvote
0
The sharpness on the 70-200Z+2x at MFD is decent so far, I need to take a lot more photos to say more than that. Without the extender it's an excellent 70-200, which is what I bought it for. I've only had it for 3 days, it does a great job at rainy sport events
Upvote
0
So far, I'm happy with the results, it's not as sharp at the EF180L, but the ILIS+IBIS gives me a much higher amount of keepers. Below is a 100% crop of a hoverfly that was close-but-not-quite at MFD.
I ran it through DxO PR6, that adds (or brings back) a bit of detail, but not much more than the builtin denoise in LR. DxO did do a much better job here with making the background less splotchy, LR kept too much of the noise texture for my liking.
On the practical side, the 70-200Z+2x is marginally longer than the 100-500L, making it almost too large for my shoulder bag. That extra fingerwidth of length makes a big difference for that specific bag. Let's hope we'll have better weather next week so I can go out to find dragonflies and frogs.
Upvote
0
I use the 70-200Z + 2x to take a lot of butterfly shots at high magnification. Not necessarily right at MFD, but often close. My personal take for this lens with 2x at MFD is that "it is much better than it has any right to be". I don't anyone could reasonably be disappointed by it.
Some samples:
Some shots at MFD. This was a TINY fly, and these are very, very deep crops. Still looks quite good imo considering it is only 0.6x magnification
And a honey bee:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The 70-200mm f/2.8 Z is on my buy list. However, for macro of about 0.6x I am now getting too old to bend down to get the mfd of 70cm away, but the 2x TC on the RF 100-500mm or RF 100-400mm means I can stand relatively straight at 1.2-1.4m! Here's a Green Bottle Fly I took at 1000mm on the R5ii a few minutes ago!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
How is the sharpness at MFD? Excellent, that's my experience, that't reviewers' testimony. Regarding 2.8: Shooting wildlife at .5x or even closer at least I need more depth of field than f/2.8 can provide. The word isn't flat, nor are the protagonists.
Proposal: Never take this 70-200 Z in your hands, this will be bad for your wallet.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
