Patent: Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS 1.4x plus other supertelephoto optical designs

D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
I would think that the version with the TC would be significantly more expensive.
It would cost more to develop and produce two versions so they would have to just charge about the same for each to recoup that. Just selling a built in TC lens without a non TC counterpart would just result in the RF 400 f/2.8 TC costing the same as the outgoing RF 400 f/2.8. Perhaps your cheaper one would be the outgoing model while supplies last.
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much.

I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.
You are doing beautiful work with the 500mm. excellent wildlife shots
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.
I'd second this opinion. I think a new 500/f4(or f5?) with an internal (use or don't use) 2x TC would be an optimal choice for me. Hopefully it would have a short minimum focus so that it could have a much wider range of usage.
 
Upvote 0

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
209
92
IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much.

I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.
Thank you for replying. That does sound reasonable.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 9, 2016
351
419
I hope, they do not do the same with the 300mm like with the 600mm III version. This is definitively not as sharp as the Mk II.
I pray they keep optical quality like the 300mm, as IMO it is their sharpest prime lens.
And the do not go higher than 10000 Euros. (Ok, this is wishful thinking. Realistically 12000 € as Canon knows how to milk us fanboys)
I’ve used the 300 2.8ii, yes its sharp but the 500 4ii is had a tad more contrast, it’s one of the sharpest canon offers I believe. I’m using now for 2 years. It still blows me away.
 
Upvote 0