The Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM appears to be getting closer [CR3]

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
357
251
Sounds too good to be true. The existing 300mm f/2.8 is maybe Canon’s best lens. If they can match the quality with so little weight it would become a must-have combo with a high MPIX camera.
 

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,131
1,508
I barely use my EF 300mm 2.8L IS II so no I will not get the RF version. Also now I can use my lens with 5DIV, 5DsR and R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
536
690
Northeastern US
I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,158
267
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.
I find my Mk II quite hand-holdable, so I'd take a smaller weight reduction and a 120-300mm zoom design over a fixed lens with bigger weight reduction.

Assuming that they take TC equally well (which I would assume be more complicated for the zoom design, but I never took optics classes in Uni).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,148
I find my Mk II quite hand-holdable, so I'd take a smaller weight reduction and a 120-300mm zoom design over a fixed lens with bigger weight reduction.

Assuming that they take TC equally well (which I would assume be more complicated for the zoom design, but I never took optics classes in Uni).
The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 weighs nearly 3.7 kg in use. So I wonder how much could its weight be reduced using more modern construction. There aren't any more modern equivalents but a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom would be roughly the same size and weight as a 240-600mm f/5.6. Sony's 200-600mm f/6.3 is ~2.1kg as is Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 and so I would expect the weight to be not less than 2.5 kg, not much more than the EF 300mm f/2.8 II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,158
267
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 weighs nearly 3.7 kg in use. So I wonder how much could its weight be reduced using more modern construction.
As a comparison, the 200-400 1.4x TC weighs 3.62kg. The front elements of that and a 300/2.8 is the same(ish) size but the 300mm II is significantly shorter and lighter (2.35kg).

But yeah, anything less than 2kg would probably require a miracle or an act of god.
 

amfoto1

EOS M50
Aug 29, 2014
36
41
For those of us who have trouble with metric....

The EF 300mm f/2.8 II weighs 5.25 lb.

If the RF 300mm f/2.8 is 40% lighter, it would weigh 3.15 lb., which is pretty stunning!

I just checked The-Digital-Picture and the EF 300mm f/2.8 II weight includes hood and caps, which are close to 1/2 lb. I wonder if the RF version's weight includes these things.

P.S. for sake of comparison, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is 7.5 lb. This also includes caps and hood.
 
Last edited:

Bob Howland

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
820
483
I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.
When I bought my 300, I simultaneously bought the 1.4X and 2X TCs. I use(d) the lens as a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 and it works quite well at all three focal lengths. I now use the 150-600 Sigma Sport much more than the 300 and want a 200-500 f/2.8-4. Buying a 120-300 seems rather pointless.
 

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,131
1,508
You should sell. Got a very good price for mine.
I should not because I will not be able to find it - used in reasonable price - should I need it again. We do not all live in places where used big whites are available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
409
505
This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.
I wonder if the shorter length of the lens means that it will be a telescoping lens like the 800 f11?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,148
I wonder if the shorter length of the lens means that it will be a telescoping lens like the 800 f11?
Very, very unlikely. Not much length to telescope, and it would greatly add to its weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SonicStudios

R5
CR Pro
Mar 4, 2020
54
51
Resistance is futile, we will all be assimilated into the RF 300 2.8. Canon has become the new Borg :) :) :) Thank You Canon, I for one, can’t wait to add this to my collection!!!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,794
2,093
As a comparison, the 200-400 1.4x TC weighs 3.62kg. The front elements of that and a 300/2.8 is the same(ish) size but the 300mm II is significantly shorter and lighter (2.35kg).

But yeah, anything less than 2kg would probably require a miracle or an act of god.
Or an act of goddess Kwanon...;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
106
169
Excellent news for me, especially with a CR3 rating.

I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8. Literally a few minutes ago I looked them up on MPB and KEH. I'll be pre-ordering the RF version.
What price point would make you hesitate or think twice about it? I too want one, but have never spend what this will cost.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
243
269