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

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
Upvote 0
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
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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?
 
Upvote 0
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
Upvote 0
Upvote 0