Lack of fast long telephoto prime lenses in the RF lineup

eric8255 said:

I have an R5 that I use for most of my photography including sport - specifically rugby.

I am in the UK so low light becomes an issue particularly around mid season.

My frustration is that in low light the RF 100-500 is too slow - and that’s physics. Bumping up the ISO is obviously possible but this creates unacceptable quality issues. I sold my RF 100-500 as a result.

For closer action I don’t have a problem as I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8 but for more distant capture I think a fast prime (and two bodies) is a necessity.

That being said for more distant action Canon does not have any suitable fast primes in its RF system unless you are prepared to pay £13119 for the RF 400 f2.8 that I would pay if I was a professional, or an RF 100-300. f/2.8 + and extender (so f/4). This too is unacceptable at a combined cost of £12200 - and the loss of hand holding the 70-200.

There is no eg RF 300 f/2.8 option let alone one that could then be used with a 1.4 extender. If there were I would very likely get away with an f/4 aperture using it on my now dated but still high quality EOS - R. This would justify the purchase of what would still be an expensive lens.

The net result is as a dedicated Canon shooter I now use a Canon RF 70/200 f/2.8 on the R5 and a Fuji XF 200mm f/2 + 1.4 extender that gives me a 420mm f/2.8 on a Fuji X-T5.

I thus have two systems for the one shooting situation and that is not good.

I am not interested in adapted EF lenses that slightly bulk out the system - I did not buy into the RF system to do that.

The Fuji IQ is good and there is a far less heavy Fuji option that gives a 75-210mm f/2.8 given the crop factor - and a somewhat reluctant complete changeover might become attractive.

It is about time Canon got its act together.

Click to expand...

hedleyw said:

A 400mm f/4 DO RF is needed - I’m sure lots of them would sell to amateur sports photographers. Nikon have that market to themselves.

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

by not producing eg an RF 300 mm f/2.8 that would take a 1.4 extender.

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

If the lenses work for me perhaps I’ll consider the R3

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

I have an R5 that I use for most of my photography including sport - specifically rugby.

I am in the UK so low light becomes an issue particularly around mid season.

My frustration is that in low light the RF 100-500 is too slow - and that’s physics. Bumping up the ISO is obviously possible but this creates unacceptable quality issues. I sold my RF 100-500 as a result.

For closer action I don’t have a problem as I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8 but for more distant capture I think a fast prime (and two bodies) is a necessity.

That being said for more distant action Canon does not have any suitable fast primes in its RF system unless you are prepared to pay £13119 for the RF 400 f2.8 that I would pay if I was a professional, or an RF 100-300. f/2.8 + and extender (so f/4). This too is unacceptable at a combined cost of £12200 - and the loss of hand holding the 70-200.

There is no eg RF 300 f/2.8 option let alone one that could then be used with a 1.4 extender. If there were I would very likely get away with an f/4 aperture using it on my now dated but still high quality EOS - R. This would justify the purchase of what would still be an expensive lens.

The net result is as a dedicated Canon shooter I now use a Canon RF 70/200 f/2.8 on the R5 and a Fuji XF 200mm f/2 + 1.4 extender that gives me a 420mm f/2.8 on a Fuji X-T5.

I thus have two systems for the one shooting situation and that is not good.

I am not interested in adapted EF lenses that slightly bulk out the system - I did not buy into the RF system to do that.

The Fuji IQ is good and there is a far less heavy Fuji option that gives a 75-210mm f/2.8 given the crop factor - and a somewhat reluctant complete changeover might become attractive.

It is about time Canon got its act together.

Click to expand...

mjrovner said:

Just bought an EF500 IS (first gen IS) for $2000 and it works great with my R6m2. I see a lot of complaints about build quality ont he new ultra-expensive long lenses, and I'm not sure what I'd want that the EF lens won't deliver. And it's built like a tank.View attachment 23473

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

Thanks David

Maybe I have been a bit of a Luddite re the EF lenses so I’m going to re- assess that.

The only reason I think I need f/2.8 is its speed and I like the OOF areas it produces while keeping the contextual sense - that being said I like the OOF areas at 2.8 with the Fuji - that is actually f/4.

I had not thought it might be the camera but more the slowness of the 100-500 (physics) and/or maybe my technique can be improved (whose can’t!)

If the lenses work for me perhaps I’ll consider the R3

Still time to return the Fuji if it all works out.

Anyway many thanks for your suggestions.

Eric

Click to expand...

Jake Shoots Birds said:

As with any technology that progresses, long time users will often ignore advances in areas that formerly lagged behind a preferred methodology thinking that no matter what is done, "It'll never be as good as..."

The 100-300mm f2.8 exists for a reason. And because it exists you likely will never see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime, because those who have used the zoom don't want or need it. Is it more expensive? Sure. That's another reason you won't see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime. Zooms have always existed and purists always believe that, with minor exceptions, they were for the hobbyist. Some of those purists are still shooting film or using a claw hammer to put in a new roof.

Click to expand...

Jake Shoots Birds said:

As with any technology that progresses, long time users will often ignore advances in areas that formerly lagged behind a preferred methodology thinking that no matter what is done, "It'll never be as good as..."

The 100-300mm f2.8 exists for a reason. And because it exists you likely will never see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime, because those who have used the zoom don't want or need it. Is it more expensive? Sure. That's another reason you won't see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime. Zooms have always existed and purists always believe that, with minor exceptions, they were for the hobbyist. Some of those purists are still shooting film or using a claw hammer to put in a new roof.

Click to expand...

Jake Shoots Birds said:

As with any technology that progresses, long time users will often ignore advances in areas that formerly lagged behind a preferred methodology thinking that no matter what is done, "It'll never be as good as..."

The 100-300mm f2.8 exists for a reason. And because it exists you likely will never see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime, because those who have used the zoom don't want or need it. Is it more expensive? Sure. That's another reason you won't see an RF 300mm f2.8 prime. Zooms have always existed and purists always believe that, with minor exceptions, they were for the hobbyist. Some of those purists are still shooting film or using a claw hammer to put in a new roof.

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

I have an R5 that I use for most of my photography including sport - specifically rugby.

I am in the UK so low light becomes an issue particularly around mid season.

My frustration is that in low light the RF 100-500 is too slow - and that’s physics. Bumping up the ISO is obviously possible but this creates unacceptable quality issues. I sold my RF 100-500 as a result.

For closer action I don’t have a problem as I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8 but for more distant capture I think a fast prime (and two bodies) is a necessity.

That being said for more distant action Canon does not have any suitable fast primes in its RF system unless you are prepared to pay £13119 for the RF 400 f2.8 that I would pay if I was a professional, or an RF 100-300. f/2.8 + and extender (so f/4). This too is unacceptable at a combined cost of £12200 - and the loss of hand holding the 70-200.

There is no eg RF 300 f/2.8 option let alone one that could then be used with a 1.4 extender. If there were I would very likely get away with an f/4 aperture using it on my now dated but still high quality EOS - R. This would justify the purchase of what would still be an expensive lens.

The net result is as a dedicated Canon shooter I now use a Canon RF 70/200 f/2.8 on the R5 and a Fuji XF 200mm f/2 + 1.4 extender that gives me a 420mm f/2.8 on a Fuji X-T5.

I thus have two systems for the one shooting situation and that is not good.

I am not interested in adapted EF lenses that slightly bulk out the system - I did not buy into the RF system to do that.

The Fuji IQ is good and there is a far less heavy Fuji option that gives a 75-210mm f/2.8 given the crop factor - and a somewhat reluctant complete changeover might become attractive.

It is about time Canon got its act together.

Click to expand...

eric8255 said:

I said there were no fast long lenses at a price that gives value for money for the enthusiast as opposed to the professional. It’s not whether one can afford the lenses (which I can) but whether it is good value given its limited uses - that to me at least - it does not.

Others may disagree but I think Canon is pricing itself out of the enthusiast market by not producing eg an RF 300 mm f/2.8 that would take a 1.4 extender.

I apprehend this would work out to around half of the price of an RF 400. While still expensive such a lens and extender combination would (for me at least) be acceptable.

Click to expand...

MPeeps said:

Well, like you said there are fast telephoto prime lenses, but you can't/won't afford them. Me either. However, I do use the 100-500 and bump up the ISO, as high as 6400. Before the R5, high ISO did result in terrible photos, but Man has that improved. I use DXO Photolab 7 and it does an incredible job of cleaning up the files. I also have the 70-200 2.8 for more light when necessary. Even the EF fast tele primes were super expensive.

Click to expand...

Snappy St Loes said:

I also once owned a RF 100-500 which was a fine lens but Jeez it was heavy. I like to stomp around the moors to shoot birds and at my age gear weight is the most important consideration in making purchases. Currently I use the RF 800 and yes the fixed f11 does generate noise but DXO's freestanding Pure Raw or Photolab Elite (which includes the Pure Raw module) works a treat.

Click to expand...