Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Announced

[Tim Mayo]

Canon has announced the new RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens. Despite being a zoom lens it weighs only 300g more than the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II.
The lens will retail for $9,499 in the US and £11,499.00 in the UK. Pre-orders are already open and it’s expected to start shipping towards the end of May 2023.
See the linked blog article for further details and early reviews.

Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Announced - RF Shooters

Canon has announced a new RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens designed with pro users in mind, well at least those with very deep pockets since it costs a whopping $9,499.00 US dollars. Canon claims that by exceeding the reach and potential of traditional 70-200mm lenses, and adding zoom...

rfshooters.com

I probably won't be adding this beast to my gear bag anytime soon unless I win the lottery!

 

[JHG]

Just got an email from Wex UK, the pre-ordering price is a whopping £11,499.00......

 

[Photofarmer]

only web site owner operators can afford this

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I'm just rejoicing that when I looked under accessories that the $650 lens hood is listed as "in the box". Still, don't break that thing - you can get the 100-400mm RF for $100 less right now.

 

[freddijay]

Just not in my future at all. Too much money. Not enough reach. If I were doing indoor sports, it would be an easy decision.

 

[dmanthree]

I'm just rejoicing that when I looked under accessories that the $650 lens hood is listed as "in the box". Still, don't break that thing - you can get the 100-400mm RF for $100 less right now.

Canon must use some super-duper plastic in their hoods! The hood for the 24-240 is $44, but a third party unit, one that's perfectly fine, is $14. But $650? Really?

 

[KiloHotelphoto]

This would be a great lens for Africa. I would’ve loved to have this instead of the 100-500 last year when I was in Botswana, I could’ve used the 2.8 more than the 300-500 range.

 

[freddijay]

This would be a great lens for Africa. I would’ve loved to have this instead of the 100-500 last year when I was in Botswana, I could’ve used the 2.8 more than the 300-500 range.

That would be good. The fast lenses are good in the dark forested areas of Costa Rica as well. There are always places where a fast lens is helpful but the price is too high for now. Maybe a previously-owned example will turn up in a couple of years.

 

[Copterdoc]

Canon has announced the new RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens. Despite being a zoom lens it weighs only 300g more than the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II.
The lens will retail for $9,499 in the US and £11,499.00 in the UK. Pre-orders are already open and it’s expected to start shipping towards the end of May 2023.
See the linked blog article for further details and early reviews.

Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Announced - RF Shooters

Canon has announced a new RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens designed with pro users in mind, well at least those with very deep pockets since it costs a whopping $9,499.00 US dollars. Canon claims that by exceeding the reach and potential of traditional 70-200mm lenses, and adding zoom...

rfshooters.com

I probably won't be adding this beast to my gear bag anytime soon unless I win the lottery!

Sorry, but this lens is overpriced. It certainly might be worth $6,000 although $5,000 would be a more correct value if the intent was to market to the most people. If you have a very specific need and use for this lens I guess you will bite that bullet. These prices slow the acceptance of these lenses. JMHO

 

[dmanthree]

Sorry, but this lens is overpriced. It certainly might be worth $6,000 although $5,000 would be a more correct value if the intent was to market to the most people. If you have a very specific need and use for this lens I guess you will bite that bullet. These prices slow the acceptance of these lenses. JMHO

Canon market prices their lenses based on supply and demand. And based on their success, it looks like they are pretty successful at it. I think this one will sell really well. f2.8 constant, (should be) optically excellent, and able to use teleconverters. Having a 140-420 f4 zoom isn't a bad option. Anyway, not for me. But I like it.

 

[Copterdoc]

Canon market prices their lenses based on supply and demand. And based on their success, it looks like they are pretty successful at it. I think this one will sell really well. f2.8 constant, (should be) optically excellent, and able to use teleconverters. Having a 140-420 f4 zoom isn't a bad option. Anyway, not for me. But I like it.

In my humble opinion, price is often the barrier to acceptance of technology market penetration and as I understand economics, accepting a lower margin for greater sales can often be the better strategy as long as quality and performance are not being sacrificed. For example, the return on lowering taxes is historically an increase in government revenues. Another example may well be seen in computers which have exponentially (well maybe a bit) increased in power, capability, and reliability (also due to software which I expect these RF lenses also contain) and simultaneously increased market share through lower acquisition pricing. There is a plethora of examples of this. JMHO The actual cost to Canon of their manufacturing, quality, and other costs is I believe less of a factor in the sale price of the lens than the "guaranty liability" which is often the most expensive of product liabilities. JMHO

 

[lostnomore]

I SO wish that Canon would make a more affordable super-telephoto that isn't variable aperture, that isn't so small aperture at the long end, AND for a reasonable price. Nikon nailed all these with their 200-500mm f5.6 E ED VR back when I was an F-mount user. These are the primary reasons why I won't buy the RF 100-500mm, notwithstanding being well over twice the cost. The point: If Canon would decide to make this RF 100-300mm in f/5.6 or even f/4, then I'd be on board. But at the price of this f/2.8, they're serving only a very niche market.

 

[dmanthree]

I SO wish that Canon would make a more affordable super-telephoto that isn't variable aperture, that isn't so small aperture at the long end, AND for a reasonable price. Nikon nailed all these with their 200-500mm f5.6 E ED VR back when I was an F-mount user. These are the primary reasons why I won't buy the RF 100-500mm, notwithstanding being well over twice the cost. The point: If Canon would decide to make this RF 100-300mm in f/5.6 or even f/4, then I'd be on board. But at the price of this f/2.8, they're serving only a very niche market.

I don't think there's any doubt that it's a niche lens, like many other super-teles. The 100-500 is an excellent lens, and nowhere near being priced in "niche" territory, and they 100-400 while not an L lens is a really nice option. Have you given that lens a look?

 

[lostnomore]

I don't think there's any doubt that it's a niche lens, like many other super-teles. The 100-500 is an excellent lens, and nowhere near being priced in "niche" territory, and they 100-400 while not an L lens is a really nice option. Have you given that lens a look?

I have, but once you buy the adapter it's not a whole lot more for the RF plus you get the extra 100mm. And the RF is lighter by 340 g. If the max aperture at 500mm was f/5.6 I'd have no problem buying this lens. At f/7.1, you might as well call it f/8 at that point. I've always had a hard time getting past that, but I guess I'd have to settle with this being a strictly outdoor lens past 200mm or so. Unless someone can convince me that f/7.1 isn't an issue.

 

[dmanthree]

I have, but once you buy the adapter it's not a whole lot more for the RF plus you get the extra 100mm. And the RF is lighter by 340 g. If the max aperture at 500mm was f/5.6 I'd have no problem buying this lens. At f/7.1, you might as well call it f/8 at that point. I've always had a hard time getting past that, but I guess I'd have to settle with this being a strictly outdoor lens past 200mm or so. Unless someone can convince me that f/7.1 isn't an issue.

Why would you need an adapter for the RF 100-400?

 

[lostnomore]

Why would you need an adapter for the RF 100-400?

My apologies. I didn't read your post carefully enough. I thought you were referring to the EF 100-400. No, I haven't checked out the RF version. Wow, like 1/4 of the cost of the 100-500!! I'd be curious to see if the image quality remotely compares.

 

[freddijay]

I have both the RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400. They are different tools. The RF 100-400 went on sale in November just before we were leaving for Patagonia so it ended up as part of my kit for that trip. At 19% of the price, 46% of the weight, and 55% of the length, the RF 100-400 has several advantages for travel over the RF 100-500. In my testing, it is not quite as sharp. The difference is, however, small enough to justify using it in a travel kit. The RF 100-500 can produce images that take my breath away with the resolution shown. The RF 100-400 is highly acceptable if not breathtaking. I have compared them on my basic resolution charts and for birding in the field. I recommend the RF 100-400 as a really good low-priced alternative to the RF 100-500.

 

[dmanthree]

My apologies. I didn't read your post carefully enough. I thought you were referring to the EF 100-400. No, I haven't checked out the RF version. Wow, like 1/4 of the cost of the 100-500!! I'd be curious to see if the image quality remotely compares.

I haven't used it, but every review I've seen is very positive, and they all say it "punches above its weight." Anyway, well worth a look.

 

[Bettcherphoto]

I absolutely LOVE mine. Even my editors at Getty were noticing my images looking "better/different" and then I told them I got the new lens. And that was them comparing to my EF 400mm f2.8 II IS L! I have used it for concerts, Major League Soccer and Major League Baseball so far with and without the RF1.4x.

 

[Mriker]

I absolutely LOVE mine. Even my editors at Getty were noticing my images looking "better/different" and then I told them I got the new lens. And that was them comparing to my EF 400mm f2.8 II IS L! I have used it for concerts, Major League Soccer and Major League Baseball so far with and without the RF1.4x.

Not that I can afford one....lol, but I have been looking for images that were captured with that lens and with a TC combo, care to share any?
thank you, Mark

 

[Bettcherphoto]

Getty Images

Getty Images. Find high resolution royalty-free images, editorial stock photos, vector art, video footage clips and stock music licensing at the richest image search photo library online.

www.gettyimages.com

Most of the baseball since June and some of the NFL and both the Cirque du Soleil and Lionel Richie.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Yikes, ten stacks.

 

[Kerro]

I will settle for my Sigma 120-300 2.8 which works perfectly with my Canon 2x series 3 converter and only cost AU$3000 instead of USD$10000. My pictures are sharp enough and good enough for what I need with this lens. Then I also have the 150-500 4-5.6 as a back up which also works with the TC. I cant really justify spending more thousands for new lenses now I'm retired.

 

[MikeZ]

I must agree with Kerro. I've not used the Sigma 120-300, but I have used the Sigma 150-600 for wildlife and it worked perfectly. That leans is under $1000 USD and works well with the EF-RF converter. I don't know how I could justify spending nearly $10K USD on a lens (unless I won a lottery

 

[mziese]

Much to much money for a hobby, but I think about the 100-500 lense.
I still have to wait until my bank account grows

 

[David Stallard]

Loved the RF100-500 just wished it had internal zoom and the extenders didn't restrict it to 300mm start point.
After a lot of scrimping and saving I got the 100-300 a few months ago - shot a few thousand shots motor racing trying with the 1.4 and then the 2x and I'm blown away with it,

Lotus with 1.4 (monopod IS off), Canadian with 2x- testing focus lock against busy background (hand held IS on) Bee with 2x (handheld IS on)

.DAVID.