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

[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