Lack of fast long telephoto prime lenses in the RF lineup

[eric8255]

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.

 

[Myles Baker]

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.

Fast primes for FF have always been expensive, not just Canon. I understand that you don't want to use an EF lens, but a second hand EF 300 f2.8 or EF 400 f2.8 would work. The adaptor really wouldn't make that much difference to the overall size & weight. I actually think that being able to adapt EF lenses with no loss in performance is a big plus because it opens up a whole treasure trove of excellent second hand lenses. Also with the high ISO capabilities of todays cameras & the excellent noise reduction software available I don't think there is a big issue shooting at higher ISO's. I suppose it depends how dark the conditions are that you are shooting in. I regulary shoot in quite low light at f4 with no big issues. Canon's in-camera jpeg noise reduction isn't always great, but I just run the raws through denoise & they clean up really well. I also don't mind a little bit a noise in my images if the alternative is loss of detail. Rugby is always a challenging game to photograph, if you capture a great moment, then a little noise is in the image is no big issue. Think "mudman" from the 77 Lions tour to NZ or Frik du Prix tackling Chris Laidlaw in 1970 SA. Or recent images like Stacy Fluer scoring against England in the WRWC final earlier this year. What all of those shots have in common is a perfect moment captured. If you can do that, it doesn't matter what lens or what camera was used or if the image is a little noisy or the eye of the player is not perfectly sharp.

 

[eric8255]

Hi Myles,

You make valid points.

I’ll maybe hire the ef 300 f/2.8 and adapter (f/4).

Given that on AP-C f/2.8 equates to approx f/4 on full frame it becomes like with like given that the 40mp on the AP-C does not seem to result in discernible IQ loss.

The combination also gives the flexibility of two focal lengths by removal of the adapter.

Fully agree that the decisive moment is key rather than the technical stuff but the technical stuff does givethe best chance of high quality images - as long as you have the technique.

Thanks

Eric

 

[hedleyw]

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.

 

[RedCobra]

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.

Still going to be expensive.

And to the OP, I disagree that there are no fast/long lenses. RF 400, RF 600, and the RF 100-300. Expensive? Yes! but you can't make a cheap/long/fast lens. One of these things has to go.

 

[eric8255]

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.

 

[David Stallard]

Not sure why you struggle with the 100-500 to be honest - I shoot motorsport with a LOT in really bad weather / dark and heavy rain and I found it to be a great - maybe it's the R5 that is the issue? I run with the R3 with no issues!
Part way through the season I changed to the RF 100-300 mainly for the weather sealing (run with extenders trackside so nearly always f4+ ) only suggestion if you have to stick with the R5 would be the adaptor and some of the older EF glass if you 'simply must have 2.8'. Also worth checking out the ef 200-400 with built in 1.4, yes it's f4 but quality is outstanding and there are a few good s/h ones out there now

 

[AntonLargiader]

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

The EF300 was already a $6000+ lens. RF would have been more, probably $7000. So they made it a $9500 zoom instead. A jump in price to be sure, but not like the roughly 2x jump from the EF200/2.8 to the 70-200/2.8.

 

[eric8255]

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

 

[Dave Williams]

I don't understand why anyone has second thoughts about EF lenses. Two shots here, the 500mm is cropped, the 600mm isn't. Almost identical camera settings on the R5. One lens can be purchased used for less than £4k, the other is probably only available new as it's a recent addition to the Canon range and will set you back £14k.

• Canon EOS R5
• EF500mm f/4L IS II USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R5
• RF600mm F4 L IS USM
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 100