Lack of fast long telephoto prime lenses in the RF lineup

[AntonLargiader]

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

$3999 on the refurb store this morning!

 

[mjrovner]

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.

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.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• EF500mm f/4L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 200

 

[mjrovner]

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

P.S. sorry about the watermark - this was shot in October 2023

 

[mjrovner]

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

BTW, I might wait for the R5 Mark 2 before buying an R3. Also if you're a Lightroom user, the new Lens Blur panel lets you kind of create your own bokeh.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

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.

 

[mjrovner]

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.

I think Canon is banking on this logic. With the RF 100-300 2.8 selling for US $9500 and a used EF 300 f 2.8 IS in excellent condition selling for 1/3 as much, you have to ask, how much is the advance worth? I think the emerging rap on the RF super-teles is that they are admirably lighter and arguably more poorly made.

 

[RedCobra]

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.

Been shooting Canon since 1967. In the day, Primes were the best and zooms were, well....
When I first went mirrorless (D60) I was all primes (about 8 of them) but have switched to zooms as they are now every bit as good as a prime (L lenses)
I am now all zooms except for a 100mm macro.
I have over 70k photos stored on my system, and with the last 12yrs of photos, I dare anyone to tell the difference between the primes and the zooms.
Eagerly awaiting the RF 200-500 f/4 zoom. (started saving the day it was rumored. LOL)
I suspect 5 yrs from now there will be very few new primes.

 

[Dave Williams]

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.

You are no doubt likely to be proved correct on the 300f2.8. and several other popular lenses. It's not necessary anymore but for those who crave a cheaper alternative to the new and expensive zoom the EF 300f2.8 prime will suffice more than nicely and that is the point made in the last few posts. I do wonder what will replace the 500mm f4 though, any ideas?

 

[David Stallard]

eric8255
Take a look at this video think it's around the 9 min mark he mentions how he doesn't really trust the R5 with the RF100-500 - pretty much hits the nail on the head.