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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MPeeps]

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.

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.

 

[MPeeps]

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.

Highly doubt Canon will do anything to lose their market share dominance.

 

[Snappy St Loes]

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.

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.

 

[MPeeps]

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.

I'm in my 70s and completely hear you. I've yet to spring for the 800 f/11 but may have to look at that.

 

[David Berry]

‘Heavy’ and ‘big’ are words seldom used to describe the RF100–500.

 

[RedCobra]

Waiting for the RF 200-500 f/4 (maybe with TC) built in). Actually one two lists at two different stores.

 

[ctitanic]

Good EF lenses work perfectly fine in R cameras. I do not care about having a prime RF zoom lens because the price of it will make it totally inaccessible to me. So... I'll keep hunting for good deals on EF L lenses.

 

[MSH411]

‘Heavy’ and ‘big’ are words seldom used to describe the RF100–500.

Agreed, I'm up there in years and I can carry it hiking all day without much effort. I love the the RF100-500, perfect balance of range, IQ and weight.