RKnecht wrote:
10G? Looks like I will keep using my adapted Sigma 120-300 OS Sport.
The fact that Canon keeps Sigma and others from offering RF at more reasonable prices is annoying. This lens with a 1.4tc built-in would be more desirable at that price.
RKnecht wrote:
10G? Looks like I will keep using my adapted Sigma 120-300 OS Sport.
I used a friend's 120-300 OS a few yrs ago, and while it was heavy, the iq was very good wide open, and not bad at all with a 1.4x, so I can see Canon coming out with something similar.
Jim
It would be a great lens for indoor/gym sports, but didn't Nikon just release a $9k 100-300? I don't see an individual spending $10k, maybe an organization like Getty/ESPN/etc. but who wants to piss away $6k for no reason? The Sigma 100-300 still reigns supreme in quality and cost, and it adapts perfectly.
JRobertson wrote:
It would be a great lens for indoor/gym sports, but didn't Nikon just release a $9k 100-300? I don't see an individual spending $10k, maybe an organization like Getty/ESPN/etc. but who wants to piss away $6k for no reason? The Sigma 100-300 still reigns supreme in quality and cost, and it adapts perfectly.
I use the Sigma with my R3 and get great results. It was having weird issues when stopped down or when using a 1.4TC, but the recent R3 firmware update fixed that. Focus isnt the fastest, but it does the job if you know how to deal with it.
Uarctos wrote:
$650 for the hood? My 600mm f4 I think is cheaper and much larger. Is this a new selling strategy with the lens hood not included?
All L lenses have a hood (and cap) included, and always had. Doesn't mean that they're not offered for purchase separately, as spares, because they do tend to get lost. Comparatively, replacement Canon hoods have been cheaper than equivalent Sony hoods. I think you're prematurely alarmed about the wrong aspect of this rumor.
nmerc_photos wrote:
seems like a really weird lens offering with a really weird price
unless it's sub 4lbs, I don't know who would buy it
the 70-200 or current 300 are probably more than sufficient
a 300 III (RF version) with reduced weight and built in 1.4x seemed like a much more appealing option at that price point
What?! The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a very popular lens among photojournalists and sports photography community. 70-200 'aint the same thing and a fixed 300 prime also 'aint the same thing, at all. Ditto the 200-400 f/4 has been popular for a long time and if you stick the 1.4 converter on the end, you get actually 150-400 f/4.
This is literally a perfect lens for shooting the far court in basketball and most indoor athletics. A little short for field sports natively but could easily add a 1.4x for 150-400 or 2x for 200-600 f/5.6 and pair with a 70-200 for near action.
Every professional sports photographer in the world shooting Canon would order this lens immediately. It's a ridiculously logical offering.
JRobertson wrote:
It would be a great lens for indoor/gym sports, but didn't Nikon just release a $9k 100-300? I don't see an individual spending $10k, maybe an organization like Getty/ESPN/etc. but who wants to piss away $6k for no reason? The Sigma 100-300 still reigns supreme in quality and cost, and it adapts perfectly.
Plenty of individuals own the 200-400 which is the exact same lens except can't be used for indoor sports nearly as well (200 is a bit long at the wide end of your zoom range for most indoor sports). If Canon had managed a 0.7x converter for that lens they could have easily sold it for 4k to that community.
No surprises here nikon has one, it's $9500 and backordered. Like lots of high priced gear.
Sorry to see the sigma recently discontinued. A relative bargain at $3600, but not as sharp as the 300/2.8 sigma in the (2008?) pop photo test. Still supposed to be a good lens though. Probably not too hard to get used?
Many, many people have wondered for well over a decade why Canon did not make one. Or at least a 120-300 2.8 to compete with Sigma.
It's not weird if they make one. It'll be weird they waited so long.
Maybe they'll even make a 300-800 5.6.
nmerc_photos wrote:
seems like a really weird lens offering with a really weird price
unless it's sub 4lbs, I don't know who would buy it
the 70-200 or current 300 are probably more than sufficient
a 300 III (RF version) with reduced weight and built in 1.4x seemed like a much more appealing option at that price point
That's obviously an erroneous zero at the end of the rumored lens hood price, right? Canon must be high if true, or they just know their user base are flush with cash and too scared to try another system to get away from this level of predatory pricing. It's clear to me that long-time Canon shooters suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and Canon knows it. My R5 has some impressive image quality, but I grow increasingly concerned that I've signed myself up for disappointment and exploitation.
Thank goodness I have absolutely no need for this lens or its $650 replacement ring of plastic.
