marsguy wrote:
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....Show more →
The 120-300/2.8 Nikkor is also $9500, so what exactly is an alternative for this in another full frame system? Sony has a limited selection of big teles, 400/2.8 and 600/4 with a 300/2.8 in development, and none of those are cheap with none of the versatility of a zoom. What other maker has a full FF system with pro support?
I also have no use for the lens but it will be an excellent addition to those who need a lens that is longer than a 70-200/2.8 and shorter than the 200-400/4. f/2.8 can separate the background and work in really low light. I think the lens will be hard to fufill for a while.
marsguy wrote:
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....Show more →
Nikon is charging $1071 for a 400/2.8 HK42 hood. Sony $675.
EB-1 wrote:
The 120-300/2.8 Nikkor is also $9500, so what exactly is an alternative for this in another full frame system? Sony has a limited selection of big teles, 400/2.8 and 600/4 with a 300/2.8 in development, and none of those are cheap with none of the versatility of a zoom. What other maker has a full FF system with pro support?
I also have no use for the lens but it will be an excellent addition to those who need a lens that is longer than a 70-200/2.8 and shorter than the 200-400/4. f/2.8 can separate the background and work in really low light. I think the lens will be hard to fufill for a while.
You probably know better than me. I've only just broken into FF, and it's not for wildlife/sports/action. While I do think the lens is exorbitantly priced, it's not what I have a problem with. I have a problem with a $650 ring of plastic with a small locking button. But, it is just a rumor from the sounds of it, so maybe it is a mistake, and is actually $65 which is a much more sensible price that doesn't insult their customer base.
AmbientMike wrote:
Nikon is charging $1071 for a 400/2.8 HK42 hood. Sony $675.
It's insane but you can't really single out Canon
Good lord. That is indeed insane. I await those who come to tell me "it's worth whatever the market will bear, cry more."
Heaven help me if I break a lens hood. After spending nearly 5 grand on an R5 and 14-35 for hobbyist use, I'll have to cut out a milk jug and secure it with a rubber band. I'm sure the hoods in question are made to be pretty much bulletproof at that price though right? ....right?
Choderboy wrote:
Yes, let's forget about the lens. Hood price is far more interesting......
I mean, people have come to accept that the big three will gouge them for big lenses. What's there to talk about? Pros will pay up, retired dudes with a bird-rich backyard will pay up, and everyone else will go on using lenses that don't cost as much as a 5 year old low-end sedan.
Alright alright, I'll tone down the bitterness a little bit. Again, this lens ain't for me, but I think there at least a dozen influencers and forum dwellers who will be jazzed about it.
Suggesting a big white hood should be $65 is just as insane as the actual price.
It's not plastic, rather Carbon fibre.
A Zemlin hood will likely be $150.
marsguy wrote:
I mean, people have come to accept that the big three will gouge them for big lenses. What's there to talk about? Pros will pay up, retired dudes with a bird-rich backyard will pay up, and everyone else will go on using lenses that don't cost as much as a 5 year old low-end sedan.
Alright alright, I'll tone down the bitterness a little bit. Again, this lens ain't for me, but I think there at least a dozen influencers and forum dwellers who will be jazzed about it.
Choderboy wrote:
Suggesting a big white hood should be $65 is just as insane as the actual price.
It's not plastic, rather Carbon fibre.
A Zemlin hood will likely be $150.
I was unaware. I guess most who can afford a Ferrari can probably afford to put 93 octane in it. Still, there are carbon fiber tripods (with more carbon fiber on them) that cost less.
marsguy wrote:
I'm sure the hoods in question are made to be pretty much bulletproof at that price though right? ....right?
Not really. The locking mechanism is not good on the big tele hoods. The most recent one that broke on me was the 600/4 RF. The hood is more likely to fall over an embankment into the river (for example) at that point.
EB-1 wrote:
The 120-300/2.8 Nikkor is also $9500, so what exactly is an alternative for this in another full frame system? Sony has a limited selection of big teles, 400/2.8 and 600/4 with a 300/2.8 in development, and none of those are cheap with none of the versatility of a zoom. What other maker has a full FF system with pro support?
I also have no use for the lens but it will be an excellent addition to those who need a lens that is longer than a 70-200/2.8 and shorter than the 200-400/4. f/2.8 can separate the background and work in really low light. I think the lens will be hard to fufill for a while.
If I had a z9 I'd consider this type of lens all day long. The ability to optionally shoot dx mode with high resolution for sports kind of negates the need for a 400 f2.8.
docusync wrote:
Looks like it will be the ultimate sports lens. The only downside compared to a ‘pure’ 300/2.8 lens is weight, and it’s about 900g / 2lbs.
It will be a great focal length for many sports, but will not replace a 400mm f2.8 nor a 600mm f4.
I have the Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 and use it with the ftz adapter on my Z9. I also have an R3 and R5. if Canon keeps the weight down like they did with the RF 70-200 F/2.8 vs the Nikon z 70-200 f/2.8, then I'll be selling my nikon and buying the canon. Nikon didn't put their lenses on a diet like canon did.
The price is definitely in line; it's as sharp as a prime. I sold my nikon 300 v2 F/2.8 after running them side by side.
As a sports photographer, it's great indoors and outdoors for near field. It's a dream focal length and f/2.8 throughout the range.
mb126 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I forgot people still shoot professional sports. Yeah I agree that makes sense.
Thinking more from the perspective of a hobbyist. I don't see the value there. But, I guess that isn't the goal audience.
All I care about is that they better not drop this 100-300 instead of the RF 300 w/TC. If that happens I will be big sad
adamx12m wrote:
If I had a z9 I'd consider this type of lens all day long. The ability to optionally shoot dx mode with high resolution for sports kind of negates the need for a 400 f2.8.
Exactly why I am considering moving from Canon to Nikon - because Nikon has this lens.
