Has anyone had an opportunity to test it side-by-side with the older EF 300 f/2.8L II? I know Canon says that the new lens is shaper than the older variant, but I'm curious if that's actually true in practice.
I finally had a little chance to test the 2x for AF performance. This combo performs very well with minimal loss of AF speed. It stays locked on very well. I tested it with a mallard flying by me ( poor light with higher ISO ) grabbed on and followed the bird and next was Kenzie running then jumping over a log. I do this a lot with her and it performed like my lenses with no TC on. It perform like my RF 400mm ( maybe even a bit faster but no testing just a feeling) I personally did not buy the lens for using the 2x all the time but would not hesitate to use it in any scenario. I feel it replaces my 200-400mm and the 100-500mm. I really like the internal zoom over the 100-500mm and the weight over the 200-400mm. The detail in outstanding with the 1.4x and the 2x. This will make a very versatile travel lens from 100mm to 600mm. A couple people asked can it replace the 70-200mm, yes due to image quality ( they are both great) but no to the size difference. In my opinion they are still two different lenses with different purposes. If I had to only pick one then yes the 100-300 because of TC compatibility. I feel Canon did a great job with this lens.
Here are a few with the 2x
This is similar to the above shot on different days but I do prefer the look of that f2.8 background. This is the main reason I wanted this lens for her.
dmahar wrote:
Rob, You are killing my wallet with these stunning shots. $17k here in Australia - can I resist
RobAmy wrote:
Thanks and ouch, that is costly. Crazy how it varies that much.
YOLO!
Is that AUD 17k? If so, it's 'only' a 15% premium over USD MSRP.
Anyway, it sounds like Canon Australia has priced equipment rather uncompetitively against other brands and markets, from what I've read.
On a tangent, my local shop had KEH reps in-store to take trade-ins and I inquired about trading my 200-400. The rep said they're currently not taking it - apparently too much inventory and/or too few inquiries for it. Made me a bit sad thinking what will happen if/when a 200-500 is also announced and even more 200-400s hit the market. Might just have to make-do with mine for a while...
Is that AUD 17k? If so, it's 'only' a 15% premium over USD MSRP.
Anyway, it sounds like Canon Australia has priced equipment rather uncompetitively against other brands and markets, from what I've read.
On a tangent, my local shop had KEH reps in-store to take trade-ins and I inquired about trading my 200-400. The rep said they're currently not taking it - apparently too much inventory and/or too few inquiries for it. Made me a bit sad thinking what will happen if/when a 200-500 is also announced and even more 200-400s hit the market. Might just have to make-do with mine for a while... ...Show more →
Australian pricing actually isn't too bad considering our MSRP includes all taxes and we get 5yr factory warranty - one major camera store has it here for the equivalent of 10788 USD.
Luckily I anticipated that a tasty RF big white zoom would come along and sold my 200-400 several years ago for a decent price and put that money in the bank in preparation. Will wait to see what the unicorn 200-500 brings before deciding which to buy as my 100-500 is a decent stop-gap
Rob (and others) - how do you rate the 100-300 against the 100-500 in terms of a walkabout/hiking lens?
dmahar wrote:
Rob (and others) - how do you rate the 100-300 against the 100-500 in terms of a walkabout/hiking lens?
This really depends on the individual, this is my lightest big white that I would hike with now vs my 400mm or 800mm. So to me I like the weight for hiking but vs the 100-500mm it is still heavier and bigger, not so much with it fully extended to 500mm. I hear a few say the 100-500 gets heavy then the 100-300 would not be fun for them to hike around with. Personally this is a really doable hiking lens.
RobAmy wrote:
This really depends on the individual, this is my lightest big white that I would hike with now vs my 400mm or 800mm. So to me I like the weight for hiking but vs the 100-500mm it is still heavier and bigger, not so much with it fully extended to 500mm. I hear a few say the 100-500 gets heavy then the 100-300 would not be fun for them to hike around with. Personally this is a really doable hiking lens.
I agree with Rob is very subjective.
I used to handhold a 200-400 + 1Dx II for full icehockey matches so 100-300 + R5(c) is very handholdable for me.
Will I hike 2h with it for photo oriented occasion? Sure thing.
Would I ski or MTB all day with it? Most probably not and I would take the 100-500 for that, others would even prefer the 100-400 F5.6-8 for this....
As you may notice from the above bump on my torso, I'm carrying a R5 + 100-500 in the front of my jacket.... it would be hard to do it with a 100-300 :-)
The 100-300 is twice the weight and twice the volume of a 100-500 so it really depends what are you going to do it....
I could live with "only" these 3 lenses + TC RF 16 2.8, RF 28-70 2.0 and 100-300 2.8.... but I guess I will still use the 100-500.....
