cpe1991 wrote:
It weighs 3.25kg- I'd need assistance to hold it.
If your lens budget allows 10 grand for a single optic, you can afford an assistant to carry it and mount it on a tripod or monopod for the shoot. If you have to save up for the lens, that should give you enough time to train at the local gym and carry it yourself.
I see school children running around with backpacks far heavier than that.
People today are so spoiled. Just a little over 20 years ago we had heavy lenses without IS and slow film.
Gochugogi wrote:
If your lens budget allows 10 grand for a single optic, you can afford an assistant to carry it and mount it on a tripod or monopod for the shoot. If you have to save up for the lens, that should give you enough time to train at the local gym and carry it yourself.
The B&H image posted by arbitrage has a checkbox "Request Assistance" so it is clearly part of the deal.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
£10,000!
Ten Thousand! £££££’s !😳
I guess the Boomers will snap them up in their droves, then showcase to us all the obligatory cat/dog shots - 😂
Still, I have my old ef100-300mm usm £30 quid of eBay, luckily the inclusion of the OEM hood sweetened the deal…phew!!
Nothing wrong with either spectrum of enjoying the hobby.
Lots of people have a lot of money, you have many many ways to spend it:
High end cars
Watches
Golf clubs
Luxury vacations
$10k lens
.....
None of them are wrong, different people different priorities.
I think the 100-500 is probably as big as I will go but it always baffles me when people ridicule the high price of top lenses.
Lexus/BMW/Audi.... = Honda/Toyota/... + Top end photo gear
If you like in an affluent neighborhood half of the people have premium cars.
I hope the lenshood has a better design. On my 500II the lenshood is a joke, it feels like an oversized plastic pipe cut loose and kept together by a cheap screw, It’s really unbelievable.
I don’t know about sony and nikon, but definitely canon needs to be shamed for that.
EB-1 wrote:
I see school children running around with backpacks far heavier than that.
People today are so spoiled. Just a little over 20 years ago we had heavy lenses without IS and slow film.
EBH
And there are those that are a bit older than school children and in worse physical condition. And over 20 years ago, such people could not cope with such heavy lenses then either.
100-300 zoom and f2.8 is a winner for indoor sports. Hockey, basketball, volleyball... For professional sports shooters and serious amateurs who favour a lens over a porsche.
I have the 200-400 and 600/f4. I used to use 600/7d and 100-400/5dii outside for football. And if I still had teenage children that were in sports I would like this lens. My oldest is providing me with the first grand child in September, so I might be able to use this lens in 10 years.
This will sell well if they make it. Even at $10,000.
EB-1 wrote:
I see school children running around with backpacks far heavier than that.
People today are so spoiled. Just a little over 20 years ago we had heavy lenses without IS and slow film.
EBH
Imagemaster wrote:
And there are those that are a bit older than school children and in worse physical condition. And over 20 years ago, such people could not cope with such heavy lenses then either.
I expect that the folks running around on the sidelines of the court or field are fit enough to perform their duties and a 100-300/2.8 saves overall weight by being a zoom. Somewhat lighter lens loads will allow longer careers or help those with marginal physical capabilities. I could not have done that kind of work even when I was young and mostly orthopedically correct. A 100-300/2.8 won't be a lens used much by amateurs compared to a 600/4 that often is.
Canon has used the same mounting / attachment method for the Big White lenses since they have existed. My first Big White was a EF400 2.8, cost me $6000, and weighed 13+ pounds. What the hoods are constructed of may have changed over the years. I have found the hoods attach easily and stay put. And they have always been $400+. The Sony hoods use practically the exact same system. What usually fails is the e-clip that holds the "wedge" onto the tightening screw. And this usually happens when the packing tape that goes over the wedge is not removed. The tape eventually gets behind the wedge when the hood is attached and removed, eventually the tape binds up behind the wedge, the tightened screw gets hard to unscrew, people force it and distort the e-clip and the e-clip falls out and the wedge follows. It is an item to check from time-to-time and a 2mm e-clip costs pennies. I've replaced mine a couple times (over a 30 year period), and on other photogs lenses. I keep a couple stashed in my cross-point screwdriver set.
Oh. And I would love to have a 100-300mm 2.8, but would prefer a 300mm 2.8 with the 1.4x
This type of lenses are typically used on monopods and the photographer stays mostly in one place and does not move around. The weight does make hand-holding for a longer period difficult (and unhealthy) as an event could last all day with only short breaks in between. However, if the zoom range fits the event then it could be the only telephoto lens that a photographer needs and that way it can save weight and money. As a Nikon user I didn't buy the 120-300/2.8 (instead I got the 300/2.8) because of the larger size of the zoom (it is a bit longer and so it can shadow other people's visibility a bit more so I don't like that as I prefer to take as small a visual footprint as possible). I don't like to use a monopod so I am stuck hand-holding it and can feel it afterwards. Anyway I have no doubt it will be somewhat popular among PJ/sports photographers. However, my personal preference would be for a lighter weight 300/2.8 prime with no TC. Built-in TCs seem to increase lens prices quite dramatically and they conflict with the objective of light weight. Nikon does have a very light weight 400/4.5 (1.2 kg) that is well regarded and that may be the lens I get if Nikon does not make a 300/2.8 prime for Z even though my preference focal length wise is 300 (coupled with 70-200). The 120-300/2.8 type lenses may be great for photo agencies and such.
I use an older EF300 2.8L IS adapted and an RF 100-500. Both lenses have some real strengths and painful weaknesses. If this rumored RF100-300 2.8 came with a teleconverter built in Canon just might get my money. The RF 100-500 is brilliantly in many ways but the aperture is painfully slow. My EF300 2.8 is, well, a 24 year lens old design. This rumored lens could solve both problems and simplify my kit.
