Sticker shock is everywhere. I went in to buy a new Toyota truck the other day and the dealer wanted over MSRP and 2100 in ridiculous add on's. I don't need this lens, but prices are crazy here in the US. Looks like the new norm for a while. Have to wait and see if it is razor sharp like the Canon 800 or 1200 mm lenses...
Jesse Evans wrote:
My gut says this was generated by Midjourney…
I wouldn't be surprised if it was AI generated. AI has gotten so good in a short amount of time we are in for very interesting times ahead. At this point moving forward any photo (or even video) can be completely fake and no one knows if it's real or not. I have been blown away with generating some AI images with a few key strokes. I don't like where it's headed.
The latest CR post that had that leaked photo says the weight is going to be very light for a lens of this length/aperture. Good news as the Nikon one is a pig.
It indeed looks quite small for what it is. If the rumor on CR about it being superior to the EF 300/2.8 primes is true, this will be a killer lens, though of course only for those willing to pony up half a car.
Looks like a cool lens, but per the photo, is this the first superteles that has had the strap hook(s?) at the top of the lens? Looks like a potential 12 and 6 orientation for the strap hooks as opposed to 3 and 9 on the others.
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
Looks like a cool lens, but per the photo, is this the first superteles that has had the strap hook(s?) at the top of the lens? Looks like a potential 12 and 6 orientation for the strap hooks as opposed to 3 and 9 on the others.
I believe the strap lugs are on the collar, and the collar is rotated down, so they’ll still be at 3 and 9.
The strap lugs are on the collar, just like on all other big lenses. And the collar in the picture is rotated at 90 degrees.
The front diameter looks small for a 300mm f2.8 (the prime is about 13cm/5inch) but I could be wrong.
It looks like an impressive lens — the f/2.8 aperture of the venerable 300mm f/2.8L plus the variable focal lengths from 100-300. I have not read the thread — does it take a TC? If so, even at that price, for some people it could be (in a way) "cost effective."
gdanmitchell wrote:
It looks like an impressive lens — the f/2.8 aperture of the venerable 300mm f/2.8L plus the variable focal lengths from 100-300. I have not read the thread — does it take a TC? If so, even at that price, for some people it could be (in a way) "cost effective."
I would think it would take a TC since the 100-500 can, but it may limit the focal length at which you could attach it.
jgoetz4 wrote:
I would think it would take a TC since the 100-500 can, but it may limit the focal length at which you could attach it.
I hope Canon has learned their lesson here. They didn't bake this limitation into the consumer RF100-400 so hopefully they won't for lenses going forward.
I'm almost wondering if they went with a 95mm front element and some embellishment on the part of the stated focal length and aperture. The front element of the lens in the photo looks TINY.
Nonetheless, I think people that shot a 100-290 f/3.2 lens would find in practice that the size-weight tradeoff is worth it.
The front element does not look small to me for a 300 2.8. It looks the same if not a tad bigger. I'm sitting here with my 300II and I think people are thrown off because they are used to seeing a big hood installed which would make it appear bigger. But that front element does not appear to be any smaller than my 300II.
mb126 wrote:
I'm almost wondering if they went with a 95mm front element and some embellishment on the part of the stated focal length and aperture. The front element of the lens in the photo looks TINY.
Nonetheless, I think people that shot a 100-290 f/3.2 lens would find in practice that the size-weight tradeoff is worth it.
It's the wide angle shot that makes it look small. If you use his hand as a size reference, with the spacing between fingers when holding the lens, it looks more to scale.
