Certainly interesting to see where Canon landed on this one. They look to have thrown a lot of modern tech and optical prowess into it.
They are positioning/marketing it as the 300mm f/2.8L IS prime for RF with with added capability of zoom. Moderately implying no 300mm f/2.8L IS RF anytime soon if at all. Though I suspect down the line they might consider doing a 300mm f/2 or even a fast 200mm as that is also on the table.
Certainly some side by sides need to be done and compared. But already it appears to be "better" optically than the previous EF prime. That is an achievement worth noting. Though I suspect the background blur/bokeh will be something to closely examine. Looks nice so far.
I think an additional lane of thought here is pairing it with the 1.4X TC in particular and see where that lands optically and look-wise with that marginal 1 stop light loss. The 2X TC in my experience does provide more of an optical hit, but the 1.4X seems to sing and possibly creates less of a desire/need for the 400mm f/2.8L IS RF. That's going to be sort of my main comparison, though that 400mm is one of my favorite lenses made.
Super happy to see a ground up design here for RF. I do own the Sigma in both native EF and a rehoused PL mount version for motion picture work. But optically, it's a wee bit older in comparison to most modern solutions. Pretty sure this 100-300mm f/2.8L IS RF becomes the default lens for NFL and other sport work.
Seems like a cool lens but I’m pretty disappointed to see Canon going in this direction with their RF super tele’s. A 300 f/2.8 DO with a built-in extender would have been a pre-order for me but as a bird photographer I have no desire to own this one. Hate to say it because I love my R3 but Nikon’s looking better and better, for birding their lineup just makes a lot more sense. I’ve often considered buying a 400 f/2.8 to accompany my 600 f/4 but just didn’t feel like carrying around two big whites. Nikon essentially gives you both in a single lens with the option of owning a relatively affordable and compact 800mm when more reach is needed (or just slapping on a 2x depending on the scenario).
Tony5787 wrote:
Seems like a cool lens but I’m pretty disappointed to see Canon going in this direction with their RF super tele’s. A 300 f/2.8 DO with a built-in extender would have been a pre-order for me but as a bird photographer I have no desire to own this one. Hate to say it because I love my R3 but Nikon’s looking better and better, for birding their lineup just makes a lot more sense. I’ve often considered buying a 400 f/2.8 to accompany my 600 f/4 but just didn’t feel like carrying around two big whites. Nikon essentially gives you both in a single lens with the option of owning a relatively affordable and compact 800mm when more reach is needed (or just slapping on a 2x depending on the scenario)....Show more →
I think this is a sports lens, not a birding lens.
matejphoto wrote:
I think this is a sports lens, not a birding lens.
Yes, unless it´s birds in cages. And as Tony5787 suggests it leaves room for a DO 300/2.8 with built in 1.4x that can be very small/short and light compared to a non DO dito. My guess is that a 200-500 f/4 would be the RF 500/4 with 200-499 included and in our hands far before the DO 300. Include a 1.4x in the 200-500 and the price for the 100-300 will be a real bargin.
rscheffler wrote:
^ How about similar in size and weight to the EF300/2.8 vII?
IMO a 100-300/2.8 is the right move by Canon and makes way more sense than a fixed 300/2.8 due to the versatility of the zoom (assuming image quality on par with comparable 300 primes).
That's why I bought a sigma 120-300 sport. I was shooting with my Canon 300mm 2.8 Non is and I felt a little limited when the players (soccer) would get closer to me. If I had heaps of cash laying around I'd def preorder the canon lens.
matejphoto wrote:
I think this is a sports lens, not a birding lens.
You’d be surprised how close some birds get, the reason the 400 f/2.8 has appealed to me is for close focus. There are plenty of times where a 600mm f/4 can’t focus close enough on warblers or owls. Not to mention having an f/2.8 lens for low light shooting with owls, once you’re shooting screech owls in the dark doing 2 second exposures at ISO 25,600 that extra light starts to look pretty appealing lol
I also have started gravitating to more environmental shots instead of just tight portraits and a 300mm or 400mm works really well in that range. But yeah this lens is primarily for sports/wedding/event shooters who could use the 100-299mm range, aside from large mammals or really scenic shots 300mm is like the bare minimum I’d use for birds or wildlife 95% of the time. If I still shot sports this lens would be perfect, especially for indoor sports.
interesting lens, you must really need those extra 100mm at 2.8 to justify the weight and cost compared to the 70-200. It probably makes sense on the r3 but on hi-res body like the r5 much less so. It would be interesting to see image quality with teleconverters.
On a different note, let’s hope nikon is able to erode a bit of canon market with their long lens offering so we can see more affordable and compact superteles in canon land.
crisdesign wrote:
interesting lens, you must really need those extra 100mm at 2.8 to justify the weight and cost compared to the 70-200. It probably makes sense on the r3 but on hi-res body like the r5 much less so. It would be interesting to see image quality with teleconverters.
Images shot at 300/2.8 look very different from those made at 200/2.8, in terms of how the background appears. And one often needs to crop a bit from 300mm as well, so the extra pixels of high-resolution cameras come in handy. A 300/2.8 is also much easier to handle than a 400/2.8 and at least for what sports I shoot, 200-300mm is the key range which is where most of the action happens. This is nicely covered by a 120-300/2.8 or 100-300/2.8. But I would still often have to reframe the images shot at 300mm because I have to leave some room around the action, to avoid accidentally cropping a limb. I normally shoot with a 20 MP camera but there are advantages to using a 45 MP one in terms of flexibility of the use of the images.
crisdesign wrote:
interesting lens, you must really need those extra 100mm at 2.8 to justify the weight and cost compared to the 70-200. It probably makes sense on the r3 but on hi-res body like the r5 much less so. It would be interesting to see image quality with teleconverters.
On a different note, let’s hope nikon is able to erode a bit of canon market with their long lens offering so we can see more affordable and compact superteles in canon land.
I mean, that's always been the case with a 300mm f/2.8. 70-200mm f/2.8's have existed for around 35 years, and 300mm f/2.8's have still been popular, and expensive. Perhaps not this expensive, but this also gives the versatility of essentially both lenses in one, plus with outstanding performance with a 1.4x, it's also a very fair replacement for the 200-400mm f/4L, which costs like $12,000....so you're effectively replacing a 70-200/2.8, a 300/2.8 and a 200-400mm f/4 with a single lens, for $10,000 (including the 1.4x). That's not nearly as bad a deal as it may look at first blush. Of course the target market for this is professional sports shooters, and this kind of lens can give a big leg up in versatility, and the cost isn't much of a barrier for those people.
For a hobbyist, of course, you really need a lot of spare cash to justify the cost.
So they turned the 300 f/2.8 IS II into a 100-300 f/2.8 while keeping the same size and weight? Very cool stuff. If I was still shooting sports this would be an instant buy.
I think this lens is a winner for the target demographic, which is photojournalists that owned both a 300 f/2.8 prime and the EF 200-400. Assuming the IQ is good with extenders, 300-600 f/5.6 is very serviceable for field sports in the day too. They delivered a replacement for both of those lenses in one in a very manageable footprint.
Looks exceptional. I'm surprised that there's no rear filter or built in TC for the extra wow factor, but it still seems like an excellent lens for indoor sports and less reach-limited events that don't require a 400/600.
I'm only an enthusiast/part-timer, so this is out of my budget, but I'm hoping that it leads to some good deals on the Sigma 120-300 as true pros upgrade. I'd happily take one of those for sports, action portraits, and events, which I seem to primarily do these days.
? Stack of 112mm filters? 1.4x built in? again close but no cigar.