p.1 #2 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Very interesting.
Currently my most used lens is my 300/2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs as needed.
That means I'm shooting 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6
~45% of the time I'm at 600, 34% at 420 and 21% at 300 (based on my processed LR images)
If this lens was f/4 at 400 then it basically replaces ~80% of my use case for my current setup without having to juggle/swap TCs.
I'd want it to be internal zoom.
To be 600/5.6 it will have the same front element size as the RF100-300/2.8 so it will have some heft to it and it still could be pretty expensive.
p.1 #6 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Feels like it's a compromise of the current offerings 100-500 and 600 f/4. I shoot primarily birds, and I want the 100-500 for the ease of carry, hand holding. The 600 for image quality, aperture, and reach.
I could see this being an alternative to both, but it's going to be a bit hefty to hand hold and if the alternative is putting it on a tripod / monopod, it's a compromise to the 600. But you save $$$ and the internal zoom is a huge plus.
I could see a space for it, I just don't know how good the compromise is.
p.1 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
I doubt this is primarily for birds. Canon has the consumer lenses like 200-800 for that. Similary Nikon has 180-600/6.3 and Sony has 200-600/6.3 cheap lenses.
The 300-600/4-5.6 is more like a replacement for the 200-400/4 with TC. Better IQ at the long end but losing the wide end. I imagine this lens on the playing field with a monopod.
p.1 #9 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
I'll buy it as soon as available and put it in the bag right next to the 100-300. I agree it's kinda redundant to the 100-300 + 2x TC, However with two bodies and the 100-300 on one and the 300-600 on the other beside me on the seat, I can just pick up the focal length i want without fiddling with TCs. Big advantage in the Land Cruisers with moving game.
p.1 #10 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
I doubt this is primarily for birds. Canon has the consumer lenses like 200-800 for that. Similary Nikon has 180-600/6.3 and Sony has 200-600/6.3 cheap lenses.
The 300-600/4-5.6 is more like a replacement for the 200-400/4 with TC. Better IQ at the long end but losing the wide end. I imagine this lens on the playing field with a monopod.
EBH
If it is as sharp as the 100-300 it'll blow the 200-800 out of the water. Personally I don't like the AF or IQ of the 200-800 compared to even the 100-500 with a 1.4x TC much less the 100-300 with a 2x TC.
p.1 #11 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
The original link to this rumored lens had it at a constant f/5.6 which made no sense. But now, this new thread and rumor has updated it to f/4-f/5.6 which makes much better sense.
p.1 #12 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Alan Kefauver wrote:
If it is as sharp as the 100-300 it'll blow the 200-800 out of the water. Personally I don't like the AF or IQ of the 200-800 compared to even the 100-500 with a 1.4x TC much less the 100-300 with a 2x TC.
Of course. MTF of the 200-800 is poor, but it is consumer grade. For me the 100-500 is acceptable at 500 when used within limits, but not very good with a TC.
A high-grade f/5.6 lens is not so diffraction limited as the slower long tele zooms and won't have the disparity between the tangential and sagittal MTF common in the lower grade teles. I'm also expecting the AF to be top notch.
p.1 #13 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Now we're talkin! If this is real and comes in @ about $6k then I'll finally have a worthy replacement for my trusty 500 f/4 II.
I'm not crazy about being limited to 300, wider would be nice, but if the IQ and weight is there then I'll likely grab this puppy.
Let's just hope CR actually has it right this time around.
p.1 #14 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
Now we're talkin! If this is real and comes in @ about $6k then I'll finally have a worthy replacement for my trusty 500 f/4 II.
I'm not crazy about being limited to 300, wider would be nice, but if the IQ and weight is there then I'll likely grab this puppy.
Let's just hope CR actually has it right this time around.
I guess it all depends on the apertures at the different focal lengths. If this thing stays close to F/4 at 500mm then this lens could easily go for 9k.
p.1 #15 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
Now we're talkin! If this is real and comes in @ about $6k then I'll finally have a worthy replacement for my trusty 500 f/4 II.
I'm not crazy about being limited to 300, wider would be nice, but if the IQ and weight is there then I'll likely grab this puppy.
Let's just hope CR actually has it right this time around.
If this thing is f/5.6 at 500mm, you would still replace your 500 f/4 II for it??
p.1 #16 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Based on previous discussions, lighthound apparently is OK with f/5.6 if it's smaller and lighter, IIRC.
Some math: 600/5.6 = 107mm front element diameter.
500/107 = f/4.673
400/107 = 3.738
300/107 = 2.804
500/4 = 125mm
600/4 = 150mm
600/125 = 4.8
It would seem that to achieve 500/4 this zoom would have to top out at roughly 600/5. If Canon stretches the front element a few mm then it might be the RF spiritual successor to the original FD/EF 500/4.5.
Clearly I'm not an optical designer because if the rumored lens is f/5.6 at the long end, with a 107mm diameter front element, why isn't it f/2.8 at 300mm? There must be something about zooms that (artificially?) constricts or limits the maximum possible aperture. Having peered into numerous Canon fixed aperture zooms, particularly the ones that span wide angle to telephoto, I often noticed there's what appears to be a secondary aperture mechanism, which I think limits the maximum aperture towards the wide end. I think it also explains why many of these zooms form sunstars wide open at wider focal lengths.
For me the rumored 300-600 is basically just a modern version of the 200-400 with the TC permanently engaged. It would certainly be usable for field sports but I would miss not having the option to go down to 200mm, especially for arena sports, such as hockey. It would leave the 100-300 as the better option, which would also work for field sports with the 2x TC, except that I don't like the idea of f/5.6 wider than about 500mm, for the sake of better background blur/separation. The 300-600 would be a much more versatile lens (for me) if it was 200-600/4-5.6, but I would still prefer a 200-500/4, even it didn't have an internal TC.
Thinking about this a bit more and at least for field sports, I would pair the 300-600 with the 70-200Z and 1.4x TC, making it effectively a (roughly) 100-300 equivalent, but f/4, which is fine with me. But the 70-200Z adds a few grand to the equation, likely offsetting any savings by not going the 100-300 route.
p.1 #19 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Even if I had a 600 or 800 f/5.6, I would need a weightlifting belt and would still stop down to f/8 or f/11. This was one shot. Have not even stacked yet. I bought both lenses for under $800
Jim
p.1 #20 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
artsupreme wrote:
If this thing is f/5.6 at 500mm, you would still replace your 500 f/4 II for it??
Yep, so long as it's lighter and the IQ matches the current RF great whites.
As far as I'm concerned, f/5.6 is the new f/4 thanks to the high ISO capabilities of our modern cameras and software.
The subject separation difference would be negligible for my use.
If Canon makes the BIG mistake of pricing this thing north of 7k then it'll be yet another "NOPE" lens for me. Personally I'm sick and tired of the massive price gap Canon has in their RF super tele lens options. They have nothing between $2,500 to $10,000 for wildlife shooters which is BS.
