p.2 #5 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
If it’s f4 at 400, similar weight to the rf 100-300, tack sharp and costs like the sigma 300-600 then i will trade 100mm for better handling and the zoom flexibility, but there are too many ifs and at the present it’s just vaporware
artsupreme wrote:
If this thing is f/5.6 at 500mm, you would still replace your 500 f/4 II for it??
It might work for some people, and that's great. Narrower objectives save money, muscle ache, and (in some extreme examples of GA syndrome) marriages. But for the type of shooting I do, the conditions and places in which I do it, and the results for which I'm looking, f/11 won't cut it. I want sharpness and bokeh, and -- all else being equal -- a faster lens will better aid my cause in virtually every instance. I don't have a posting membership to embed examples of my shooting style in this reply, so I'll direct you to the below link instead. Consistently making these sorts of images, handheld, with an f/11 lens is beyond my photographic capabilities. Some might be able to do it, but I'm not among them. And I wish that wasn't true because life at f/11 would be a whole lot cheaper than at f/4, f/5.6, or f/7.1, the window in which 99% of my images are captured. https://www.dorianandersonphotography.com/
p.2 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
If you would have said in your original post that an f/11 lens is not for you, then I understand. However, saying that lens is a non-starter for nature/bird photography in general, is incorrect. The pictures I posted show it can be used.
Jim
p.2 #8 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
jgoetz4 wrote:
If you would have said in your original post that an f/11 lens is not for you, then I understand. However, saying that lens is a non-starter for nature/bird photography in general, is incorrect. The pictures I posted show it can be used.
Jim
p.2 #10 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
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.
Why would it be a big mistake to make a high quality product (lens) and price it accordingly? By that logic nobody would make a 600/4 that only sells a few thousand units over all of its production.
p.2 #11 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
David83 wrote:
Now, if the aperture range was an F2.8-4, that would be ground breaking and I’d be very interested!
Caleb Williams wrote:
It would kill in the sports and photojournalism departments, but would be too expensive for the consumer market.
Such a lens would have been killer 15-20-25+ years ago. Nowadays it doesn't really matter any more. It would have user but the *need* for it is technically much less than back when high ISO was not good and AI NR was not a thing.
Canon will sell a ton more of such a lens that's f/4-5.6 for a variety of reasons. Price, size, weight are just a few because for most uses, a stop slower is still good enough. When it isn't, the 100-300 400/2.8 and 600/4 are still available.
p.2 #13 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
rscheffler wrote:
Such a lens would have been killer 15-20-25+ years ago. Nowadays it doesn't really matter any more. It would have user but the *need* for it is technically much less than back when high ISO was not good and AI NR was not a thing.
Oh, absolutely right. There are still plenty of users for this hypothetical lens, but far fewer than there once was as local papers/media outlets fold left and right and more and more reporters take their own photos at the places that remain.
p.2 #14 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
David83 wrote:
This lens seems just meh considering what Sony, Nikon, and Sigma are doing with fast aperture zoom lenses and superteles with TCs
Now, if the aperture range was an F2.8-4, that would be ground breaking and I’d be very interested!
Or heck, even a 2.8-5.6 would be amazing to have - that is basically putting on a 1x-2x on the existing 100-300 from 300mm-600mm range. 300 F2.8, 420 F4 and 600 F5.6. But that lens would be $10k+
p.2 #16 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
howard wrote:
CR is a pile of hot turd. This lens will not exist.
"We have been told that an RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is in the wild going through final testing and is expected to be announced before the end of 2025".
That's from the article. Unless CR was given false information, it will materialize...
Jim
p.2 #19 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
jaredmizanin wrote:
Agreed. I would be tempted to pick one up, especially if it took a 1.4x extender.
I have toyed seriously about going to sony setup a few times, almost pulled the trigger and perhaps still might next year, but its not for the 300/600 F4. That thing is just to darn heavy to be handheld or hike around with, so it makes that a tripod queen / car setup only.
If that lens was similar ergonomics as canon's 600 / 400 - I would be shooting sony today.
p.2 #20 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
Why would it be a big mistake to make a high quality product (lens) and price it accordingly? By that logic nobody would make a 600/4 that only sells a few thousand units over all of its production.
EBH
Because their competition has attractive offerings in this focal range and price range.
