p.3 #5 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
And I believe no TCs (on Sony)?
mogul wrote:
Lobby Canon to allow RF lenses with Sigma optics. That 300/600 f4 looks really sweet.
jaredmizanin wrote:
Agreed. I would be tempted to pick one up, especially if it took a 1.4x extender.
Sigma could have made it DSLR compatible. In EF mount it would be a simple mount adaptation to RF to get around Canon's RF barricade and would have significantly broadened Sigma's market exposure for this lens. Maybe it would have meant a 1" longer lens for FE and L mount users, but at the price point, possibly an acceptable tradeoff. Sure, many here profess to detesting the need for an adapter but if such a lens was tempting enough, people would buy it, especially since it would be a half price alternative to a Canon 600/4.
Regarding the RF 300-600 wish for f/2.8-5.6 aperture range: at least based on front element size this would seem to be feasible, but there must be some other optical limitations or restrictions that prevent this. It would be very interesting though. I still think for my sports applications I would prefer 200 at the wide end and stretch this zoom out to 200-600 f/2-5.6.
Or as a compromise, a 200-500/4. Come on already, Canon!
p.3 #6 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
It would not be 300/2.8 to 600/5.6. The aperture on the wide end is always less than that theoretical. Maybe they can do f/3.5 depending on the design, but sometimes there is a deliberately smaller aperture to improve optical performance or maintain a certain f-number.
p.3 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
Who has a 300-600/4-5.6L?
EBH
Pentax used to have an FA* 250-600mm f5.6 ED(IF) released in 1991. From all accounts it is a great lens, very heavy (5.8 kg or 12.7 lbs), autofocus with a power zoom. This is when Pentax made lenses on par with L series in the 90's. I think it retailed for ~5-6K USD back then and on eBay now one goes for just over $7K USD.
Not sure what the new Canon will be like but it appears it might be an f4 at 300mm and 400mm, and f5.6 for the rest. So you would technically get a 300mm and 400mm f4 plus a 500mm and 600mm f5.6 is how I look at it.
p.3 #8 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Generally the lenses have 1/6th stop increments with reporting to the user (display) at 1/3 stop increments.
So there should be intermediate apertures of f/4.5 and f/5 between the f/4 and f/5.6. We'll have to see the transition point.
p.3 #9 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
cliffjump wrote:
Not sure what the new Canon will be like but it appears it might be an f4 at 300mm and 400mm, and f5.6 for the rest. So you would technically get a 300mm and 400mm f4 plus a 500mm and 600mm f5.6 is how I look at it.
The rumor is for a constant f/4 until 400mm, but I can't say I've ever seen that before. For this to be the case, it would have to be true f/4 at 400 and wider than that, it will be constrained to f/4 through some mechanism. Whether that's a secondary diaphragm specifically for this purpose, or the main aperture mechanism doesn't fully open below 400mm.
But why the f/5.6 restriction at 500mm when it is true f/5.6 at 600 would baffle me. The longer the focal length, generally one wants to extract as much light gathering capability from the lens as possible. Even if it was f/5.0 would make a slight difference. But from this perspective, then why even bother to constrict maximum aperture below 400mm? Why not give us whatever the lens can provide?
As suggested previously, there might be image quality reasons for not wanting to do so at wider focal lengths. But even if it was a 1.5 stop wide open aperture difference across the zoom range, I'd take it. It hasn't been a headache to shoot variable aperture, even in manual mode thanks to the custom function that lets you choose whether the camera changes the shutter speed in accordance with the change in maximum aperture, or the ISO. Or you shoot in auto ISO or aperture priority.
Hopefully it takes TCs and has minimal IQ loss with the 1.4 to make it a viable 840/8 and an answer to Sony's kind of odd 400-800. However, that Sony is only $3300, which I really doubt Canon matching. I mean, if it's prime-sharp at 600/5.6 and $3300, I could definitely find use for it. But I would be extremely surprised to see this lens at that price point.
BTW, I hadn't heard of that oddball Pentax 250-600 lens.. I had to look it up and it does look cool, the FA version. The problem with Pentax AF is that it's screw-drive. I mean, the combination of 1990s, super tele and screw drive AF is not a formula for fast AF. Back in the 90s the primary reason I went EF was Canon's broad use of fast (silent) USM focus technology.
p.3 #10 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
I don't see anyway that this ends up cheaper than the 100-300L, as it's going to be more or less the 100-300L with a 2x stuck on the back of it. (I know, I'm oversimplifying a bit, but physics of the 300 f/2.8 and 600 f/5.6 are generally similar).
so I wouldn't get one's hopes up on this being substantially lighter, cheaper, or smaller than existing 100-300L.
p.3 #11 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Nobody can really tell at this point, just from a first principle perspective:
- it will be more expensive than 400 do and a nikon 600pf but 5x a sony 200-600 and nikon? Seems a bit of a stretch. Lenses are value priced, the size of the front element doesn’t determine alone the final price, from a value perspective do we expect a 5x difference compare to the sony? Who knows but it seems off a 3x is more likely, that would be a 6k lens which would finally cover the middle ground between 100-500 and the 600 f4
- the counter argument is that ir could be seen as 200-400+tc replacement but i think the focal length is too different to be put in the same ball park and that segment is being crushed by the 100-300
- it needs to be razor sharp even with a 1.4x otherwise people might just skip in favour of the 100-300+ tc
- it could be a bit lighter than the 100-300, sony can do 300 2.8 much lighter than the zoom, so who knows
mb126 wrote:
I don't see anyway that this ends up cheaper than the 100-300L, as it's going to be more or less the 100-300L with a 2x stuck on the back of it. (I know, I'm oversimplifying a bit, but physics of the 300 f/2.8 and 600 f/5.6 are generally similar).
so I wouldn't get one's hopes up on this being substantially lighter, cheaper, or smaller than existing 100-300L.
p.3 #13 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
From my POV, a $10K f/5.6 lens is a tough sell considering what the competition has available only 1/3 stop slower. So even if many things about it are physically comparable to the 100-300, it's still not a 'magical' f/2.8 lens that could command such a premium. And the 100-300 has a broad range of applications via TC use, or bare. The 300-600 can't do f/2.8. It can't do 100-300. Depending on the photographer, that might or might not matter, but from my perspective, something that can do 100-600 (with TCs) is way more versatile, as long as 600 is long enough. The 300-600 may overlap somewhat with the 100-300 market, but it's also going after relatively well-to-do reach constrained 'enthusiast' wildlife/bird photographers who have options available from other brands, whereas the 100-300 is currently unique among mirrorless offerings.
p.3 #20 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
stanj wrote:
Not sure what camp gets you a 300-600 2.8-4.0 for $6299, or any price for that matter.
Well at least be complete in your response because clearly you’ve not been in a cave and know that Sigma has a 300-600 constant F4 lens for about $6K. Just in case you only read part of my statement and focused only on the F2.8-F4, and ignored the F4 or …
…and I only mentioned F2.8 -4 knowing full well no one has that lens spec… as that is the only way I would consider a partial re-entrance into Canon
