p.8 #1 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
big country wrote:
Go to a place like yellowstone. when it comes to super telephoto lenses its 55% canon, 40% sony, 5% nikon.
And I'm willing to bet 95% of those lenses are on tripods because people are shooting big, slow mammalian subjects.The size and weight advantages of the Nikon 6000PF and 800PF are going to manifest most on birds, and specifically on birds in flight, where handholding is somewhere between steeply-advantageous and absolutely-required.
p.8 #2 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
dorian wrote:
And I'm willing to bet 95% of those lenses are on tripods because people are shooting big, slow mammalian subjects.The size and weight advantages of the Nikon 6000PF and 800PF are going to manifest most on birds, and specifically on birds in flight, where handholding is somewhere between steeply-advantageous and absolutely-required.
Mammalian subjects are slow, until they're not and those are often the most interesting shots.
I've always shot mostly hand-held, occasionally with a monopod, and rarely with a tripod, until recently when I started shooting some video where I'm finding a tripod necessary more often, but I've seen plenty of folks shooting BIF with big-whites on a tripod with a gimbal head.
p.8 #3 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
vbnut wrote: Mammalian subjects are slow, until they're not and those are often the most interesting shots.
I've always shot mostly hand-held, occasionally with a monopod, and rarely with a tripod, until recently when I started shooting some video where I'm finding a tripod necessary more often, but I've seen plenty of folks shooting BIF with big-whites on a tripod with a gimbal head.
Yes, it is true that many people use gimbals to shoot eagles, herons and other big slow birds in flight but I'm thinking more along the lines of small, fast, erratic subjects like swallows, shorebirds, ducks, petrels, etc. A gimbal is almost entirely useless for those and other small birds in flight. You gotta handhold for those challenging subjects, and having a shorter, lighter lens (like the Nikons I referenced) is a huge advantage. And let's leave take-off shots and pre-capture out of this. I'm talking about freehand tracking of small birds already in flight.
This is why I want Canon to make a lightweight 600/5.6.
p.8 #4 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
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.
Considering the RF 100-300 f/2.8 is $9,500-$10,500 I expect a RF 300-600 f/4-5.6 will be in the same range. (Variable due to tariffs. I paid $9500 for my 100-300 and it's now $10.5k)
May 26, 2026 at 12:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #5 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Considering the RF 100-300 f/2.8 is $9,500-$10,500 I expect a RF 300-600 f/4-5.6 will be in the same range. (Variable due to tariffs. I paid $9500 for my 100-300 and it's now $10.5k)
I think the dillemma of any 300-600 lens for Canon is pricing. If the lens is f/5.6 at 600mm, that is only a third of a stop faster than the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 and they are much cheaper lenses (both are about $2,100) going from $2,100 to $10,000 for basically a third of a stop of light seems like a bad vaule. They can obviously charge more for a 4 or 4.5 to 5.6 300-600 than for a 5.6-6.3 200-600 (or 180-600), but I don't think the price could be five times as high. I think if it is an f/4-5.6 300-600 then it needs to come in at $7,000 which puts it in the price class of the Nikon 800 f/6.3 PF. That makes the zoom with a 1.4X TC 2/3rds of a stop slower than the prime, but it would with the TC have a bit more reach and it is a zoom. That seems competitive but at 50% more in price I don't think it is nearly as competitive.
If they were to make it a 300-600 f/4-5, which I think would be a better pairing with the very fast 100-300 f/2.8, then they can probably charge $12,000. That would be a pretty unique lens and I think higher prices can be asked. Sure Sigma now has a 300-600 f/4, but the Canon lens ought to be a lot lighter and still have top level performance. The Sigma weighs 4,000g and costs just over $6,000, and if they could keep the Canon lens at less than 3,000g, I think they could have a price close to double that.
If the lens is a 300-600 f/5.6-6.3, then I think even if it is great quality they really can't ask much more than $2,500, but such a lens would also overlap quite a bit with the 200-800 f/6.3-9, so I don't think it will be that slow.
I would be very surprised if Canon did not add something longer than the 100-300 f/2.8 and faster than the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1. I think it is quite likely it will be some sort of 300-600, and it will be interesting to see just what they add and how much it will cost.
We might see two lenses in the long run. If I had to bet I think we will see a 300-600 f/4-5L for $12,000, which would pair best with the 100-300 f/2.8 and a 400-800 f/6.3-8L for $4,500 which would be a lens many bird shooters would love. This would give Canon three tiers for zoom super telephoto shooters:
entry level:
200-800 f/6.3-9
mid level
100-500L f/4.5-7.1 and 400-800L f/6.3-8 (this needs to compete with the Sony in capabilities and price)
top level
100-300L f/2.8 and 300-600L f/4-5 (this pair would be valued for both sports and wildlife)
It is that midlevel for which I think there is a robust market and Nikon is now killing it at that level with their primes and Sony is now clearly targeting it with the new 100-400 f/4.5 and their fairly recent 400-800 f/6.3-8. I think Canon would be wise to respond both with something like a 400-800 zoom and a couple of primes (perhaps a 300 f/3.4 and a 500 f/4.5).
p.8 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Most of the people using tripods are the older crowd or those doing video. Many are handholding their 400 2.8's/600 4.0.s
dorian wrote:
And I'm willing to bet 95% of those lenses are on tripods because people are shooting big, slow mammalian subjects.The size and weight advantages of the Nikon 6000PF and 800PF are going to manifest most on birds, and specifically on birds in flight, where handholding is somewhere between steeply-advantageous and absolutely-required.
