Nikon had a manual 300mm f2 lens and for a while in the mid 2000s a few used copies became available at $10,000 US and Canon had an PE 300mm f1.8 used at racetracks.
p.1 #3 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
300 f2 and 600 f4 would have the same size front element, so it's not incredibly unreasonable to consider. That said, 300 f2 would be an incredibly thin depth of field at most close working distances. What's the use case for such a lens?
p.1 #4 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
burningheart wrote:
Nikon had a manual 300mm f2 lens and for a while in the mid 2000s a few used copies became available at $10,000 US and Canon had an PE 300mm f1.8 used at racetracks.
Cost of building new ones, likely quite high.
I remember reading years ago that a 1.8 lens was used at the track, especially important for a 'photo' finish. Didn't know it was a 300. Thanks for the info
Jim
p.1 #5 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
RF 300 f/2 with built in 2x TC? Sign me up! I think I would rather have a built in 2x than 1.4x on a 300, and then could always add a 1.4x manually for 420 or 840. Talk about the ultimate Swiss army knife.
p.1 #6 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
jakemachina wrote:
300 f2 and 600 f4 would have the same size front element, so it's not incredibly unreasonable to consider. That said, 300 f2 would be an incredibly thin depth of field at most close working distances. What's the use case for such a lens?
IIRC we saw some in the early 80s used for indoor sports. Film was slow and grainy so they needed the speed. The 300/2 was also used for some night sports. Today the main value is subject isolation.
p.1 #7 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
burningheart wrote:
Nikon had a manual 300mm f2 lens and for a while in the mid 2000s a few used copies became available at $10,000 US and Canon had an PE 300mm f1.8 used at racetracks.
Cost of building new ones, likely quite high.
According to this article Nikon made another 20 cine versions of the 300/2 in the early 2000s as a special order commission that fell through. Apparently the price at that time was $30K.
It would probably weigh similar to a 600/4 as the front element will be the same size. Not sure whether the overall optics would be more complex. It might be, in order to counteract the various aberrations that become more prominent in faster lenses. If most of that correction can be done later in the optical chain where the elements are smaller, then weight might be better controlled than if the design requires multiple large diameter elements like the early fast super tele designs.
A 200/1.8 should be doable slightly larger and heavier than Sigma's recent release.
TBH, I don't see much use for a 300/2 other than as a halo/bragging rights product, though a 300/2, if TC compatible, could potentially replace a 400/2.8 and 600/4, if the optical performance is comparable. But other than rare extreme situations, f/2.8 is fast enough and 100-300 offers much more flexibility. This isn't 1984 when high ISO color film was slow and very grainy compared to what one can do now digitally and easily get by in the same conditions with slower lenses.
OK, sure, there's the bokeh aspect, but as I've suggested before, a more accessible 'crazy' bokeh lens would (to me) make more sense as a more typical portrait focal length, like 100 or 135mm. I'd dig a 100/1.0. Even a 200/1.4 would be more interesting, IMO, than 300/2...
All that said, I'd still prefer a XXX-500/4 TC to replace the 200-400.... and a XX-135/150/2 to pair with the 28-70/2. Look at how popular Sony's 50-150 has been (I see a lot of them at NFL games, funny enough).... Canon could have been there years ago!
p.1 #10 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
rscheffler wrote:
All that said, I'd still prefer a XXX-500/4 TC to replace the 200-400.... and a XX-135/150/2 to pair with the 28-70/2. Look at how popular Sony's 50-150 has been (I see a lot of them at NFL games, funny enough).... Canon could have been there years ago!
The XXX-500 and XX-135/150 will fill in Canon's offerings much better than a 300/2. A 300/2 would be fun to play with and would replace two of my exotic lenses but alas I rarely shoot at 300mm, normally I go 200 or 400.
I came close to buying the Nikon 300/2 when it became available for $10,000 but I kept seeing the weight and rightfully decided it was too heavy and would see little use.
p.1 #11 · Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
artsupreme wrote:
RF 300 f/2 with built in 2x TC? Sign me up! I think I would rather have a built in 2x than 1.4x on a 300, and then could always add a 1.4x manually for 420 or 840. Talk about the ultimate Swiss army knife.
The ultimate owl lens For some species I still carry my 200/2 because I can get close enough but need every photon because those bastards are really nocturnal and the most recent cameras were a step backwards at ISO 51k.
