p.1 #1 · RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS vs EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or wait?
Good evening all,
I’ve been lurking on the various threads relating to the RF 100-300L and I’m still uncertain about this lens. I shoot aviation primarily with landscapes as secondary and wildlife on occasion. I travel very frequently and have been relying on my trusty 100-500L for a 3 years now which I’m very happy with. I’m also the owner of a 500 f/4L IS II and every time I use it at home it just reminds me that it’s on a class of its own with f/4 being a major advantage. Since I have to rely on airplane carry on space during my travels, my 500L almost never comes with me since there isn’t a backpack I’ve found that can fit the 500L + 3-4 lenses, laptop etc. and not be completely ridiculous onboard. I love the lens but the reality is it’s not going places, and that’s countless photo opportunities missed. I do enjoy the 500 mm focal length for aviation, and fully take advantage of both 700 and 1000mm on occasion. 500mm + can also be a bit much for aviation and this is where my 100-500 range shines for useful range. 100-300 range is typically a tad short for me, though the idea of a 140-420 and 200-600 is appealing. I own a 70-200 and it rarely gets used due to its limiting zoom range.
All that being said, I’m confused and disappointed with the RF telephoto offerings from Canon especially seeing what Sony has put out (100-400 f/4.5, 400 f/4.5). The only compact RF mount low light telephoto offering right now is the 100-300L. The price for this lens is quite absurd and justifying it will require your convincing. I’ve seen mixed results with this lens using the 2x and for the price I would have a hard time accepting mediocre sharpness at 600 f/5.6. No doubt the native range sharpness and with 1.4x look great, but I’d need to be fully satisfied with the 2x also to justify the cost. The lens is significantly more compact than my 500L so I can picture myself bringing it on an airplane, though Sony and Nikon continue to prove that a small super telephoto is possible.
The other option I’m looking at is a used EF 300 f/2.8L IS II. I already own the extenders and the price is 1/3rd of the RF offering while being more compact. It’s a much more cost effective solution though the fixed focal lengths and adapter are something I was hoping go move away from. My hesitation with buying used EF glass or the RF 100-300 is the “unknown status from Canon” with all these patents and rumors. Is a 200-500 f/4L or a 300 f/2.8 with built in TC’s actually on the horizon? I would hate to buy the 100-300L and then see those lenses released which could prove to replace my 500L and then soms. Bottom line, small form factor, weight and performance are my priorities and I’d like to hear some opinions. Thanks
p.1 #2 · RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS vs EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or wait?
Are you a Canon CPS member? If so, request a 100-300 test drive with the teleconverters. I think only you can determine if it will meet your requirements.
I think it's a fabulous lens bare and with the 1.4x. I thought the results with the 2x were very good - better than what I used to get with a 2x on EF super-teles, but it's not as flawless as bare or with the 1.4x. The price is very high and IMO kind of overkill if it's going to be used mostly with the 2x as it would suggest it's not really the right 'native' lens for your needs.
I agree with you about the inflexibility of a prime plus TCs kit, but unfortunately if you want a zoom like the 100-300, there's no other option right now. If you were to buy one now and Canon did eventually release something more interesting, you would have still gotten use out of the 100-300 and can sell it, of course at some loss. If you're doing this professionally, you're also writing off its depreciation each year.
If the long rumoured 200-500/4 ever did materialize, it won't be less expensive than the 100-300. There's also the rumoured 300-600/4-5.6 (or straight 5.6). That should be less than the 100-300 but probably still more than the Sony 100-400/4.5. In any case, I wouldn't decide based on 'what if' situations, rather, based on what exists now and can meet your requirements.
p.1 #3 · RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS vs EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or wait?
The RF100-300 is a formidable lens and honestly the only RF big white that's a new optical or material formula. I also have the RF400, and while it says RF on it, it obviously is not, just like the other ones. The EF II is a really ancient formula, 2004 if I'm not mistaken, and really not something I would consider for purchase today. If you see how small & light Sony can make the same lens today, it's not a comparison.
For aviation I think the 200-800 is the best choice - it's the only thing that it's the best choice for I'd say, but I don't have strong opinions My son uses it for plane shows etc. and it's the perfect range for that. But it's a big piece of furniture for what it is, which is the reason why got to keep it
My son uses it for plane shows etc. and it's the perfect range for that. But it's a big piece of furniture for what it is, which is the reason why got to keep it