p.2 #1 · RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS vs EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or wait?
I have the 100-300 L and like others above find it is excellent with both the TC’s. Last year I took a trip to Alaska to photograph the bears. I originally thought about taking the RF 400 f2.8, but after reading a discussion here on FM decided to take the 100-300 and a RF200-800 for when I needed more than 600 reach, and I was really happy I did. The flexibility of 100-600 in a zoom that is very sharp was very handy, more flexible than if I had taken the RF400 ( which is probably my most favorite lens but not as flexible). I have been waiting to years for the new 200-500 or 300-600 which may never show up, so I would say if you can afford it buy it and you can sell it if something else shows up that you want. I am super pleased with mine.
p.2 #2 · RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS vs EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or wait?
arbitrage wrote:
The Canon RF 100-300 will soon be considered "cheap" as Nikon is rumored to be pricing their 120-300/2.8TC at $14K USD.
The Nikon is now official and is indeed US$ 14K... But you do get the built-in TC.... AND a rear drop in filter in addition to 112mm front filter threads.
Plus an Arca Swiss compatible tripod foot!
TBH, the built-in TC is cool but starting at 120mm is less cool. I've found the 140-420 range very nice with the Canon and the ability to go as wide as 140mm has been a benefit a number of times while covering sports. But I'm guessing most will be more concerned about TC at the long end. Sometimes the action is happening too quickly, or it's sustained while getting closer and closer, and just doesn't allow the brief moment it takes to flip the built-in TC out, as I've found with extensive use of the EF 200-400.
