bman212121 wrote: nmerc_photos wrote: Z250SA wrote: matejphoto wrote: Tony5787 wrote:
Seems like a cool lens but I’m pretty disappointed to see Canon going in this direction with their RF super tele’s. A 300 f/2.8 DO with a built-in extender would have been a pre-order for me but as a bird photographer I have no desire to own this one. Hate to say it because I love my R3 but Nikon’s looking better and better, for birding their lineup just makes a lot more sense. I’ve often considered buying a 400 f/2.8 to accompany my 600 f/4 but just didn’t feel like carrying around two big whites. Nikon essentially gives you both in a single lens with the option of owning a relatively affordable and compact 800mm when more reach is needed (or just slapping on a 2x depending on the scenario).
I think this is a sports lens, not a birding lens.
Yes, unless it´s birds in cages. And as Tony5787 suggests it leaves room for a DO 300/2.8 with built in 1.4x that can be very small/short and light compared to a non DO dito. My guess is that a 200-500 f/4 would be the RF 500/4 with 200-499 included and in our hands far before the DO 300. Include a 1.4x in the 200-500 and the price for the 100-300 will be a real bargin.
super bummed with this 100-300 release as everything I'm reading says it's throwing away any hope of an RF 300 w/ 1.4x
so here's to hoping the 200-500 f4 w/ 1.4x comes out. that would be a beast birding lens. would fit perfect with the rf 600
Thinking about this lens even more, I think I'm starting to understand it better. One of the biggest draws for an internal TC is so you can have 2 focal lengths without having to fumble with a TC in environmental conditions. A zoom solves that issue. Why be limited to only 300 and 420mm with a built in TC when you can use it as 100 - 300mm at 2.8 for low light, but then if you want to use it for decent light put the TC on the lens and leave it there. You'll have 140 - 420 at f4 and can choose anything in between that range. That's certainly way more adaptable than only having 300 and 420 at your disposal. On top of that if the light is really good, you certainly can just grab that 2x TC and then use it as a sudo birding lens that's 200 - 600mm at 5.6. If your main goal was 200 - 600 then Sony is a much better purchase than this, but owners of that combination would need to stop shooting before the sun goes down.
If you contrast the zoom with TC versus prime with an internal TC, being able to flip from F/4 back to F/2.8 is faster than having to unmount everything. However, I can't think of many times where that's something you would be doing back and forth to get F2.8, then F4, then F2.8 again. It's much more likely you're going to pick one aperture for an extended period of time and only switch after the light changes significantly. So comparing that advantage seems like a wash in most cases, and having more focal lengths to choose from is much more desirable.
I agree, the more I learn about the lens the more I see the appeal.
But in my world, a static 300 w/ 1.4x is far more valuable than a 100-300 without a TC. especially when the rumored price was more in line with expectations between $5k - $7k
It's surprising to me that these manufacturers don't put a 1.4x TC in every single prime above $9K. I don't understand the downfall.
It's the easiest way to add flexibility to a lens, and anyone I've ever talked to would happily pay the premium for it
the TC built in is less about swapping from F2.8 to F4 to F2.8 as it is switching from close reach to far reach as subjects approach you. I guess a zoom minimizes that that issue but it'll certainly still happen
also in most cases, I (and others) just disregard the 2x since it leads to a noticeable degradation in quality. so this lens wouldn't really ever fit the bill of a 200-600 f5.6 in my mind. I doubt it would compare to the existing Sony $1500 lens or the rumored Nikon one coming out.
Apr 20, 2023 at 11:53 AM
Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16223262 « An RF 100-300 2.8 lens... »
