nmerc_photos
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: An RF 100-300 2.8 lens... | |
bman212121 wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
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 $5K. 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.
Another consideration for why they might not choose that route could be using a TC with video would certainly be jarring. You could do a zoom pull on a 3x zoom while a subject approaches the camera, but with a TC there's going to be this period of weirdness where the subject is distorted while the elements are moved, followed by the subject changing in size by 40%. Time will tell how para-focal this lens is for using some of that zoom range, but it might be another design consideration against using a TC.
The main reason for not having TCs is definitely what Jman13 stated. If you're putting one of the lens it will make the lens always a few inches longer. The main issue is that throws of the center of balance of the lens. Some of canon's older lenses you can really feel that, and personally I've always felt like the 70 - 200mm f2.8 is front heavy. This RF lens is basically designed where they are intentionally trying to change that balance by putting as much of the glass near the body as possible. So even though on paper the overall weight of the lens is more, it will feel less heavy because it's causing less strain while holding it. Having to add a TC at the back of the lens is counter productive to that goal of making the ergonomics of the lens better.
EDIT: For what it's worth, here is their reasoning as found on the PDF linked in another thread:
We expected technical difficulties in expanding the range of shooting
possibilities. However, we were unwilling to compromise on achieving 3x zoom
from the 100mm wide-angle end. We also considered a lens with a built-in
extender, but we decided to achieve 3x zoom without a built-in extender as it
offered the best balance between size, performance, and spec.
Also, they omitted the rear drop in filter for basically the same reasons why they wouldn't put a TC in that location.
The drop-in filter was omitted by pursuing a compact size, reduced weight,
and an optical design where the lens group is placed close to the mount. As a
result, the large diameter of the lens barrel, which was a concern in terms of lens
strength, has been removed, and the thinner outer barrel also contributed to
further weight reduction.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1804968
good stuff in here. thanks for linking the pertinent parts of the PDF
there's always a LOT more that goes into design that what we (the consumer) see
bman212121 wrote:
To not try to make the quoting get out of hand, I'd agree that the 100 - 300 doesn't necessarily replace the 200 - 400 with a TC on it. I question if it's supposed to if you are using the TC more than half of the time. The question would be, if Canon does make a 200 - 500, would 200 - 500F4 without a TC be better than the 200 - 400F4 + 1.4x TC?
If you can change the size, weight, and balance of the lens and still have a significant zoom range, would occasionally flipping on a TC be a worthy tradeoff? (Comparing a 200 - 500 without it versus one with) I'm not so sure it would be but that I've never held the 200 - 400 to know how it feels.
I've got no qualms about letting quotes get out of hand 
I've owned essentially every EF and RF lens from the the EF 200 F2 to the RF 1200 F8. My main hobby is wildlife photography.
In general I don't find zooms very useful. I much prefer the switchable TC.
the EF 200-400 weighs 8lbs which for me (5'10" 200lbs) is handholdable for the majority of the time
if they were to make a 200-500 f4 without a TC, but reduce the weight, size, and balance I think it could certainly appeal to aging photographers who can't maneuver the big whites as well these days. I think based on cost (EF 200-400 for $4500 vs RF 200-500 for $11K) I would still pick the EF.
in testing with the EF 600 MK I from 1999 and then RF 600 from 2021 I cannot reliably tell the difference in IQ, bokeh, distortion etc. The only difference I see is weight.
I think my dream lens would be the rumored 200-500 f4 w/ TC, especially if they could get it between the 5-7lb range.
|
