# The Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM appears to be getting closer [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2022)

> One of the most requested super telephoto lenses for the RF system is a Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM. The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM has been discontinued for quite some time.
> We have been told that Canon has prototypes out in the wild and that the lens is a ground-up redesign of the focal length.
> The source claims that weight has been reduced by almost 40% and  the length by as much as 30% over it’s EF predecessor, though they didn’t have the exact dimensions and weight to give us.
> Weight savings in lenses is something Canon has been pouring a ton of R&D into, and this revelation shouldn’t shock us.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

Excellent news for me, especially with a CR3 rating.

I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8. Literally a few minutes ago I looked them up on MPB and KEH. I'll be pre-ordering the RF version.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 17, 2022)

Would prefer 120-300 2.8 or something similar. Either way, unfortunately going to cost a fortune.


----------



## swkitt (Aug 17, 2022)

Hell that would be only 1.5kg! So I guess I'm not ordering this 100-500 yet!


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 17, 2022)

I love my EF 300/2.8 II - looking forward to seeing the RF version.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 17, 2022)

This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


----------



## EOS (Aug 17, 2022)

Would love to see an RF 300mm f/2.8 designed from the ground up to take advantage of mirrorless in terms of weight and size (vs. simply bolting an RF mount onto existing EF designs and jacking up the price, like the RF 400 f/2.8 and RF 600 f/4).


----------



## mbike999 (Aug 17, 2022)

A modern, lighter 300/2.8 is a dream, please let this be true.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

whothafunk said:


> Would prefer 120-300 2.8 or something similar. Either way, unfortunately going to cost a fortune.


I would prefer a 200-500 f/4 or better yet a 200-500 f/2.8-4. I own an EF 300 f/2.8 L IS and found that I was constantly installing and removing teleconverters. With or without them, the lens is superbly sharp. I also own a Sigma 150-600 Sport which I use more than the 300.


----------



## mbike999 (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I would prefer a 200-500 f/4 or better yet a 200-500 f/2.8-4. I own an EF 300 f/2.8 L IS and found that I was constantly installing and removing teleconverters. With or without them, the lens is superbly sharp. I also own a Sigma 150-600 Sport which I use more than the 300.


I have to imagine that type of lens is coming eventually. The 200-400/4 is almost 10 years old.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 17, 2022)

Wow - that would be a 1400g lens - same weight as the 100-500mm.

DO?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Excellent news for me, especially with a CR3 rating.
> 
> I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8. Literally a few minutes ago I looked them up on MPB and KEH. I'll be pre-ordering the RF version.


Since you mentioned this yesterday and voila it shows up today with a CR3, I will be compiling a lens list for you to chime in with


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 17, 2022)

It will be interesting to see how well it will work with teleconverters. The exciting part is that the optical formula is new unlike the the formulas of the really long lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

Emyr Evans said:


> Wow - that would be a 1400g lens - same weight as the 100-500mm.
> 
> DO?


I hope not DO. That doesn't make lenses much lighter, although it does make them shorter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Since you mentioned this yesterday and voila it shows up today with a CR3, I will be compiling a lens list for you to chime in with


Maybe I was the 'source'.


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I would prefer a 200-500 f/4 or better yet a 200-500 f/2.8-4. I own an EF 300 f/2.8 L IS and found that I was constantly installing and removing teleconverters. With or without them, the lens is superbly sharp. I also own a Sigma 150-600 Sport which I use more than the 300.


I personally prefer primes lense over zooms every time regardless of the inconvenience.


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 17, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


The lens being shorter part, who knows as there is physics limitations unless if you go DO or multiple crazy aspherical light yoga elements. But the weight reduction has been expected ever since 2018 when the 400 2.8 iii came out. Image quality will likely be amazing, but similiar to the mk ii as it is already near perfection; perhaps better corners. Coordinated IS will likely boost things up to 7 stops of shake reduction.

I for one will be looking forward to the used mk ii price drop once the RF comes out.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 17, 2022)

This is great news - the EF 300/2.8L IS II was probably the best lens I've ever owned. But "best" wasn't best for me - I found myself using it with the 2x most of the time and eventually switched to a 500 - and that's what I'm really waiting for. A ground-up redesign of the 500/4L IS II would be very exciting. If it was DO and had a built in 1.4x... but now I'm drifting off into fantasy...


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 17, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ... weight has been reduced by almost 40% and the length by as much as 30% over it’s EF predecessor
> ...
> Weight savings in lenses is something Canon has been pouring a ton of R&D into, and this revelation shouldn’t shock us.


But I'll guess that the price increase of over 40% will shock us, won't it? 
But I really hope that they can also do something in IQ over the excellent EF predecessor.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 17, 2022)

swkitt said:


> Hell that would be only 1.5kg! So I guess I'm not ordering this 100-500 yet!


Go, order the RF100 - 500! 
Otherwise get prepared for a price of about 7k+x $. 
So you should be able to get at least 2 RF100 - 500 for its price 
And it is still at least one year to go... and think about the pics you'll miss until then


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8...


What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.

If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2022)

It is a given that this lens will come out within the next 23 months. Same with the RF 500mm


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.
> 
> If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?


According to birding doyen Art Morris, who sells used lenses on his birders site, the price of the EF 300mm f/2.8 II tumbled when the 400mm DO II was released. Both Jack and I switched from the 300/2.8 to the DO II.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.
> 
> If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?


Are you using a FF camera or an APS-C body or both? A 600mm lens (300mm + 2x TC) with a crop body gives an effective 960mm. 300mm with a FF body and mounted on a monopod is excellent for photographing dimly-lit bands or theater after being kicked out of the pit.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I personally prefer primes lense over zooms every time regardless of the inconvenience.


I like the challenge of using a prime, they force you to look harder for suitable subjects and to think more about what you are trying to achieve.

Some would say that zooms are for the lazy, but I disagree - there are a huge number of occasions in wildlife and sports photography, when you have to shoot from a fixed position.

For bird photography I prefer a long prime, because I find I nearly always want the longest possible focal length. For mammal photography from a vehicle, I find a zoom significantly better, as the animals can vary in size, and be anywhere between 5-500 metres away.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Are you using a FF camera or an APS-C body or both? A 600mm lens (300mm + 2x TC) with a crop body gives an effective 960mm. 300mm with a FF body and mounted on a monopod is excellent for photographing dimly-lit bands or theater after being kicked out of the pit.


So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?


Your field of view gets narrower. If you're trying to frame the image in a particular way, you have to move back.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> So, if I switch my R5 into crop mode my lens gets longer?


It'll expand as it warms up!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Your field of view gets narrower. If you're trying to frame the image in a particular way, you have to move back.


I can do that by cropping without having to move back. Maybe you can't if you are doing video. Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that crop factor gives you 1.6x extra reach. It doesn't by itself, it's pixel density that counts. An R7, 90D or M6II 1.6x crop outresolves Olympus micro 4/3s with a 2x crop factor. For us birders, it's resolution or reach we need telephotos for, not a narrower field of view.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve Balcombe said:


> This is great news - the EF 300/2.8L IS II was probably the best lens I've ever owned. But "best" wasn't best for me - I found myself using it with the 2x most of the time and eventually switched to a 500 - and that's what I'm really waiting for. A ground-up redesign of the 500/4L IS II would be very exciting. If it was DO and had a built in 1.4x... but now I'm drifting off into fantasy...


Your thoughts are the same as mine. A lightweight DO 500 mm f4 with a built in 1.4x T would be ideal.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 17, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


The 300/2.8 II is fully hand-holdable for extended periods for me.

But sure, lighter is always appreciated. Shorter and better balanced weight (CoG closer to the camera) also welcome, even when the existing 328 II is 'good enough' for me.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I can do that by cropping without having to move back. Maybe you can't if you are doing video. Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that crop factor gives you 1.6x extra reach. It doesn't by itself, it's pixel density that counts. An R7, 90D or M6II 1.6x crop outresolves Olympus micro 4/3s with a 2x crop factor. For us birders, it's resolution or reach we need telephotos for, not a narrower field of view.


So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?

Update: If you'll recall, my original post was in response to question "If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.


For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful. 

I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x. 



unfocused said:


> If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?


No, it wouldn’t be. 300mm with the possibility of 600/5.6 would not be versatile enough for me, either, since I frequently shoot birds. But I’m fortunate to not be limited to buying only one big white – I already have the EF 600/4 II, which I use most of the time with the 1.4x III for 840/5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?
> 
> Update: If you'll recall, my original post was in response to question "If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?"


"So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?" Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question, no it would not be ideal as I have different requirements for different situations and no one camera would be ideal. I have alongside my R5 a 32 Mpx R7, equivalent in pixel density to 88 Mpx FF. If Canon comes out with an 88 Mpx FF with a BSI sensor, I would be tempted by it, and use it in both crop and FF modes.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.
> 
> I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.
> 
> ...


With the 300, you can always crop to get a 400mm FOV. If the subject is too close with the 400, you're stuck.

I never shoot birds. I just don't have the patience.


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> With the 300, you can always crop to get a 400mm FOV. If the subject is too close with the 400, you're stuck.
> 
> I never shoot birds. I just don't have the patience.



I perfectly understand and if I could have a redo of the past 15 years I'd probably not do it at all


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> "So your ideal camera is FF with 100MP?" Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question, no it would not be ideal as I have different requirements for different situations and no one camera would be ideal. I have alongside my R5 a 32 Mpx R7, equivalent in pixel density to 88 Mpx FF. If Canon comes out with an 88 Mpx FF with a BSI sensor, I would be tempted by it, and use it in both crop and FF modes.


It was a question. I have used my 300 with three APS-C bodies: 40D (10MP), 7D (18MP) and R7 (32MP). I'm very aware of the concept of "pixels per feather." The lens did wonderful things to the 40D images.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> It was a question. I have used my 300 with three APS-C bodies: 40D (10MP), 7D (18MP) and R7 (32MP). I'm very aware of the concept of "pixels per feather." The lens did wonderful things to the 40D images.


I used the lens with the 7D but it focussed erratically with the 2xTC. It was fine with the 7DII. On the R7 it has the reach of a 400mm on an R5 and the fov of a 480mm.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.
> 
> I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.
> 
> ...


Thanks. Makes sense. I've retired from sports shooting (well actually, the small college I shot for for the past several years went belly up in the spring, but I wanted to retire anyway). So, I'm pretty much just shooting birds and wildlife these days, with an occasional contract job for conferences, etc. So, for me, the 300mm length isn't of much use. I'd love a 600mm/f4 but given where I live and the need to travel to pursue the critters I'm interested in, rental is a more cost-effective option.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Thanks. Makes sense. I've retired from sports shooting (well actually, the small college I shot for for the past several years went belly up in the spring, but I wanted to retire anyway). So, I'm pretty much just shooting birds and wildlife these days, with an occasional contract job for conferences, etc. So, for me, the 300mm length isn't of much use. I'd love a 600mm/f4 but given where I live and the need to travel to pursue the critters I'm interested in, rental is a more cost-effective option.


I can’t remember what bodies you have. I’m finding that I’m as satisfied with results I’m getting with the RF 100-400/500 on the R7 and R5 as I ever was with the primes on my DSLRs.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6. Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.
> 
> If you could buy only one "big white" would this be your choice?


After a few years with 400 I don't miss my 300 at all except it had a better MFD. Bare 300 was seldom used and 420 not that much either. But my subjects are typically birds. Big game would be a different story though.

Jack


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 18, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> I have to imagine that type of lens is coming eventually. The 200-400/4 is almost 10 years old.


I am greedy, I want the integrated 1.4x TC even though it would push up the aperture when engaged. My dream was the 200-400/500 + 1.4x TC with the weight/size loss program. I loved my but long and heavy. IQ was great.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I can’t remember what bodies you have. I’m finding that I’m as satisfied with results I’m getting with the RF 100-400/500 on the R7 and R5 as I ever was with the primes on my DSLRs.


R3 and R5. Yes, I find the 100-500 to be pretty much ideal for me. On the other hand, when I rented the 600 f4 a few years back (on DSLRs) I was amazed at the overall performance. We are going back down to Sanibel in February and may rent it again for that.


----------



## Pixel (Aug 18, 2022)

I intend on having the first one to enter the state of Indiana.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> With the 300, you can always crop to get a 400mm FOV. If the subject is too close with the 400, you're stuck.
> 
> I never shoot birds. I just don't have the patience.


With the 100-500mm, you beat out both the 300mm and 400mm primes for distance constraints, which is the major reason why zooms are so popular as well as their close focussing. If you use the 400mm on FF, you have the field of view of a 250mm on an APS-C crop, which is one important reason why I prefer a high resolution FF to APS-C - you can always crop down to APS-C format.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> R3 and R5. Yes, I find the 100-500 to be pretty much ideal for me. On the other hand, when I rented the 600 f4 a few years back (on DSLRs) I was amazed at the overall performance. We are going back down to Sanibel in February and may rent it again for that.


The further you get into retirement, the less the appeal of carrying a 600/4. I appreciate the RF 100-400mm more and more...


----------



## codym90 (Aug 18, 2022)

Should be a great lens! Just going to cost quite a bit lol.
-Cody McCracken
Virginia Boudoir Photographer


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> With the 100-500mm, you beat out both the 300mm and 400mm primes for distance constraints, which is the major reason why zooms are so popular as well as their close focussing. If you use the 400mm on FF, you have the field of view of a 250mm on an APS-C crop, which is one important reason why I prefer a high resolution FF to APS-C - you can always crop down to APS-C format.


Shooting large aperture primes wide open tends to blur the background, which is important if the background is a bunch of colorfully-dressed fans watching the competition. They are a distraction from the player being emphasized. That is why professional sports shooters typically use big white primes, especially the 400 f/2.8.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 18, 2022)

Sight...i'm going to want it, but there will be no way I could afford it. If the EF last sold for about $6k USD (I think), I'll bet this one is $8-9k. Maybe canon is feeling saucy and will put it at $10k. 

-Brian


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 18, 2022)

With the 800 and 1200 signaling future pricing, I suspect that in addition to $1000-2000 hikes in the 400 and 600, we’ll see a new price level for this one. $6999 or $7999?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Shooting large aperture primes wide open tends to blur the background, which is important if the background is a bunch of colorfully-dressed fans watching the competition. They are a distraction from the player being emphasized. That is why professional sports shooters typically use big white primes, especially the 400 f/2.8.


Yes, it's horses for courses. With more and more AI coming along that can successfully blur background, I wonder if the days of big wide aperture lenses that are used for that are limited?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 18, 2022)

EOS said:


> Would love to see an RF 300mm f/2.8 designed from the ground up to take advantage of mirrorless in terms of weight and size (vs. simply bolting an RF mount onto existing EF designs and jacking up the price, like the RF 400 f/2.8 and RF 600 f/4).



If indeed we get a "real" RF 300mm f/2.8 new design, then it would bode well for a future RF 500mm f/4. Those two are often scheduled to release around one another. If the 500 gets the "weight loss program" that it never received for the RF mount, I might consider ditching my EF 600mm f/4 II for it. 

I own the ancient (1992?) non-IS version of the EF 300 f/2.8. Image quality isn't nearly as good as the IS versions, but it's still pretty good. I find I want to use it for certain wildlife situations (woodcock peenting in evening on the ground, for instance), and also for events. I'm shooting a conference on Saturday, and the thing that might make me keep it at home is the enormous weight. Light is usually terrible at these events, and I often wish I'd brought it.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Yes, it's horses for courses. With more and more AI coming along that can successfully blur background, I wonder if the days of big wide aperture lenses that are used for that are limited?


Wider apertures are also better in low light


----------



## AccipiterQ (Aug 18, 2022)

Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, the main use case will be ‘typical’ field lighting for high school sports at night (i.e., not very bright) with a need for high shutter speeds. For wider shots I have the 70-200/2.8, but the extra 100mm keeping f/2.8 will be useful.
> 
> I suppose I could consider the RF 400/2.8 instead, but most of the time 300mm will be long enough and when not I can live with a stop more noise and add the 1.4x.
> 
> ...


I use mine for high school football and band shooting. It does just fine there. I don't miss a 400 at all. In some cases, later in the season, I've used the 135 f/2 for both football and band with great results after cropping a bit. Most of my photos go online for the boosters, so cropping for 'reach' off of a 5D Mk4 isn't an issue at all.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 18, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?


Backyard bird, pet, and portrait photography, livestock shows and rodeos.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Wider apertures are also better in low light


Very true, and the wider the better to lower diffraction as well. With classic technology, lens diameter is all important. But, with advances in computing and AI there will be and already are some digital workarounds that will be good enough or even better for most of us.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 18, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


It would not surprise me to see Canon make this form over function then expect us to fix in post processing. Not very pleased to see Canon doing this. An example is the heavy vignetting with the 16-35 f4. I have the EF version and love it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2022)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Not very pleased to see Canon doing this. An example is the heavy vignetting with the 16-35 f4. I have the EF version and love it.


The RF version starts at 14mm (which is really closer to 13.5mm). I find that by 16mm, the distortion and vignetting aren’t much worse than the EF 16-35/4. Of course, those extra 2.5mm aren’t exactly free.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 18, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?


Race cars at Watkins Glen International Raceway. Motocross motorcycles at several local courses.


----------



## SonicStudios (Aug 18, 2022)

Finally, kinda thought the testing of this puppy was already in the wild, hope it's available by Christmas, and then on New Year's Eve, I hope the Final Count Down to the R1 begins. Thanks for closing out strong Canon!!!


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 19, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What is it about this lens that you find desirable? Serious question. I know it is the "affordable" big white, but it seems to me that 300mm would be too short for most of what I want a big white for. *I'd end up using it with a 2x converter almost all the time and would then be limited to "just" 600mm at f5.6.* Not a "bad" option, but I wonder if the compromises of a converter would make it worth the investment. It seems like a 400 f4 DO (if an RF version is ever made) would be a more versatile lens at about the same price.


Can any RF (or adapted EF?) handle stacked RF TCs? I believe it was the case for EF lens/DLSR but for RF/R mount?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 19, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> I for one will be looking forward to the used mk ii price drop once the RF comes out.


There would be more second hand ones on the market once the RF lens drops but do you expect the 2nd hand prices to reduce? I was looking for a second hand EF100-400mm to adapt on my R5 but the second hand prices didn't reduce much and there were suspiciously few on the market even when the RF100-500mm had been around for a while. I ended up with the RF100-500mm when there was a sale on and no regrets.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Yes, it's horses for courses. With more and more AI coming along that can successfully blur background, I wonder if the days of big wide aperture lenses that are used for that are limited?


The computational photography boundaries are being pushed in smart phones (portrait mode) but still not fantastic but are getting there. phones are limited by reach unless they somehow get such high pixel density that they can crop for telephoto shots...

Otherwise we are left with post-processing a la LR/PS etc. PS can do a reasonable job for subject selection and gaussian blur the rest but still not better than in-camera/lens raw images. I am surprised how often I am using LR's AI based sky mask for quick editing or at least using it and then adding/subtracting from it. ML/AI will certainly change how we shoot in the future!


----------



## Pixel (Aug 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There would be more second hand ones on the market once the RF lens drops but do you expect the 2nd hand prices to reduce? I was looking for a second hand EF100-400mm to adapt on my R5 but the second hand prices didn't reduce much and there were suspiciously few on the market even when the RF100-500mm had been around for a while. I ended up with the RF100-500mm when there was a sale on and no regrets.


Mine will be on the market for $4500 when I get my hands on this.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 19, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Wider apertures are also better in low light


True but sensors have better high ISO performance as well and post processing options with Topaz AI etc at a pinch.
With mirrorless removing the minimum focusing aperture then great shots with cheaper lenses are getting easier.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can any RF (or adapted EF?) handle stacked RF TCs? I believe it was the case for EF lens/DLSR but for RF/R mount?


Not natively. IIRC, there was one combination of older EF TCs that could be stacked, but the MkIII versions could not.

However, with a modified EF-RF adapter and an R body, it is possible to mount an RF TC behind the adapter and an EF TC in front of it.


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The computational photography boundaries are being pushed in smart phones (portrait mode) but still not fantastic but are getting there. phones are limited by reach unless they somehow get such high pixel density that they can crop for telephoto shots...
> 
> Otherwise we are left with post-processing a la LR/PS etc. PS can do a reasonable job for subject selection and gaussian blur the rest but still not better than in-camera/lens raw images. I am surprised how often I am using LR's AI based sky mask for quick editing or at least using it and then adding/subtracting from it. ML/AI will certainly change how we shoot in the future!


I just saw this report on Google's computational AI on images and was blown away. It looks like it is still in the R&D phase but if this gets released as a product we can pretty much kiss large aperture lenses goodbye.


----------



## parampreet (Aug 19, 2022)

Hope it's a lens designed from the ground up for the RF mount unlike a few other super-telephotos which are just the EF mount variants with a built-in adapter.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 19, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> I just saw this report on Google's computational AI on images and was blown away. It looks like it is still in the R&D phase but if this gets released as a product we can pretty much kiss large aperture lenses goodbye.


That's simply remarkable! 
RawNeRF denoise, 3D rendering with specular highlights and ability to change focus point! 
It would be great to understand just how much processing time would be required but I can see it (or a less stellar option) on phones in a couple of years or less.


----------



## sanj (Aug 19, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?


It is a fantastic street photography lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 19, 2022)

sanj said:


> It is a fantastic street photography lens.


I had the 300mm f/2.8 II on my 7DII in town once and got attacked from someone who thought I was a pervert taking photos of kids.


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 19, 2022)

parampreet said:


> Hope it's a lens designed from the ground up for the RF mount unlike a few other super-telephotos which are just the EF mount variants with a built-in adapter.


It will have to be. The current EF version saddled with a RF adapter weighs not much different than the latest 400mm 2.8 (only a 17% difference). Considering the 400mm is 27% wider, 38% longer, and at has at least 50% more volume than the 300mm, I would be absolutely shocked if they just slapped on a permanent RF mount adapter to a 2011 design and called it a day.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not natively. IIRC, there was one combination of older EF TCs that could be stacked, but the MkIII versions could not.


Mk II TCs could be stacked, as I recall.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 19, 2022)

The real question for me is if Canon releases this and a 120-300mm or just picks one or the other. Nothing made me more jealous of Nikon lenses than Nikon finally releasing a native 120-300mm F/2.8, that's a lens that I would consider my white whale if it was high quality and solid. Add a 2x and get a 240-600mm F/5.6, not bad at all. 

The 120-300 range is nice because, with the R5 using the 24-70, you can definitely crop in to make up the 70 to 120mm gap, so for big field sports at night it would save me from needing to use three cameras to cover the 24-300mm range.

I rented the Sigma one years ago and absolutely hated the look and feel of it. That specific lens also had pretty weird bokeh and not the best image quality. Between that experience and my commitment to Canon Pro Services, I can't imagine ever buying another third party lens.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 20, 2022)

C


David - Sydney said:


> The computational photography boundaries are being pushed in smart phones (portrait mode) but still not fantastic but are getting there. phones are limited by reach unless they somehow get such high pixel density that they can crop for telephoto shots...
> 
> Otherwise we are left with post-processing a la LR/PS etc. PS can do a reasonable job for subject selection and gaussian blur the rest but still not better than in-camera/lens raw images. I am surprised how often I am using LR's AI based sky mask for quick editing or at least using it and then adding/subtracting from it. ML/AI will certainly change how we shoot in the future!


Stop calling computational photography "photography". It's not "photography". LITERALLY BY DEFINITION IT IS COMPUTER GENERATED "ART".


----------



## AccipiterQ (Aug 20, 2022)

sanj said:


> It is a fantastic street photography lens.


It's not too long?


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 20, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> C
> 
> Stop calling computational photography "photography". It's not "photography". LITERALLY BY DEFINITION IT IS COMPUTER GENERATED "ART".


How are those wet glass plates working out for you?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 20, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Nothing made me more jealous of Nikon lenses than Nikon finally releasing a native 120-300mm F/2.8


I am not jealous at all.
My Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am not jealous at all.
> My Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses.


Sigma made the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 300-800 f/5.6 but no 200-500 f/4. The 200-500 f/2.8 should never have happened.


----------



## armd (Aug 20, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


The suggestion is that it is a redesigned lens if it is shorter and lighter than the existing ef version. This is a favorable development and hopefully a harbinger of new formulas to come. I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.


----------



## subtraho (Aug 20, 2022)

But no word on the RF 500 f/4 (DO?) from the same original rumor?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 20, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Outside of sports shooting from the sidelines, what do folks use their 300s for?


I do use it for sports. I also use it for wildlife with a 1.4 extender handheld. It’s also an amazing portrait lens. People never look better than in front of a 300mm.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 20, 2022)

armd said:


> The suggestion is that it is a redesigned lens if it is shorter and lighter than the existing ef version. This is a favorable development and hopefully a harbinger of new formulas to come. I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.


This “slapped on” and “bolted on” stuff is silly. Why redesign a state of the art lens? 

Better they keep an astounding three year old design and work on…. This lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> This “slapped on” and “bolted on” stuff is silly. Why redesign a state of the art lens?
> 
> Better they keep an astounding three year old design and work on…. This lens.


It’s not silly. Just read the-digital-picture review of the 800 RF, which has a bolted on slightly improved 2xTC. The 300mm f/2.8 II is not a 3 year old design either, it’s a generation back. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## dolina (Aug 21, 2022)

What I expect.​
ETA​Lens​EF weight​EF release year​RF ~40% weight reduction​Price​Closest Focusing Distance​Stops of IS​Within 23 months​RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM​2,350g​2011​~1,410g​>$7k​<2.0m​>4​Within 23 months​RF 200mm f/2L IS USM​2,520g​2008​~1,512g​>$6k​<1.9m​>4​After 2024 Olympics​RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM​2,100g​2014​~1,260g​>$7k​<3.3m​>4​

When millenials hit their 60s & 70s by 2040 & 2050 they'll be so lucky carrying a flagship RF body + RF L lens that are 80% of the weight of gear 2 decades ago.


----------



## sanj (Aug 21, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> It's not too long?


No sir. Try walking with it on the streets of Thailand, India, China, New York, Japan etc. Do try. (You can first try with a cheaper lens). With this lens, it is possible to capture faces and moments on the street which shorter lenses don't allow without making the subject conscious.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 21, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I do use it for sports. I also use it for wildlife with a 1.4 extender handheld. It’s also an amazing portrait lens. People never look better than in front of a 300mm.


As ridiculous as that sounds, for years a 300 f/2.8 was used as the standard lens for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. The last time I watched the "making of" show, it appeared that the 200 f/2 was used instead.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It’s not silly. Just read the-digital-picture review of the 800 RF, which has a bolted on slightly improved 2xTC. The 300mm f/2.8 II is not a 3 year old design either, it’s a generation back. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


I was referring to the 400 and 600 as state of the art. TheirbRF versions trigger no dopamine for novelty addicts but they are excellent lenses.


----------



## rpg51 (Aug 21, 2022)

For professionals, sure. But, I can't bring myself to drop $7K or more on a single lens. I would love to have a fast telephoto prime. But its not in the cards. I'll just have to suffer through with my zooms. First world problems.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 21, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Sigma made the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 300-800 f/5.6 but no 200-500 f/4. The 200-500 f/2.8 should never have happened.


I am not sure why Sigma did not make a 500 f/2.8.
They had a 300 f/2.8 and an 800 f/5.6.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 21, 2022)

armd said:


> I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.


They are not very old


----------



## davidcl0nel (Aug 21, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> They are not very old


Yes, the RF were the III version of the EF ones.
But there was no 300 III with reduction, so this would be now an entire new design, because I don't think they will it design for EF and add the adapter for it... So maybe it can be more compact in size.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 21, 2022)

The reported weight reduction would put this at around 3.2 lb, just slightly heavier than the 100-500, and insanely light for a big white, even if this is the little brother lens.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 22, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Stop calling computational photography "photography". It's not "photography". LITERALLY BY DEFINITION IT IS COMPUTER GENERATED "ART".


Well, this will be a can of worms!
The definition of art vs photography is pretty grey at best. I would suggest that all images from digital sensors are art but YMMV.

A digital sensor is a piece of silicon (computer designed and controlled manufacture) with photodiodes digitally recording light intensity at a point in space and then requires a computer to show the image, That's a pretty good definition of computer generated image. 
The art is how it is interpreted by Canon (colour science etc) for SooC images which are jpegs. But most of us are recording in raw and post process in Adobe camera raw and then the editor's choice of computer tools (eg LR/PS) to digitally modify the image on a computer even further. Only film is a physical/chemical process to produce an image.

But let's go further for the definition of computational photography from WIkipedia using the taxonomy proposed by Shree Nayari.... 

Computational photography refers to digital image capture and processing techniques that use digital computation instead of optical processes. *Computational photography can improve the capabilities of a camera, or introduce features that were not possible at all with film based photography, or reduce the cost or size of camera elements. Examples of computational photography include* in-camera computation of digital panoramas, high-dynamic-range images, and light field cameras. Light field cameras use novel optical elements to capture three dimensional scene information which can then be used to produce 3D images, enhanced depth-of-field, and* selective de-focusing (or "post focus").* 
=> this was one element of my comment on rawnerf.

*The definition of computational photography has evolved to cover a number of subject areas* in computer graphics, computer vision, and* applied optics*. 
=> I would include Canon's digital distortion correction SW to the applied optics to provide more usable wide angle images with smaller lenses.

These areas are given below, organized according to a taxonomy proposed by Shree K. Nayar. Within each area is a list of techniques, and for each technique one or two representative papers or books are cited. 
Deliberately omitted from the taxonomy are image processing (see also digital image processing) techniques applied to traditionally captured images in order to produce better images. Examples of such techniques are image scaling, dynamic range compression (i.e. tone mapping), color management, image completion (a.k.a. inpainting or hole filling), image compression, digital watermarking, and artistic image effects.... Also omitted are techniques that produce range data, volume data, 3D models,
=> this last point would apply to rawnerf's application of denoise and 3D models.

I was using computational photography for the processing of images on phones that were better than would otherwise be due to their severely limited optical lenses and small sensors.
Overall, I will be more careful in the future to use "computational photography" phrase more accurately but in general, I am happy with how I applied the term.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Well, this will be a can of worms!
> The definition of art vs photography is pretty grey at best. I would suggest that all images from digital sensors are art but YMMV.
> 
> A digital sensor is a piece of silicon (computer designed and controlled manufacture) with photodiodes digitally recording light intensity at a point in space and then requires a computer to show the image, That's a pretty good definition of computer generated image.
> ...


I would think (like many things) it's better to imagine a spectrum than discrete categories, from less to more computational. As you say, by definition a digital image requires computing to exist in any usable way. The video seemed to be aiming to create representations of a scene rather than adding in elements that weren't there, so it doesn't even seem to me to be especially far towards the creative end of things. I tend to feel that people who get upset by these approaches must be focused on more traditionalist genres (like portraiture), because macro and astro (for instance) are heavily reliant on computational postprocessing nowadays, and it's uncontroversial.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 22, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I would think (like many things) it's better to imagine a spectrum than discrete categories, from less to more computational. As you say, by definition a digital image requires computing to exist in any usable way. The video seemed to be aiming to create representations of a scene rather than adding in elements that weren't there, so it doesn't even seem to me to be especially far towards the creative end of things. I tend to feel that people who get upset by these approaches must be focused on more traditionalist genres (like portraiture), because macro and astro (for instance) are heavily reliant on computational postprocessing nowadays, and it's uncontroversial.


@[email protected] appears to have only posted a couple of messages in the forum and - USED ALL CAPS - which suggests they were quite distressed at my comments.

I agree that many things are like a spectrum but happy to have a conversation about the issue. I'm hear to learn from others in the forum and my own research rather than push an agenda. Clearly, others have also thought about this a lot for a taxonomy to be proposed.

Let's see [email protected]'s response... if they have something to add to the conversion rather than shouting at me.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 23, 2022)

swkitt said:


> Hell that would be only 1.5kg! So I guess I'm not ordering this 100-500 yet!


I wouldn't postpone getting the 100-500 for that reason. It is a spectacular & very versatile lens which is well worth having whether you get this new lens or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2022)

I find that the choice between buying a lens that exists and buying a lens that doesn’t is an easy one.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I wouldn't postpone getting the 100-500 for that reason. It is a spectacular & very versatile lens which is well worth having whether you get this new lens or not.


Absolutely!


neuroanatomist said:


> I find that the choice between buying a lens that exists and buying a lens that doesn’t is an easy one.


Let's face it, if they have that dilemma, do they need either?


----------



## Fischer (Aug 23, 2022)

Sounds too good to be true. The existing 300mm f/2.8 is maybe Canon’s best lens. If they can match the quality with so little weight it would become a must-have combo with a high MPIX camera.


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2022)

I barely use my EF 300mm 2.8L IS II so no I will not get the RF version. Also now I can use my lens with 5DIV, 5DsR and R5.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 24, 2022)

I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 24, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.


I find my Mk II quite hand-holdable, so I'd take a smaller weight reduction and a 120-300mm zoom design over a fixed lens with bigger weight reduction.

Assuming that they take TC equally well (which I would assume be more complicated for the zoom design, but I never took optics classes in Uni).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I find my Mk II quite hand-holdable, so I'd take a smaller weight reduction and a 120-300mm zoom design over a fixed lens with bigger weight reduction.
> 
> Assuming that they take TC equally well (which I would assume be more complicated for the zoom design, but I never took optics classes in Uni).


The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 weighs nearly 3.7 kg in use. So I wonder how much could its weight be reduced using more modern construction. There aren't any more modern equivalents but a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom would be roughly the same size and weight as a 240-600mm f/5.6. Sony's 200-600mm f/6.3 is ~2.1kg as is Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 and so I would expect the weight to be not less than 2.5 kg, not much more than the EF 300mm f/2.8 II.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 weighs nearly 3.7 kg in use. So I wonder how much could its weight be reduced using more modern construction.


As a comparison, the 200-400 1.4x TC weighs 3.62kg. The front elements of that and a 300/2.8 is the same(ish) size but the 300mm II is significantly shorter and lighter (2.35kg).

But yeah, anything less than 2kg would probably require a miracle or an act of god.


----------



## amfoto1 (Aug 24, 2022)

For those of us who have trouble with metric....

The EF 300mm f/2.8 II weighs 5.25 lb.

If the RF 300mm f/2.8 is 40% lighter, it would weigh 3.15 lb., which is pretty stunning!

I just checked The-Digital-Picture and the EF 300mm f/2.8 II weight includes hood and caps, which are close to 1/2 lb. I wonder if the RF version's weight includes these things.

P.S. for sake of comparison, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is 7.5 lb. This also includes caps and hood.


----------



## Fischer (Aug 24, 2022)

tron said:


> I barely use my EF 300mm 2.8L IS II so no I will not get the RF version. Also now I can use my lens with 5DIV, 5DsR and R5.


You should sell. Got a very good price for mine.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 25, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I really hope Canon makes this a 120-300 mm zoom, but if their objective is minimal weight they will likely go with a fixed 300 mm lens.


When I bought my 300, I simultaneously bought the 1.4X and 2X TCs. I use(d) the lens as a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 and it works quite well at all three focal lengths. I now use the 150-600 Sigma Sport much more than the 300 and want a 200-500 f/2.8-4. Buying a 120-300 seems rather pointless.


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2022)

Fischer said:


> You should sell. Got a very good price for mine.


I should not because I will not be able to find it - used in reasonable price - should I need it again. We do not all live in places where used big whites are available.


----------



## Bonich (Aug 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I find that the choice between buying a lens that exists and buying a lens that doesn’t is an easy one.


I buy your decision!


----------



## AEWest (Aug 25, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> This is what I hate about Canon. I have the Ef 300mm 2.8 II. It’s a really good lens. I’d go so far as to say it’s the best Canon lens. Very happy to use it with an R5. No intention of buying an RF version (expecting same lens with a permanent adapter attached). Then Canon come along with an RF version that’s shorter and lighter. Please please please let the image quality be worse or I’ll be tempted by it. How could it be lighter and shorter. It was already reasonably light.


I wonder if the shorter length of the lens means that it will be a telescoping lens like the 800 f11?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I wonder if the shorter length of the lens means that it will be a telescoping lens like the 800 f11?


Very, very unlikely. Not much length to telescope, and it would greatly add to its weight.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 25, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I wonder if the shorter length of the lens means that it will be a telescoping lens like the 800 f11?


I’d doubt it. It will just be more compact and desirable. I must resist at all costs.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 26, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I must resist at all costs.



2nd. My wallet really cannot afford for this rumor to be true.


----------



## SonicStudios (Aug 27, 2022)

Resistance is futile, we will all be assimilated into the RF 300 2.8. Canon has become the new Borg    Thank You Canon, I for one, can’t wait to add this to my collection!!!


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 27, 2022)

kaihp said:


> As a comparison, the 200-400 1.4x TC weighs 3.62kg. The front elements of that and a 300/2.8 is the same(ish) size but the 300mm II is significantly shorter and lighter (2.35kg).
> 
> But yeah, anything less than 2kg would probably require a miracle or an act of god.


Or an act of goddess Kwanon...


----------



## SHAMwow (Aug 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Excellent news for me, especially with a CR3 rating.
> 
> I am definitely in the market for a 300/2.8. Literally a few minutes ago I looked them up on MPB and KEH. I'll be pre-ordering the RF version.


What price point would make you hesitate or think twice about it? I too want one, but have never spend what this will cost.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> What price point would make you hesitate or think twice about it? I too want one, but have never spend what this will cost.


I’d have no problem with $8K, maybe it will be less.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It’s not silly. Just read the-digital-picture review of the 800 RF, which has a bolted on slightly improved 2xTC. The 300mm f/2.8 II is not a 3 year old design either, it’s a generation back. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


Not sure what Gen II has to do with this topic of their “bolting on” mounts and TCs to the Gen III recent designs.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 28, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> For those of us who have trouble with metric....
> 
> The EF 300mm f/2.8 II weighs 5.25 lb.
> 
> ...


The RF 100-500 at 3 pounds (without needless collar/foot) is a perfect weight target.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Not sure what Gen II has to do with this topic of their “bolting on” mounts and TCs to the Gen III recent designs.


The thread is about a new RF 300mm f/2.8. You had replied to @armd who wrote that the new 300mm should be a redesigned lens.


armd said:


> The suggestion is that it is a redesigned lens if it is shorter and lighter than the existing ef version. This is a favorable development and hopefully a harbinger of new formulas to come. I was very disappointed by the 400, 600, 800 RF’s which are old ef versions with adapters and tc’s bolted on.





InchMetric said:


> This “slapped on” and “bolted on” stuff is silly. Why redesign a state of the art lens?
> 
> Better they keep an astounding three year old design and work on…. This lens.


which appeared to me that you were stating that the EF 300mm f/2.8 is a three year old design which they should keep. It now appears that you did not intend to mean that.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> The RF 100-500 at 3 pounds (without needless collar/foot) is a perfect weight target.


The collar and foot are not needless when you carry the camera and lens on a strap or use a tripod.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> The RF 100-500 at 3 pounds (without needless collar/foot) is a perfect weight target.





AlanF said:


> The collar and foot are not needless when you carry the camera and lens on a strap or use a tripod.


Only if you use one of those straps that connects to the tripod socket. I've never trusted those. They kept unscrewing themselves when I tried them. So, I just use an old fashioned Op/Tech neck strap (never had a problem with it and Canon used to give away Canon branded ones with CPS memberships). Shooting outdoor sports I do use a monopod and need the collar and foot, but if that's the case, weight isn't all that relevant.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Only if you use one of those straps that connects to the tripod socket. I've never trusted those. They kept unscrewing themselves when I tried them. So, I just use an old fashioned Op/Tech neck strap (never had a problem with it and Canon used to give away Canon branded ones with CPS memberships). Shooting outdoor sports I do use a monopod and need the collar and foot, but if that's the case, weight isn't all that relevant.


I carry camera and telephoto lens with both the tripod foot and camera base connected to the strap by two caribiners. This way you have a back up if one attachment fails and a better spread of the weight, and holds the pair at a good angle. I highly recommend it for longer lenses. Here's a quick snap.


----------



## cruso (Aug 28, 2022)

I Hope it takes the Converters as well at the old mk2 ?


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Aug 28, 2022)

This website has become very stale since the new owners took control, I barely check it...


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The collar and foot are not needless when you carry the camera and lens on a strap or use a tripod.


To each his own. I handhold it and it’s light enough to attach the strap to the camera body.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> To each his own. I handhold it and it’s light enough to attach the strap to the camera body.


I keep the tripod collar in my bag, it's very handy when I want to use the camera as a scope to show something far off to my kids. But that's pretty much the only time I use the collar, virtually all my 100-500L usage is handheld.

I really like the swing-open design on the collar, it makes attaching it when needed very low effort. *Glares at the 180L*


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 29, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> C
> 
> Stop calling computational photography "photography". It's not "photography". LITERALLY BY DEFINITION IT IS COMPUTER GENERATED "ART".


Isn't every single digital photo ever taken, "computer generated art"? Probably, but it's also still photography. No different than smearing a lens with Vaseline, using colored filters, tilt shift, or letting light strike film, etc. Goodness.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I keep the tripod collar in my bag, it's very handy when I want to use the camera as a scope to show something far off to my kids. But that's pretty much the only time I use the collar, virtually all my 100-500L usage is handheld.
> 
> I really like the swing-open design on the collar, it makes attaching it when needed very low effort. *Glares at the 180L*


What do you do when going on a hike with your camera when you have to clamber a bit and use your hands to help you get round or over obstacles? Do you carry a backpack? Or, you just don't do it (the Netherlands are flat on the whole)?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What do you do when going on a hike with your camera when you have to clamber a bit and use your hands to help you get round or over obstacles? Do you carry a backpack? Or, you just don't do it (the Netherlands are flat on the whole)?


For short bits I attach the camera to a PD capture clip on the strap of my backpack, for longer bits it goes into the backpack. And as you say, the Netherlands are quite flat, so not much clambering to do, but I do have to carry around my kids from time to time 

For the vacation this summer I added a neck strap to the camera body, in case I had to suddenly drop it to grab one of kids (dog poo, jellyfish, traffic, those sorts of things). That didn't happen, but it did make me consider trying the tripod socket method of carrying it.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> For short bits I attach the camera to a PD capture clip on the strap of my backpack, for longer bits it goes into the backpack. And as you say, the Netherlands are quite flat, so not much clambering to do, but I do have to carry around my kids from time to time
> 
> For the vacation this summer I added a neck strap to the camera body, in case I had to suddenly drop it to grab one of kids (dog poo, jellyfish, traffic, those sorts of things). That didn't happen, but it did make me consider trying the tripod socket method of carrying it.


I also cycle a lot on my upright Dutch Gazelle, and it is so convenient to have the camera/lens on a shoulder strap, and the double fixing stops the lens drooping down too much.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Isn't every single digital photo ever taken, "computer generated art"? Probably, but it's also still photography. No different than smearing a lens with Vaseline, using colored filters, tilt shift, or letting light strike film, etc. Goodness.


No, photography is *painting with light*, that's what the term literally means.
Conversely, *painting with pixels* is digital art, it's possible to paint with pixels to create images that never originated from a camera, or the real world for that matter.

Each has its place, and requires a very different set of creative skills, but it's disingenuous to present digital art in a way that may be falsely misrepresented as photography. Since digital at is limitless, and only restricted by an artist's imagination, it's easy to put together an image that would be seen as stunning photography, such as some of the fabricated composite moon over landscape shots that are astronomically impossible, but they make for mediocre digital art when compared to what full-blown digital art is capable of.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Well, this will be a can of worms!
> The definition of art vs photography is pretty grey at best. I would suggest that all images from digital sensors are art but YMMV.
> 
> A digital sensor is a piece of silicon (computer designed and controlled manufacture) with photodiodes digitally recording light intensity at a point in space and then requires a computer to show the image, That's a pretty good definition of computer generated image.
> ...


Technically, it's a long stretch to call mobile phone snapshots "photography". They're a fixed narrow aperture, mainly wide and ultrawide, auto-everything HDR point and shoot, so there's not much capacity to control the light, which is a critical part of the art of photography. 

The skill in photography is for the photographers to be able to "see" great compositions, or know how to create them, and then adjust the camera to be able to picture what is seen or visualised. Mobile point and shoot cameras use an algorithm to determine all the camera settings for a scene based on their AI programming of what every other image of that sort looked like. They computer makes all the decisions and decides to make the photo look like nearly every other photo before it. 

For someone who understands what they're doing, they can still work within the tight technical constraints of P&S mobile cameras to do photography, as limited as the tools may be, though their understanding in composition and lighting on the subject if the latter is in their control/timing. 

Next time you're at a wedding or event and see someone hand a professional photographer a mobile and ask them to take a picture of them, watch the photogs facial expression! It's like WTF am I supposed to do with that!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> No, photography is *painting with light*, that's what the term literally means.
> Conversely, *painting with pixels* is digital art, it's possible to paint with pixels to create images that never originated from a camera, or the real world for that matter.
> 
> Each has its place, and requires a very different set of creative skills, but it's disingenuous to present digital art in a way that may be falsely misrepresented as photography. Since digital at is limitless, and only restricted by an artist's imagination, it's easy to put together an image that would be seen as stunning photography, such as some of the fabricated composite moon over landscape shots that are astronomically impossible, but they make for mediocre digital art when compared to what full-blown digital art is capable of.


"graph" comes from the Greek for "write", so the literal meaning is writing with light.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> "graph" comes from the Greek for "write", so the literal meaning is writing with light.


Thanks, I'm aware of that. It's where the name for graphite comes from, being used in pencils to write with. I always wondered about the etymology, unless the term is used in the broader context of documenting something, which scribes did?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> To each his own. I handhold it and it’s light enough to attach the strap to the camera body.


It’s light enough, but the balance is better when a shoulder strap is connected to the collar vs the body. On a tripod, that better balance means less vibration. 

Personally, if using the 100-500 at home I leave the collar off, but taking it for a hike or traveling I put the collar on. 

However, I don’t think I’ve ever used the collar for my RF 70-200/2.8 (which is the same collar as on the 100-500).


----------



## kaihp (Aug 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> And as you say, the Netherlands are quite flat


Quite flat, until you get to the southern Limburg province, then it gets pretty hilly. Denmark, OTOH, is flat all over


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Quite flat, until you get to the southern Limburg province, then it gets pretty hilly. Denmark, OTOH, is flat all over


For the eagle eye forum reader: my profile picture was taken in Dronningmølle, Denmark. Completely flat landscape, but mosts seas are


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s light enough, but the balance is better when a shoulder strap is connected to the collar vs the body. On a tripod, that better balance means less vibration.
> 
> Personally, if using the 100-500 at home I leave the collar off, but taking it for a hike or traveling I put the collar on.
> 
> However, I don’t think I’ve ever used the collar for my RF 70-200/2.8 (which is the same collar as on the 100-500).


Just back from a cycle ride - this time on a fold-up bike which I take in the car to some bird reserves. The R5/100-500 sits so nicely on my hip supported mainly by the collar that it's basically horizontal and doesn't bang into anything on my bike as I wobble along. It's at the ready if anything suddenly appears. The RF 100-400 doesn't have a collar but it's so light and the lens can be locked at 100mm that it is manageable just suspended from the body.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Technically, it's a long stretch to call mobile phone snapshots "photography". They're a fixed narrow aperture, mainly wide and ultrawide, auto-everything HDR point and shoot, so there's not much capacity to control the light, which is a critical part of the art of photography.
> 
> The skill in photography is for the photographers to be able to "see" great compositions, or know how to create them, and then adjust the camera to be able to picture what is seen or visualised. Mobile point and shoot cameras use an algorithm to determine all the camera settings for a scene based on their AI programming of what every other image of that sort looked like. They computer makes all the decisions and decides to make the photo look like nearly every other photo before it.
> 
> ...


I disagree with virtually everything in this post.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> "graph" comes from the Greek for "write", so the literal meaning is writing with light.


A better definition for -graphy as used in English is:
The English suffix *-graphy* means a "field of study" or related to "writing" a book, and is an anglicization of the French _-graphie_ inherited from the Latin _-graphia_, which is a transliterated direct borrowing from Greek.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 30, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Technically, it's a long stretch to call mobile phone snapshots "photography". They're a fixed narrow aperture, mainly wide and ultrawide, auto-everything HDR point and shoot, so there's not much capacity to control the light, which is a critical part of the art of photography.
> 
> The skill in photography is for the photographers to be able to "see" great compositions, or know how to create them, and then adjust the camera to be able to picture what is seen or visualised. Mobile point and shoot cameras use an algorithm to determine all the camera settings for a scene based on their AI programming of what every other image of that sort looked like. They computer makes all the decisions and decides to make the photo look like nearly every other photo before it.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you mean by "stretch"... of course it is photography... what else would you define it to be? Virtually everyone is a photographer now.

The "art of photography" could be something else but it is a nebulous concept at best. If you mean that you have to shoot on manual mode to be a photographer then I wouldn't be most of the time as I use shutter or aperture priority a lot.

Then you bring in "skill in photography" which is a different concept which assumes that you "correctly" (whatever that may mean) adjust the ISO/shutter/aperture/focus to get the final image that you want. Some of my most interesting photos were based on errors in that "skill". I still make mistakes that my camera (thankfully) was able to handle with high ISO when I accidentally pushed my shutter speed to 1/800s underwater yesterday. You don't even mention that post production skills can be equally valuable. I took a very expensive 60 minute private aerial flight in Iceland recently and the abstracts that I created in post brought the images to light (so to speak). The raw images were flat and somewhat boring.

To suggest that a professional photographer would turn their nose up at using a mobile phone is pure snobbishness! They each fulfill a valuable niche within the photography world.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> A better definition for -graphy as used in English is:
> The English suffix *-graphy* means a "field of study" or related to "writing" a book, and is an anglicization of the French _-graphie_ inherited from the Latin _-graphia_, which is a transliterated direct borrowing from Greek.


Collins. Merriam-Webster etc use this definition.
-graphy​
COMBINING FORM IN COUNTABLE NOUN
1. 
indicating a form or process of writing, representing, etc
calligraphy
photography
2. 
indicating an art or descriptive science
choreography
oceanography
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word origin
via Latin from Greek -graphia, from graphein to write


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> "graph" comes from the Greek for "write", so the literal meaning is writing with light.


Well, I guess the photon/sensor info is written to memory.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "stretch"... of course it is photography... what else would you define it to be? Virtually everyone is a photographer now.
> 
> The "art of photography" could be something else but it is a nebulous concept at best. If you mean that you have to shoot on manual mode to be a photographer then I wouldn't be most of the time as I use shutter or aperture priority a lot.
> 
> ...


By stretch, I mean being liberal with the term, like how everybody is an 'engineer', as in the janitor is a maintenance engineer these days!  

Remember the big story about who owned the copyright in the case where an ape pressed the shutter button on a photographer's setup and by chance took a selfie? It just pressed the button but that didn't make it a photographer, or the photographer that owned the copyright to the photo as the court finally ruled lol! 

The simple way I differentiate the two is by looking at who took the image. In photography, the photographer is the one that takes the photo, through a commination of knowledge, skill and creativity of various degrees, they make the decisions. With a snapshot, just like with the ape's selfie, the camera does everything, the 'shapshooter' just points it in the general direction of the subject or themselves and simple presses the button. Even in an highly restrictive auto mode, a photographer 'controls the light' to conform with the image they have in their mind. 

The smartphone takes an image based on an algorithm which averages out a large library of images in that genre plus makes some adjustments according to some rules, and image stacks a series of images to construct a HDR image, then applies the formulaic post processing adjustments to compensate for the limitations of the small sensor, tiny aperture, lack of stabilisation and potential noise in low light, to create the same over-sharpened and oversaturated smartphone photos we all know and love. 

The professional photographer's response wasn't snobbishness, it was more like 'how can I work with a tool like this, don't expect pro images, this isn't the gear I work with', which is a fair response. Other than good composition, very little was in their control, especially on a phone they've never used before.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 30, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Well, I guess the photon/sensor info is written to memory.


Precisely, in film the image (a representation of the subject using AlanF's description) was 'inscribed' or 'written' to a photosensitive silver-halide emulsion, with modern digital sensors it's encoded in binary form to a NAND flash memory chip.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "stretch"... of course it is photography... what else would you define it to be? Virtually everyone is a photographer now.


It depends on how photography is defined.
The "to study" definition is what people use when they want to differentiate between a snapshot and a photograph.
At the same time, a snapshot can be taken with a professional camera and a photograph can be taken with a smartphone.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It depends on how photography is defined.
> The "to study" definition is what people use when they want to differentiate between a snapshot and a photograph.
> At the same time, a snapshot can be taken with a professional camera and a photograph can be taken with a smartphone.


I think that's a little silly. Both are photographs. It doesn't become a photo based on how much thought was put into it. How would we measure that? Who decides? Now, whether it is art or not is up to each individual.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 30, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I think that's a little silly. Both are photographs. It doesn't become a photo based on how much thought was put into it. How would we measure that? Who decides? Now, whether it is art or not is up to each individual.



Every word in the dictionary has multiple definitions.
Photography can be defined as capturing an image and a snapshot is surely that.
Photography can also be defined as a field of study and a snapshot is surely not that.
As to who gets to decide, everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree with the opinion of anyone else.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Every word in the dictionary has multiple definitions.
> Photography can be defined as capturing an image and a snapshot is surely that.
> Photography can also be defined as a field of study and a snapshot is surely not that.
> As to who gets to decide, everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree with the opinion of anyone else.


Well, you were making a comparison between "snapshots" and photos... as though one is not the other. I fail to see what photography art classes or study has to do with it. Studying photography and a photo are two entirely different things


----------



## dolina (Sep 3, 2022)

Because these will be used for the 2024 Summer Olympics I expect the following to come out within 22 months


Future RF body or lensCurrent modelEOS R12020 EOS-1D X Mark IIIEOS R5 Mark II2020 EOS R5EOS R6 Mark II2020 EOS R6RF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM2011 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USMRF 200mm f/2L IS USM2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USMRF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM2010 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USMRF 500mm f/4L IS USM2010 EF 500mm f/4L IS USM

Improvements would be

- less weight
- less physical length
- more IS

Higher price points are to be expected.

2023 should expect

- EOS R Mark II
- EOS RP Mark II


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 3, 2022)

dolina said:


> RF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM2011 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM


Canon has a patent for a 200-500








Canon Patent: 200-500mm f/4 and 300-800mm f/8 Lenses For Full Frame


A Canon patent application referring to 200-500mm f/4 and 300-800mm f/8 for full frame sensors, although it is not clear if the lenses for




www.canonwatch.com





A lot of the patents for the other lenses you mentioned are here:








Canon Patent: 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 And 500mm f/4 (RF mount?)


Canon patent application 2020196094 (Japan) discusses optical formulas for three telephoto zoom lenses: 300mm




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## dolina (Sep 3, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon has a patent for a 200-500
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope those patents will result in an off the shelf product.


----------



## dolina (Sep 17, 2022)

Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.

Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S

I would not be surprised that these RF lenses will be less than 2.2 kilograms when released within 20 months

- RF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM
- RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
- RF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.
> 
> Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
> 
> ...


It seems like there’s an echo on the forums today.


----------

