# Patent: Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS 1.4x plus other supertelephoto optical designs



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 4, 2022)

> One of the most popular, if not the most popular “big white lens” is the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS. We’re still waiting to learn more about an RF version of the lens. It’s our understanding that Canon has done a complete ground-up redesign for the RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> A new patent showing a bunch of super-telephoto optical designs has appeared, and all of these optical formulas come with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter.
> We think that a 1.4x built-in teleconverter would be quite welcomed on an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM 1.4x
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 4, 2022)

Copying Nikon but in the best way possible. Flick in 1.4x TC are the best value add to the mirrorless big lenses and makes TC's much more usable and available in fleeting moments.

I really want to see the first generation of big whites for the RF system, I have high hopes Canon put in the effort after the assuredly poor reception of the adapted EF/built in 2X TC lenses.

300mm f/2.8 was one of my favourite lenses for a decade, though I have since moved on to 400 and 800 as preferred focal lengths. I would however love a 120-300f/2.8 TC to take along with a 400 f/2.8 TC or shove them both into one monster 100/200-400 f/2.8 TC.


----------



## swkitt (Oct 4, 2022)

I'll start saving right now.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 4, 2022)

Tasty! Especially if it's also compatible with the add-on extenders.

(Not that it'll be in my price range).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)




----------



## juststeve (Oct 4, 2022)

As a person who likes to read patents, it would be nice to have a source URL posted.


----------



## Birdshooter (Oct 4, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Copying Nikon but in the best way possible. Flick in 1.4x TC are the best value add to the mirrorless big lenses and makes TC's much more usable and available in fleeting moments.
> 
> I really want to see the first generation of big whites for the RF system, I have high hopes Canon put in the effort after the assuredly poor reception of the adapted EF/built in 2X TC lenses.
> 
> 300mm f/2.8 was one of my favourite lenses for a decade, though I have since moved on to 400 and 800 as preferred focal lengths. I would however love a 120-300f/2.8 TC to take along with a 400 f/2.8 TC or shove them both into one monster 100/200-400 f/2.8 TC.


Not at all, it is Nikon that copied Canon. We do have a 200-400 with built in TC, don't cha know?
I and I am sure other would love Canon to bring out smaller super telephotos like Nikon has with the PF line as we had the DO line first as well. And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

juststeve said:


> As a person who likes to read patents, it would be nice to have a source URL posted.








j-platpat







www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp


----------



## juststeve (Oct 4, 2022)

Neuro. Thank you. I was doing a search quite unsuccessfully when you posted. Time to pour a little more coffee and settle down for some light reading.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 4, 2022)

The 500 and 800 in the patent filing are just the 400 and 600 with the 1.4x extenders activated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.


People like to rewrite history to tell their own stories. Heck, even companies do. Like how Nikon copied Canon's use of fluorite lens elements.

Today, their lens glossary states, "Fluorite is a monocrystal optical material that features a high transmission rate within both the infrared and ultraviolet zones. With its superb anomalous dispersion properties, fluorite intensely blocks the secondary spectrum in order to effectively correct chromatic aberration within the visible light spectrum – something that is more difficult to achieve at longer focal lengths. It is also significantly lighter than optical glass, giving you a more effective lens with less weight."

But several years ago, before they introduced FL elements into their supertelephoto designs (about two decades after Canon started doing so, though in fairness Nikon has used fluorite in microscope objectives for decades), Nikon's lens glossary for entry ED elements stated, "In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics - specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index."

Now that they're using FL elements, they've updated their glossary entries to sing the praises of fluorite instead of only highlighting the weaknesses.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 4, 2022)

This one may get me to convert to the EOS-R system.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 4, 2022)

So another rental items for me, and hopefully it wont be too expensive to begin with.


----------



## juststeve (Oct 4, 2022)

Since the subject of fluorite has come up, Nikon guy Them Hogan has stated quite strongly his belief Nikon's fluorite is sourced from Canon, as he knows of no other manufacturer of large diameter fluorite. So likely Sony is sourcing its fluorite from Canon, also. Profit is where profits are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

juststeve said:


> Since the subject of fluorite has come up, Nikon guy Them Hogan has stated quite strongly his belief Nikon's fluorite is sourced from Canon, as he knows of no other manufacturer of large diameter fluorite. So likely Sony is sourcing its fluorite from Canon, also. Profit is where profits are.


Interesting. Could be they tried to produce them internally but weren't able to grow sufficiently large crystals. It's as much art as it is engineering.


----------



## MiJax (Oct 4, 2022)

IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.


----------



## juststeve (Oct 4, 2022)

My apologies to THOM Hogan. Corrected in my post. He is quite often an interesting read even for a Canon user as he has used Canons often enough to have a solid familiarity of strengths and weaknesses. He is not a rabid fan boy and is a highly competent photographer. As an aside, someday before I die, I hope to learn how to type. Not likely to happen, though.


----------



## glness (Oct 4, 2022)

Yes, but what will the weight be? I have the EF 200-400 f/4 Canon with built-in 1.4x. It has amazing quality, but it is a beast at 8 lb!


----------



## xps (Oct 4, 2022)

I hope, they do not do the same with the 300mm like with the 600mm III version. This is definitively not as sharp as the Mk II.
I pray they keep optical quality like the 300mm, as IMO it is their sharpest prime lens.
And the do not go higher than 10000 Euros. (Ok, this is wishful thinking. Realistically 12000 € as Canon knows how to milk us fanboys)


----------



## SwissFrank (Oct 4, 2022)

xps said:


> This is definitively not as sharp as the Mk II.


I'm surprised to hear this. Can you share some MTF charts or back-to-back example shots?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm surprised to hear this. Can you share some MTF charts or back-to-back example shots?


The MTFs are nearly identical except in the extreme corners. Bryan/TDP tested 3 copies of the MkIII lens, one was so bad it was deemed damaged, the other two were similar to each other and slightly less sharp than his copy of the MkII.









Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens Review


Is the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2022)

I'd prefer the lenses being optimised for the longest focal length: eg, a 420mm f/4 with a built-in 0.7x speed booster.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The MTFs are nearly identical except in the extreme corners. Bryan/TDP tested 3 copies of the MkIII lens, one was so bad it was deemed damaged, the other two were similar to each other and slightly less sharp than his copy of the MkII.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The difference is noticeable in his charts with the 1.4xTC








Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




Not that I take those charts too seriously.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 4, 2022)

This sounds sweet. Another $10000 lens on the list of stuff I want but can't afford. Maybe the EF IIs will drop in price enough someday. 

Brian


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 4, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The difference is noticeable in his charts with the 1.4xTC
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd always assumed the Mark III was better. Interesting, I guess its lower weight is the advantage. The Mark II is very good but also very heavy and not good for my back (I used it hand held on safari - not a good idea)


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 4, 2022)

A 300mm 2.8 with built in TC would be a very interesting lens. I can just imagine the price.
I love my EF 300mm 2.8 II. The best of all the Canon lens in my personal opinion. 
For sport the option of having a built in teleconverter would be a good one.
I often use the 300mm with a 1.4 teleconverter and it works very well.
I have been surprised with the R5 and 100-500mm combo which works really well for sport. 
Tracking while not perfect is fairly good. There is a bit of a way to go on tracking but the R5 is decent.
It's great when it detects the head and stays on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I have been surprised with the R5 and 100-500mm combo which works really well for sport.
> Tracking while not perfect is fairly good. There is a bit of a way to go on tracking but the R5 is decent.
> It's great when it detects the head and stays on it.


Tracking is good with the 100-500 on the R3. The problem I have with the combo is for night sports, even at ISO 25600 the images are ~2 stops underexposed to get high enough shutter speeds. The RF 300/2.8 will solve that issue.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 4, 2022)

I can't wait. I am flirting with the idea of buying a used EF 300 or 400mm f/2.8...might wait for those to drop in price or see just how good these are with the built in TC.


----------



## mxwphoto (Oct 4, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> This sounds sweet. Another $10000 lens on the list of stuff I want but can't afford. Maybe the EF IIs will drop in price enough someday.
> 
> Brian


I doubt it will cost that much for a 300mm 2.8. I would imagine more along the lines of $8000.

Speaking of the EF II, if you wait for a right priced listing you can get it used for around $3500 right now which is not a bad deal.


----------



## Billybob (Oct 4, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Not at all, it is Nikon that copied Canon. We do have a 200-400 with built in TC, don't cha know?
> I and I am sure other would love Canon to bring out smaller super telephotos like Nikon has with the PF line as we had the DO line first as well. And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.


So Nikon, like Apple, took ideas developed elsewhere and made them (far) better? I mean the two Nikon pf lenses put the 400 DO to shame on price/value alone, and the Nikon's are far superior to the cheap, single-aperture RF DO long primes. 

That's my story.


----------



## PhilA (Oct 4, 2022)

Billybob said:


> So Nikon, like Apple, took ideas developed elsewhere and made them (far) better? I mean the two Nikon pf lenses put the 400 DO to shame on price/value alone, and the Nikon's are far superior to the cheap, single-aperture RF DO long primes.
> 
> That's my story.


Also there was the EF1200f5.6L that was fitted with a switchable internal 1.4x - way back in the '80s!


----------



## scyrene (Oct 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tracking is good with the 100-500 on the R3. The problem I have with the combo is for night sports, even at ISO 25600 the images are ~2 stops underexposed to get high enough shutter speeds. The RF 300/2.8 will solve that issue.


So shoot at ISO 102400! ;p


----------



## john1970 (Oct 4, 2022)

MiJax said:


> IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.


I agree. For me a 300 mm f2.8 with a internal 2x would be an amazing lens. Being able to switch between 300 mm and 600 mm on the fly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> I doubt it will cost that much for a 300mm 2.8. I would imagine more along the lines of $8000.


That’s what I was thinking, but built-in switchable TC might push it to $10K.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Not at all, it is Nikon that copied Canon. We do have a 200-400 with built in TC, don't cha know?
> I and I am sure other would love Canon to bring out smaller super telephotos like Nikon has with the PF line as we had the DO line first as well. And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.


What's a zoom lens to do with anything? The topic is the big white mirrorless lenses. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic at hand, why bother replying?


----------



## becceric (Oct 5, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd always assumed the Mark III was better. Interesting, I guess its lower weight is the advantage. The Mark II is very good but also very heavy and not good for my back (I used it hand held on safari - not a good idea)


My experience is limited to the Mark III, but for most of what I shoot with it (birds) the corners are out of focus anyway, so I have not yet come across poor corner sharpness issues.


----------



## tron (Oct 5, 2022)

A 400 DO with built-in 1.4 would be more useful for me but everyone has different needs of course.

I will keep my white EF lenses since the difference in price would be huge and the difference in IQ small if any.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> What's a zoom lens to do with anything? The topic is the big white mirrorless lenses. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic at hand, why bother replying?


You stated Canon should copy Nikon with a built-in 1.4x TC. The fact is, Nikon copied Canon…again. Are you one of those people who simply can’t admit when they’re wrong?

As far as I know, the Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x was the first supertele lens with a built-in ‘flippable’ 1.4x TC, used at the 1984 Olympics. In response to that, Nikon developed their own 1200mm + 1.4x (called a 1200-1700mm lens), although it took them 5 years to make the prototype.


----------



## ERHP (Oct 5, 2022)

Would love to have the option with my RF600 f/4L to simply flip the lever when a subject moves either two close to frame properly or further away than optimal w/the bare lens. Adding/Removing the 1.4x simply takes to much time and often introduces a risk of spooking the subject(s).


----------



## mxwphoto (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s what I was thinking, but built-in switchable TC might push it to $10K.


You may be right... The initial launch price of the EF mk II at $6600 translates into $8500 today, add in TC and improved IS/weight reduction surcharge so probably around $10k. Though one can still hope that strong Dollar vs Yen will push that down to $8999 at launch.


----------



## tron (Oct 5, 2022)

The big white lenses are so good that Canon will have to work real hard to pursuade people to upgrade, especially with super high prices.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2022)

tron said:


> The big white lenses are so good that Canon will have to work real hard to pursuade people to upgrade, especially with super high prices.


That assumes EF versions remain available. Many are out of stock and have been for months. As for current owners, many are one and done buyers who hang on to their lenses and never upgrade or only upgrade every 15-20 years.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2022)

tron said:


> A 400 DO with built-in 1.4 would be more useful for me but everyone has different needs of course.
> 
> I will keep my white EF lenses since the difference in price would be huge and the difference in IQ small if any.











Canon Patent: 400mm f/4 DO IS Extender 1.4x and 600mm f/4 IS Extender


A new Canon patent application was spotted. 400mm f/4 DO IS Extender 1.4x and 600mm f/4 IS Extender 1.4x are discussed.




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You stated Canon should copy Nikon with a built-in 1.4x TC. The fact is, Nikon copied Canon…again. Are you one of those people who simply can’t admit when they’re wrong?
> 
> As far as I know, the Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x was the first supertele lens with a built-in ‘flippable’ 1.4x TC, used at the 1984 Olympics. In response to that, Nikon developed their own 1200mm + 1.4x (called a 1200-1700mm lens), although it took them 5 years to make the prototype.


Why are you talking about old lenses? I said these would be Canon copying Nikon in the best way for the mirrorless big lenses as it is a great value add. No one is talking about the old FD lenses or even the still fantastic EF 200-400 f/4.0 TC. The current RF supertele lenses are not what I expect from Canon. A full range of super tele lenses with slip in TC's is what I expect of Canon.


----------



## tron (Oct 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> That assumes EF versions remain available. Many are out of stock and have been for months. As for current owners, many are one and done buyers who hang on to their lenses and never upgrade or only upgrade every 15-20 years.


You are right. In the next post I referred to my own big white teles. I have version II (300 400DO and 500) and their IQ is too good to sell them at loss and get their RF equivalents at huge prices.


----------



## Birdshooter (Oct 5, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Why are you talking about old lenses? I said these would be Canon copying Nikon in the best way for the mirrorless big lenses as it is a great value add. No one is talking about the old FD lenses or even the still fantastic EF 200-400 f/4.0 TC. The current RF supertele lenses are not what I expect from Canon. A full range of super tele lenses with slip in TC's is what I expect of Canon.


Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?
Do you realize that the 200-400 was intended to be a safari lens, so you did not have to change to a teleconverter in dusty condtions.... like on a safari.
I personally have been shooting superteles ten years before you joined Canon rumors in 2018 as well as many more members have.

I still remember the lady saleswoman were I bought my first digital camera, the Canon 20D saying to me, I would not buy a Canon over a Nikon.
When I asked her why, here response was that Canon used a CMOS sensor. I think Nikon also went CMOS in 2009 but may be wrong with the exact; date.
And don't even bother with how Sony copied Canon's glass as well when they started out.
Maybe some more deeper reading is required on your part.

Sometime we don't get what "we" want, And one day when you own a lens manufacturing company you can make those decisions on your own. lol
I for one, know about half a dozen people that have sold their EF 600's and went to the RF 600. That is a very expensive upgrade for the same optic quality but a substantial weight savings over say a 600 version II. I think everyone would like to see a totally new group of lighter and smaller lenses. Given time, I am sure Canon will make them. In the meantime, no one is making anyone buy Canon. So you have lots of choice if you don't like where Canon is going or has gone.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?


I've tried it on the Canon 200-400, Nikon 180-400, and the new Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC. Especially on the 400 f/2.8 it is very useful as you can safely engage it while the lens is in operation. This is fantastic for a smaller subject or more distant subject and then as if you are lucky enough to have it come in closer you can go back to 400. The alternative is of course to decide if you want a TC on right now, but then you end up missing shots that you could have gotten or gotten better if you could disengage that TC. And naturally there are environments where I don't want the lens taken off the camera at all.

There isn't a downside to a built in TC, the Nikon 400 f/2.8 isn't much heavier than the RF 400. And Canon can likely do a RF 400 f/2.8 TC that is lighter or as light as their current offering.


----------



## sanj (Oct 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?
> Do you realize that the 200-400 was intended to be a safari lens, so you did not have to change to a teleconverter in dusty condtions.... like on a safari.
> I personally have been shooting superteles ten years before you joined Canon rumors in 2018 as well as many more members have.
> 
> ...


How much with the TC add? I think it will be 1.6x and not 2x.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Oct 5, 2022)

I remember there being a patient for a 1.4 and a 2.0 teleconverter/adapter that was supposed to be released. THAT would up things a bit if it were added to the 300, 400, 500, and 600. Cost would probably be crazy though


----------



## NorskHest (Oct 5, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> I can't wait. I am flirting with the idea of buying a used EF 300 or 400mm f/2.8...might wait for those to drop in price or see just how good these are with the built in TC.


buy the 400 2.8 v2, you wont be disappointed, i picked up a 400 and 200 when everyone was getting rid of their ef gear for rf for cheap the 400 was 4300 and 200 was 2300 both lenses looked as if they had not been used. now we all have realized that ef is still amazing and it works incredibly well when adapted
these lenses with tc's on a 1dxiii or the r5 work as though the lenses were bare in my opinion. but seriously the 400 2.8 v2 fucks


----------



## gruhl28 (Oct 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'd prefer the lenses being optimised for the longest focal length: eg, a 420mm f/4 with a built-in 0.7x speed booster.


Hmm, never thought of that. That does sound like it might be an even better idea.


----------



## gruhl28 (Oct 5, 2022)

MiJax said:


> IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.


Just curious, why do you feel that a 1.4 is better suited to a 400 mm while a 2.0 is better suited to a 500 mm?


----------



## Curahee (Oct 5, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd always assumed the Mark III was better. Interesting, I guess its lower weight is the advantage. The Mark II is very good but also very heavy and not good for my back (I used it hand held on safari - not a good idea)


My thought as well. Unless one is a die hard pixel peeper there are things like atmosphere haze, heat waves and a dozen other things that will degrade a telephoto shot before you notice some theoretical pixel peeping.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> There isn't a downside to a built in TC


I would not go that far, but it would be nice to have the choice between a lens with a built in TC and one without.
Neither Canon or Nikon are giving us the choice.
These are not mass market lenses.
Maybe the market is not large enough to accommodate both.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'd prefer the lenses being optimised for the longest focal length: eg, a 420mm f/4 with a built-in 0.7x speed booster.


Canon does that for some cinema lenses that switch between full-frame ans super 35.


----------



## MiJax (Oct 5, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Just curious, why do you feel that a 1.4 is better suited to a 400 mm while a 2.0 is better suited to a 500 mm?


IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much. 

I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 5, 2022)

Would be very interesting to see what comes of this.
I really liked the concept of the EF 200-400 with the built in 1.4X teleconverter, but it is apparently pretty heavy and expensive.

Right now I'm using a 100-500L, and I have a great EF 500/4 IS II as well, but it's not really a good candidate for walking around much. A bit heavy, but quite an awesome, sharp lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I would not go that far, but it would be nice to have the choice between a lens with a built in TC and one without.
> Neither Canon or Nikon are giving us the choice.
> These are not mass market lenses.
> Maybe the market is not large enough to accommodate both.


With the RF 400-800 you do kinda have a choice of buying with or without. With the Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC you could just never engage the TC. Two versions would be very expensive to produce and you’ll end up with two lenses with the same cost to the end user with the value added model vastly outselling the strange model.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2022)

Tom W said:


> I really liked the concept of the EF 200-400 with the built in 1.4X teleconverter, but it is apparently pretty heavy and expensive.





Photo Bunny said:


> I've tired it on the Canon 200-400,


Freudian slip there @Photo Bunny - it's definitely a tiring lens to hand hold.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 6, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> With the RF 400-800 you do kinda have a choice of buying with or without. With the Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC you could just never engage the TC. Two versions would be very expensive to produce and you’ll end up with two lenses with the same cost to the end user with the value added model vastly outselling the strange model.


I would think that the version with the TC would be significantly more expensive.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I would think that the version with the TC would be significantly more expensive.


It would cost more to develop and produce two versions so they would have to just charge about the same for each to recoup that. Just selling a built in TC lens without a non TC counterpart would just result in the RF 400 f/2.8 TC costing the same as the outgoing RF 400 f/2.8. Perhaps your cheaper one would be the outgoing model while supplies last.


----------



## GoldWing (Oct 6, 2022)

Our agency is not buying any Canon glass until the R1 is released.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Our agency is not buying any Canon glass until the R1 is released.


B.F.D. Who do you think cares?


----------



## 800meterphotos (Oct 6, 2022)

I am so torn on pulling the trigger on a used EF 300 2.8 ii or just waiting for the RF version to be released.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2022)

800meterphotos said:


> I am so torn on pulling the trigger on a used EF 300 2.8 ii or just waiting for the RF version to be released.


As always…if you _need_ it now, buy it now.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 7, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Our agency is not buying any Canon glass until the R1 is released.


The R1 is probably already a known quantity at Canon, if it is still due for a late 2022 announcement then it may even be in production already.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 7, 2022)

MiJax said:


> IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much.
> 
> I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.


You are doing beautiful work with the 500mm. excellent wildlife shots


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 9, 2022)

MiJax said:


> IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.


I'd second this opinion. I think a new 500/f4(or f5?) with an internal (use or don't use) 2x TC would be an optimal choice for me. Hopefully it would have a short minimum focus so that it could have a much wider range of usage.


----------



## gruhl28 (Oct 11, 2022)

MiJax said:


> IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much.
> 
> I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.


Thank you for replying. That does sound reasonable.


----------



## Wcsmith02 (Oct 13, 2022)

A 500 f4 around 5 pounds with a 1.4xTC just a flip away is the dream wildlife lens if you ask me. And a it’s not a totally unreasonable one. Please make it happen.


----------



## mpmark (Dec 19, 2022)

xps said:


> I hope, they do not do the same with the 300mm like with the 600mm III version. This is definitively not as sharp as the Mk II.
> I pray they keep optical quality like the 300mm, as IMO it is their sharpest prime lens.
> And the do not go higher than 10000 Euros. (Ok, this is wishful thinking. Realistically 12000 € as Canon knows how to milk us fanboys)


I’ve used the 300 2.8ii, yes its sharp but the 500 4ii is had a tad more contrast, it’s one of the sharpest canon offers I believe. I’m using now for 2 years. It still blows me away.


----------

