# A Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM is on the way [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 26, 2019)

> We’ve previously reported that Canon will be introducing an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM as their first super telephoto lens for the RF mount.
> Now we’re hearing that an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM will also be launching sometime in 2020, and the source has claimed that this lens will come with a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses, unfortunately, no details about this were given.
> I think we’re going to see a lot more professional lens announcements in 2020 for the RF mount.
> The source did clarify that new versions of the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and EF 500mm f/4L IS II aren’t in the plans for Canon.



Continue reading...


----------



## DrToast (Jun 26, 2019)

Just curious, when this happens is it because the source doesn't know of the new feature, or they don't want to tell you about it?



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> the source has claimed that this lens will come with a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses, unfortunately, no details about this were given.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 26, 2019)

Perhaps the new feature is macro capability.


----------



## bichex (Jun 26, 2019)

Maybe it's about 

*Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter*


----------



## basisunus (Jun 26, 2019)

A built-in mount adapter so it's compatible with both EF and RF mounts.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 26, 2019)

a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
Cheap?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 26, 2019)

Maybe collapsible?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 26, 2019)

AlanF said:


> a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
> Cheap?


 That's a good one


----------



## Tom W (Jun 26, 2019)

bichex said:


> Maybe it's about
> 
> *Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter*


Oh, that would be interesting...
300/2.8
420/4
600/5.6

And with excellent IQ. Maybe...

And I'd quite possibly buy it too...


----------



## Rampuri (Jun 26, 2019)

AlanF said:


> a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
> Cheap?


or maybe way too expensive.. I mean really expensive 
or new and unique feature for super telephoto lenses - just that it would be the first one with RF mount


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2019)

AlanF said:


> a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
> Cheap?


Small? OK it does say L NOT DO but small and light would be nice


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 26, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Maybe collapsible?


You might be on to something there.

Canon's designers obviously feel that extendable lenses are fine for R mount L lenses like the new design on the 70-200 RF. Maybe a mechanism to extend and lock into place and collapse again when stowing away? There will be plenty of people who will whine about durability, but with a substantially different method of focusing using pdaf the mechanism being very slightly off over time might not make as much of a difference provided the camera can determine this and adjust.

It also might win converts to the system for the small and light argument (although i dunno how light it would be)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 26, 2019)

These threads are like when a child gets told Santa is going to bring them something nice and that's it. 

Speaking of retractable, I wonder why that monster hood which ends up reversed over the lens by fiddling with a knob couldn't just slide back into that location. Of course that still leaves the clumsy lens cover to deal with.

Jack


----------



## miketcool (Jun 26, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Perhaps the new feature is macro capability.



The 100-400 works well for Macro.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 26, 2019)

Internal TC


----------



## Dantana (Jun 26, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> These threads are like when a child gets told Santa is going to bring them something nice and that's it.
> 
> Speaking of retractable, I wonder why that monster hood which ends up reversed over the lens by fiddling with a knob couldn't just slide back into that location. Of course that still leaves the clumsy lens cover to deal with.
> 
> Jack


Like the first version of the 200 2.8? That could be cool.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 26, 2019)

Dantana said:


> Like the first version of the 200 2.8? That could be cool.


Unfamiliar with that lens. I just caught myself - I like to keep my camera and lens quick and handy sitting upright on the lens hood - what if it collapsed?

Jack


----------



## miketcool (Jun 26, 2019)

Hopefully it’s compatible with drop in filters like EF - RF adapter is. I can’t tell you how awesome that feature is.


----------



## Phil (Jun 26, 2019)

bichex said:


> Maybe it's about
> 
> *Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter*



That’s a great idea, I just hope Canon has thought of it to.


----------



## lenspacker (Jun 27, 2019)

the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...


----------



## canonnews (Jun 27, 2019)

bichex said:


> Maybe it's about
> 
> *Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter*


except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jun 27, 2019)

lenspacker said:


> the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...




Yeah that’s my beef with this lens. I’d only be able to use it with one body and not with two.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 27, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Hopefully it’s compatible with drop in filters like EF - RF adapter is. I can’t tell you how awesome that feature is.


You just told me but you needn't have. The issue is that right now it's EF to RF to use it, which I'm presently fine with.

Jack


----------



## Pape (Jun 27, 2019)

Maybe it got some lenses what move and can change flange distance? . Then that TC patent picture would make sense
No idea if its possible make without losing image quality.
but you never know what canon can do 
Changing flange distance and tc could be fully automated ,you just turn zoom ring 300-450-600 .like normal zoom lense 

100-400mm works good as ''macro'' but RF 300 with 2x would give better reach if focusing to 1meter too
i wonder if they make new 100-400 too ,f5,6 is slightly diffraction affected with 32mpixel crop,if it matters any
RF or EF 100-400mm f4,8?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 27, 2019)

lenspacker said:


> the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...



Maybe an RF->FE adapter will come along. I'm using my 300 f/2.8 on my Sony A9 with good success even with 2x TC.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 27, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Maybe an RF->FE adapter will come along. I'm using my 300 f/2.8 on my Sony A9 with good success even with 2x TC.


I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.


It would be possible with incorporated lens elements, like a TC.


----------



## max_sr (Jun 27, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.



If they can make FE -> Z adapters with 2mm difference in flange distance, they can also make RF -> FE adapters. But not the other way round.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 27, 2019)

AlanF said:


> a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
> Cheap?


Or...it will be painted black.


----------



## uri.raz (Jun 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.



It was given as an alternative, as on the one hand switching between external teleconverters increases the chances of dust or moisture entering the camera or lens, and on the other hand adding a built in teleconverter *such as the 200-400* (read: Canon has already gone this path once) increases the bulk of the lens. Also, having a two-for external teleconverter allows it to be sold as an additional item to work with existing lenses.


----------



## degos (Jun 27, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> and on the other hand adding a built in teleconverter *such as the 200-400* (read: Canon has already gone this path once) increases the bulk of the lens.



There's not a lot of bulk to the extender in the 200-400, just a bulge. It doesn't make it longer than it would have been without it because the 1.4x optics are inserted in the void _ahead_ of the final mount elements:








http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-Lens-Element-Diagram.jpg




The Nikon 200-400 is 358mm long, the Canon with internal 1.4x is 374mm.

Given that RF lenses have a extra 20mm+ of void with a supertele, they could probably fit a 2x section in there.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 27, 2019)

max_sr said:


> If they can make FE -> Z adapters with 2mm difference in flange distance, they can also make RF -> FE adapters. But not the other way round.



The big challenge isn't the flange distance but the RF protocols, which are by all accounts far more advanced than the EF protocols from 1986. Building something that can even tell an RF lens to change aperture would be impressive on its own. A 'metabones' style RF->FE autofocus adaptor seems like utter fantasy to me.


----------



## uri.raz (Jun 27, 2019)

degos said:


> There's not a lot of bulk to the extender in the 200-400, just a bulge. It doesn't make it longer than it would have been without it because the 1.4x optics are inserted in the void _ahead_ of the final mount elements:



Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 27, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.


How about _drop-in_ teleconverters?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.


The 1.4xTC 225g and the 2xTC 325g.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 27, 2019)

The more I hear of all the ideas and possibilities the more I see $$$$ and people talking about selling kidneys. 

Some time back, shooting every day for hours, mostly with 2X attached I often wished I could quickly get down to 560 from 800. Right now at least, there is no zoom option that would allow what I'm enjoying at 800 so going 100-400, as appealing as it is, is not a step I've taken. A higher resolution sensor can accomplish post processing zoom but it doesn't do anything for spot focus accuracy or visibility at the time of shooting.

In other words, with the 400 DO II I'd be thrilled to have a switchable TC! Including X1 seems out of the question but as others have said that would be crazy good. 

Jack


----------



## tron (Jun 27, 2019)

The 200-400 1.4X is very heavy at my opinion. it is heavier than the 500mm 4 II !! Of course its functionality/purpose is different but the weight difference is real.


----------



## Pape (Jun 27, 2019)

zoom tubes got nearly half more lenses. 200-400 got lot of metal


----------



## tron (Jun 27, 2019)

Pape said:


> zoom tubes got nearly half more lenses. 200-400 got lot of metal
> View attachment 185308
> View attachment 185309


Not denying any of it, plus its different use. I am just stating the facts that make it not practical for my needs. And true, if the same methods (embedded tele) were used in fixed teles the resulting weight would be more tolerable.


----------



## tron (Jun 27, 2019)

Still, if a tele lens weights at the limit of our capabilities any weight increase for any reason is not tolerable...


----------



## tron (Jun 27, 2019)

So where are our 500mm and/or 600mm DO lenses


----------



## unfocused (Jun 27, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> These threads are like when a child gets told Santa is going to bring them something nice and that's it...
> Jack



Always a recipe for disaster. For children it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips any parents' ability to pay or provide whatever magical unicorn they dream of. For Canon Rumors forum readers, it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips Canon's ability to provide whatever magical unicorn forum readers dream of. The final result is always the same...disappointment when the actual toy appears under the tree.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 27, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Always a recipe for disaster. For children it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips any parents' ability to pay or provide whatever magical unicorn they dream of. For Canon Rumors forum readers, it lets their imaginations run wild to the point that it soon outstrips Canon's ability to provide whatever magical unicorn forum readers dream of. The final result is always the same...disappointment when the actual toy appears under the tree.


My thoughts precisely. It makes it tough even for us realists because we get caught up in it, even if we're consciously trying not to!

Jack


----------



## tron (Jun 27, 2019)

Ha ha quite right. But we can always make do with the equipment we already have


----------



## Jethro (Jun 27, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It would be possible with incorporated lens elements, like a TC.


Sure - but that's more than a usual mount-to-mount adaptor. I'd love such a hybrid adaptor, by the way!


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 27, 2019)

basisunus said:


> A built-in mount adapter so it's compatible with both EF and RF mounts.


So the box contains the current EF 300, plus the EF-RF adaptor


----------



## Yasko (Jun 28, 2019)

basisunus said:


> A built-in mount adapter so it's compatible with both EF and RF mounts.



Meaning it would have to collapse somehow when mounted on RF?


----------



## Pape (Jun 28, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Meaning it would have to collapse somehow when mounted on RF?


Or RF lense would have collapsing back structure ,zoom structure on back side . Lot more light weighting than making 300-600mm front zoom, saves like 3kg weight


----------



## Ladislav (Jun 28, 2019)

I wish this could massively drop a price of second hand Mk.II lenses. Right now price on used marked for mint (visual) condition is somewhere 20-25% cheaper than new. It defends purpose of buying second hand when it is generally the same price like buying grey market.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 28, 2019)

bichex said:


> Maybe it's about
> 
> *Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter*


This would be my guess to.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 30, 2019)

I can't think of what the unique feature would be. A Switchable 1.4 & 2.0X teleconvertor - do people mean built in. That would push the price of the lens through the roof. I have the EF 300mm 2.8 II and its a most beautiful lens. Given its size the weight is reasonable but the picture quality is great. I use it alot on a 7DII (the 7DII - I'm not a huge fan off but works very well with a 300 2.8 II). Sport looks great with it. I'd highly recommend it as your first big white. I have the 600 F4II as well but its just a beast. I compare that to an an aircraft carrier. You have to bring so much gear with it (sturdy tripod, gimbal head, special bag etc).
I assume the RF version will be every bit as good. I'm not sure it needs anything fancy to go with it.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I can't think of what the unique feature would be. A Switchable 1.4 & 2.0X teleconvertor - do people mean built in. That would push the price of the lens through the roof. I have the EF 300mm 2.8 II and its a most beautiful lens. Given its size the weight is reasonable but the picture quality is great. I use it alot on a 7DII (the 7DII - I'm not a huge fan off but works very well with a 300 2.8 II). Sport looks great with it. I'd highly recommend it as your first big white. I have the 600 F4II as well but its just a beast. I compare that to an an aircraft carrier. You have to bring so much gear with it (sturdy tripod, gimbal head, special bag etc).
> I assume the RF version will be every bit as good. I'm not sure it needs anything fancy to go with it.


I agree. To make it special they have to keep it as small and as light as possible. Anything fancy like embedded teleconverters will increase the weight and sie. Not to mntion the price.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2019)

The current 300/2.8 II is a really great lens, and I got great use from mine. It's not quite as popular as it was since the introduction of the 400mm DO II, which, according to Art Morris, has pushed its used price down in the birding community. I personally would prefer a lightweight 300mm f/4 DO to rival Nikon's 300mm f/4 PF, which a very desirable lens.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 6, 2019)

tron said:


> The 200-400 1.4X is very heavy at my opinion. it is heavier than the 500mm 4 II !! Of course its functionality/purpose is different but the weight difference is real.



The versatility is worth the additional weight in some situations. This is a great safari lens. Pop on a 2x TC III and you have a 400-800 zoom @f8 with decent IQ.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> The versatility is worth the additional weight in some situations. This is a great safari lens. Pop on a 2x TC III and you have a 400-800 zoom @f8 with decent IQ.


It needs only a 1.4xTC popped on to give 400-800mm as it has an internal 1.4xTC.


----------



## tron (Jul 6, 2019)

I understand that 200-400 can be a great safari and sports lens but for me who shoot birds it would be a heavy burden. My 400DOII weighs 2.1Kg and even my 500II weighs less than the 200-400 and is a stop brighter.


----------



## Pape (Jul 6, 2019)

2m minimum focus gives same magnification with f8 than 100-400 with 5,6 
And 2m distance makes bug shooting easy


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2019)

Pape said:


> 2m minimum focus gives same magnification with f8 than 100-400 with 5,6
> And 2m distance makes bug shooting easy


What does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification?


----------



## Pape (Jul 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification?


1,4 convertor ,and another 1,4x gives f8
okie i guess 100-400 is lot sharper as naked so you right


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2019)

Pape said:


> 1,4 convertor ,and another 1,4x gives f8


Again, what does aperture have to do with reproduction ratio/magnification.


----------



## Pape (Jul 6, 2019)

its easier to make resolution realized when larger aperture . autofocus works better and can use faster shutter speed ,less shake unsharpness


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2019)

Pape said:


> its easier to make resolution realized when larger aperture . autofocus works better and can use faster shutter speed ,less shake unsharpness


And none of that has anything to do with reproduction size/magnification.


----------



## Pape (Jul 6, 2019)

What ever,not important  question got anything to do with RF300 anyway


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It needs only a 1.4xTC popped on to give 400-800mm as it has an internal 1.4xTC.



I wouldn’t recommend that approach. I get better results both IQ and AF with the 2x (no internal 1.4x engaged) than the internal 1.4x + external 1.4X TC III. You may find different result if you experiment with the lens, but this is pretty consistent from testing and use. I have even tired the 2x + 1.4x internal engaged, but that gives you f11 and you loose autofocus even on a 1dx II. The image wasn't horrible, but I wouldn't use it for anything other than a website. Either a 2x or 1.4x you would have to swap it out if you wanted to drop to 200-400. On safaris other than the Mara or Serengeti, I usually find that the 200-400 + occasional 1.4x enabled 280-560 gives me more than 90% of the shots I want.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> I wouldn’t recommend that approach. I got better results both IQ and AF with the 2x than without the internal 1.4x engaged than the internal 1.4x + external 1.4X TC III. You may found different result if you have used the wins.


I can believe that, especially as the digital picture found better IQ at 560mm with an external 1.4xTCIII than with the internal. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2
Interestingly, the performance of the Nikon equivalent 180-400mm with an internal 1.375xTC is spectacular at 400mm and poor at 550mm with the internal TC switched in. https://www.lenstip.com/531.1-Lens_...-400_mm_f_4E_TC1.4_FL_ED_VR_Introduction.html
So, I wonder why internal TCs so far aren't as good as external?


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 6, 2019)

tron said:


> I understand that 200-400 can be a great safari and sports lens but for me who shoot birds it would be a heavy burden. My 400DOII weighs 2.1Kg and even my 500II weighs less than the 200-400 and is a stop brighter.



Believe me, I understand and I have seriously considered selling the 200 - 400 for another long lens solution. I have tried the 400 DO II, 500 II, 600 II and everyone below but I love the versatility and quality of the 200-400. I use my 100-400 a lot, but it can't match my 200-400 especially when you pop on a 1.4x TC III. I have 2 more safaris scheduled before I focus on other areas and will probably sell the lens after the last trip. My second favorite spot is the Western where a 500 or 600 + converters is a better solution because of the long distances. I am also of the theory that much beyond 600mm atmospherics can start to play a role in image quality. I don't do birds very often because I have extremely bad eyesight.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> So, I wonder why internal TCs so far aren't as good as external?


Maybe because external TCs move the lens forward.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Maybe because external TCs move the lens forward.


How does that help?


----------



## flip314 (Jul 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> How does that help?



I'm not sure that it does, but it's possible that this allows more elements to be used by providing more space. It also may be easier to design a TC that doesn't have to fit into an existing optical path (ie, by changing the distance from front element to sensor it may be easier to complete the optical path rather than fitting into a specific space). Those are just guesses though...

Apart from that, anything that has to move has extra constraints on how it can be designed. That may be the bigger issue.


----------

