Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS USM

[Kayaker72]

Hmmmm....maybe Canon's goal with the RF 100-300 f/2.8 is to get us all to appreciate how affordable the $2,800 RF 70-200 f/2.8 really is

[Busted Knuckles]

Hmmmm....maybe Canon's goal with the RF 100-300 f/2.8 is to get us all to appreciate how affordable the $2,800 RF 70-200 f/2.8 really is

Yea man

[Jonathan Huyer]

Of all the wildlife photo trips that I've been on, I think this lens would probably work best for bears in Alaska. You don't need a lot of reach, since you're often nice and close to the bears and they also happen to be rather large . The f/2.8 would be really nice for low light at dawn and dusk, plus of course to give a super soft background. But you'd probably still want to have a 70-200 f/2.8 on a second body, for those moments when the bear walks really (really) close. On all the other trips I've done, the 500 f/4 has been my mainstay and I find that it's pretty rare to need anything much wider than that.

[Joel Eade]

Yeah .... I could see that it would be great for large animal wildlife photography especially in low light.

My first "big white" lens was a 300mm f/2.8 and it produced wonderful image quality but after a time I wanted more focal length for birds .... traded it for a 500 f/4 and then finally traded that for a 600 f/4 which is the ultimate bird lens (imho.) but it's size and weight is a significant challenge to travel with and carry in the field.

[Kayaker72]

That is a busy house, I am sure.

Usually do not post about rumors, but as a couple of us said we were looking for the 200-500 f/4, that is the "CR3" rumor. Q4 '23 or Q1 '24. Of course, these things can vary. But, it does look like it is coming. It reportedly will not have a built in TC, like the 100-300 f/2.8. But that there will be a "nice teleconverter solution," whatever that means.

I am excited about the potential of both of those, but have to admit, the 200-500 f/4 is less appealing without the built in TC. So, I'll have to wait to see what this "solution" is.

[neuroanatomist]

But that there will be a "nice teleconverter solution," whatever that means.
I am excited about the potential of both of those, but have to admit, the 200-500 f/4 is less appealing without the built in TC. So, I'll have to wait to see what this "solution" is.

There have been a couple of Canon patents for TC solutions recently, one quite recent where some elements rotate and slide out of the way in different locations that looks like a two-option solution (e.g. 1.4x + 2x switchable, or perhaps 1x=bypass + 1.4x or 2x). There was another from a couple of years ago with what looks like 1x+1.4x+2x (or a TC zoom) with the ability to also add drop-in filters and maybe a kitchen sink, but that one does not look like something that would be made into a product (in theory it could, because of course 'reduction to practice' is needed for a patent, it just seems rather impractical).

[neuroanatomist]

There was another from a couple of years ago with what looks like 1x+1.4x+2x (or a TC zoom) with the ability to also add drop-in filters and maybe a kitchen sink, but that one does not look like something that would be made into a product (in theory it could, because of course 'reduction to practice' is needed for a patent, it just seems rather impractical).

I read the actual patent for that one (as opposed to the blog post coverage) and it looks more like a mount adapter patent for video applications (matching a larger image circle to a smaller sensor with simple magnification optics, variable ND or image stabilization possibly being added). Not really a TC patent at all.

Meanwhile, FedEx has my 100-300/2.8. FedEx Ground used to be reliably an overnight delivery from NJ (B&H, Adorama), but now it's usually two days for delivery though sometimes they get things to me faster. Two days would be fine if it was fixed, but I'm not a fan of the variability. I live in a nice, safe neighborhood but even so I'd prefer not to have a $10K lens sitting in front of my garage until I get home. In this case, I switched the delivery to a nearby pickup location. Sure, B&H sends things like this as 'direct signature required' but since Covid our regular FedEx drivers ignore that and just leave the packages. Even wine club shipments that require not only a signature but one from someone over 21 are left in front of the garage.

[Kayaker72]

Great! Excited to hear about the 100-300 f/2.8. That should be a very nice new toy.

Shipping, yeah. It has become very bad. For work, we occasionally have to have samples shipped from Europe. Most Europeans use DHL, and we've had deliveries to nearby residences, samples sitting on loading docks for days. It's crazy.

[neuroanatomist]

Shipping, yeah. It has become very bad. For work, we occasionally have to have samples shipped from Europe. Most Europeans use DHL, and we've had deliveries to nearby residences, samples sitting on loading docks for days. It's crazy.

Way OT, but for critical samples we use World Courier. They do a great job of babysitting samples, and importantly they will add dry ice to a container as needed while it waits for customs inspections, meaning cold samples stay cold. Not cheap, but very reliable.

[Fast Glass]

It's a tremendously interesting lens, it took me a while to even think if it is something I would even use. And after some shooting, I could definitely use it. But I have a hard time justifying 10k when I already got a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and 300mm f/2.8 IS on seperate bodies. If money is no reasonable object, then I'd just preorder it and enjoy it. Alas I'm not quite there yet in my life. But it's a stunning piece of engineering. I can think of one award winning photographer I know casually that has been begging Canon for DECADES for this lens. And he is super pumped they are gonna make it.