Even if you are an event photographer that would use this range, you are carrying around a huge lens. In those times you only need 70x200 it would seem like to much baggage. You could have the 70x200, the 300 2.8 and it might make more sense.Originally Posted by Fast Glass
This lens earns the L designation as it is truly a luxury item.
It is definitely a well-engineered lens. Feels solid but not heavy. I had been considering a 300/2.8 off and on for the past few years, but was somewhat reluctant to buy the EF version once RF happened. If I'd already had one when I switched to RF, I'd have swapped the EF 70-200/2.8 for the RF version as I did, but likely stuck with that plus the EF 300/2.8. I have felt no need to upgrade my EF 600/4 II to the RF version. But effectively having both the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8 in one lens is definitely an advantage for me.
That's the only real downside. It's not very heavy, but it is long. I read a blog post by Dan Carr where he said that's the reason he wouldn't buy one. My current quest is a holster bag for it. I love my Lowepro Toploader Pro bags, great for camera plus one lens, optionally with a second lens in a case strapped to the side. I have all three sizes, I use the middle-sized 70 AW a lot more now that the 70-200/2.8 fits in that instead of the larger 75 AW. I'm hoping the Think Tank Digital Holster 150 fits the R3 plus 100-300, it's the largest holster-style bag I've found.
soooooo...had a chance to put it through the paces?
Not really, though the R3 + 100-300 does fit (barely) in the Think Tank DH-150. One of my kids has an indoor performance tonight, that will be the first real use other than my usual initial lens tests (on which it performed perfectly).
Just circling back, the lens is great as expected. I do find the zoom very useful, more so than the 300mm prime would be. Looking over the EXIF from that evening, focal lengths ranged from 135-300mm, was great to be able to capture a small group then zoom in on individuals. I was typically between f/2.8 and f/5 and for almost all the shots the ISO was 6400 or less, which is a comfortable place on the R3.
As a nice bonus, the TT DH-150 holster has a small side pocket for the rain cover. With that removed, the pocket holds an RF 24/1.8 (with hood) for a wider FoV. Of course, it would also hold either the 1.4x or 2x extender (for which it was likely designed by TT), and that's good for other use cases.
I am not surprised, but it is still nice to hear good things about the lens!
This link is a set of shots from r5. And the 100-300, as well as with the 1.4 and 2 x TC at max aperture. 100, 200, and 300 zoom points.
My conclusion is leave the TCs off. Really surprised that 'bare' with 200% was better. Somewhat concerned about Canons QC given the differences in performance of the 2 copies of the wide angle zoom.
Given the abilities of topaz (reportedly as I have yet configure my copies succesfully) thinking both of the TCs are going back.
Thoughts?
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...9TjrtTMhQz9iu1
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
images are in order of 300mm 200mm 100mm and naked, 1.4 then 2.0 Tcs. They were all taken in a max apeture so you can tell by the focal length f stop in the exif info
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Impressive .... very close in image sharpness compared to the 300mm f/2.8L but I guess it should considering it has an elite price tag as well.
I agree that with the 2X converter there is a substantial drop in sharpness but with today's AI sharpening software it may not be a big deal.
Love to see some real world images with and without converters.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote