Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS USM

[Kayaker72]

This has been popping up in rumors and now a few photos have appeared. So, it looks like this may be the next big white lens to appear. It is being hyped as sharper than the EF 300 f/2.8 II, which was one of the sharper EF lenses ever. It my mind, that should make the high MP body crowd happy, as there are only a few reasons to have a lens sharper than the EF 300 II: 1) Extremely high resolution bodies and 2) marketing hype . But fast AF, super sharp, also being hyped as light, and looking at the images, seems very reasonably sized.

I was not looking for this lens, but I could see it as a great second lens in a combo with a 500/600. But, also, adding on a 1.4x or 2x TC, you get 140-420 f/4 or 200-600 f/5.6 lens. So, if it is sharp with TCs, this actually could be a very versatile lens. Use it on a crop body, 160-480 mm equivalent.

Of course, the $10k rumored price tag wakes me up pretty quickly. But, maybe, someday.

[Jayson]

That thing is going to be a beast of a lens...in photos and the weight room. Would solve all of my current lens problems, but don't think I want to drop 10k on it.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Nice! Add a built-in 1.4 TC and that would be really something. On that note, why aren't more lenses coming out with built-in TCs? Especially the f/2.8 varieties. Other than the slightly inconvenient hit to the sticker price, of course.

[Kayaker72]

And we have an announcement.

RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM (canon.com)

https://youtu.be/HRuMxuq-tOE

https://youtu.be/DFiYJeVpnLE

Park photos did some wildlife with it:
https://youtu.be/uDNZkvO2gzw

Nice! Add a built-in 1.4 TC and that would be really something. On that note, why aren't more lenses coming out with built-in TCs? Especially the f/2.8 varieties. Other than the slightly inconvenient hit to the sticker price, of course.

Sadly, no built in TC. They seem to have the space, even removing the drop-in filter (now need a front filter).

I am very much hoping that Canon does start having more lenses with built in TCs. They were the first, but now Olympus has a 150-400 with a built in 1.25 TC (for micro 4/3rds, so equivalent to 300-800 native, and up to 1000 mm with TC). Then Nikon has their new (and expensive) 400 and 600 with built in TCs.

Canon was the first, from what I can tell, the 100-400 f/4 TC was popular, so hopefully they come around.

To me, that is exactly what this lens needs, something like a built in TC. It would have added weight, sure, but so much more functionality. The problem is options. The 70-200 f/2.8 is much less expensive and much smaller/lighter but doesn't accept TCs. So, what you are paying in money/size/weight for is 200-300 f/2.8 and the ability to add TCs.

I have a feeling, there is a group that really wants this lens: indoor sport photographers, parents with tween kids and all their functions, etc. That is just not me. If I ever start doing really expensive trips where I want a second lens, I could see this being an alternative. Having a 140-420 f/4 is actually pretty enticing. But, nothing on my current radar where I think I need to preorder this.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I have a feeling, there is a group that really wants this lens: indoor sport photographers, parents with tween kids and all their functions, etc. That is just not me. If I ever start doing really expensive trips where I want a second lens, I could see this being an alternative. Having a 140-420 f/4 is actually pretty enticing. But, nothing on my current radar where I think I need to preorder this.

Yah it's hard to justify over the 70-200 f/2.8, even for an avid gear collector like me. But if they were to dangle a 400 f/2.8 with built-in TC in front of me, I'd sell a kidney to buy it.

[Busted Knuckles]

10k is simply beyond my scope. The 100-500 is my go to. If ineed to go indoors it is the 70/200

[HDNitehawk]

This lens collecting hobby has gotten way to expensive.

[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

[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.