Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS USM

  1. #21
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Glass View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Even if you are an event photographer that would use this range, you are carrying around a huge lens.
    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.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,553
    soooooo...had a chance to put it through the paces?

  4. #24
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836
    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).

  5. #25
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836
    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.

  6. #26
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,553
    I am not surprised, but it is still nice to hear good things about the lens!

  7. #27
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,553
    Bryan has posted image results. Here are comparisons against prime lenses:
    100 mm
    200 mm
    300 mm
    420 mm
    600 mm

    My summary....That is an elite lens. I'd have no issue with it and a 1.4x TC. 2x, yeah, per usual, there is a fall off, but those might still be usable images.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,613
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Eade View Post
    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.
    Here's a quick comparison, and I think the 100-300/2.8 + 2x holds up very well compared to the 600/4 II. The 100-500 is no slouch, either...

    https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/th...-is-usm.42653/

  10. #30
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,553
    Thanks for the comparison. All of those are usable images. The biggest difference, IMO, was bokeh. Clicking on the images and trying to zoom in, you can see a difference in sharpness, and that will matter for certain shots. However, often, extreme sharpness is less important and what I am seeing from the 100-300 2xTC looks sharp enough.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •