Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS USM

[neuroanatomist]

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/

[Joel Eade]

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/

In those images, I would agree. Those are more of a "bird-scape" style .... my preference with birds to have the subject much bigger in the frame in which case the new 100-300 with the 2X TC may do just fine. Since I already own a 600 f/4 and the RF 100-500 it's not really a lens that's on my want list although it is clearly a stellar piece.

[neuroanatomist]

In those images, I would agree. Those are more of a "bird-scape" style .... my preference with birds to have the subject much bigger in the frame in which case the new 100-300 with the 2X TC may do just fine. Since I already own a 600 f/4 and the RF 100-500 it's not really a lens that's on my want list although it is clearly a stellar piece.

If not for this contrived 'test', I would not have brought the 100-300 on a birding outing at all. Outside of testing of this sort, doubt I'll use it with the 2x TC in the future. I can see using it with the 1.4x TC for outdoor field events, a 140-420mm f/4 zoom will be useful in that setting, and under non-pro field lighting the 100-500mm needs ISOs of 12800-25600, so the extra 2/3 – 1-2/3 stops of light will make a meaningful difference.

[Busted Knuckles]

Thanks for the double checks. The focus point was at the front if the steps/lower hand railing. Is there the depth of field issue re the mens room sign.

I sent both back. I was thinking of doing the optimal f stop (7.1) but seems like the difference was so small that fiddling with the 2x seems wonky.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[Joel Eade]

Makes complete sense to me!

[Kayaker72]

Thanks John.....I came across these two images of Bryan's (here and here) with the 100-300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC which are plenty sharp, IMO. The typical fall off in IQ with a 2x TC does not seem to be happening here. But, I was wondering how fast the AF is? Do you see the usual fall off in AF?

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks John.....I came across these two images of Bryan's (here and here) with the 100-300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC which are plenty sharp, IMO. The typical fall off in IQ with a 2x TC does not seem to be happening here. But, I was wondering how fast the AF is? Do you see the usual fall off in AF?

I think it slows down a little with the 2x, but the AF is so fast natively that any difference is barely perceptible.

[Kayaker72]

I think it slows down a little with the 2x, but the AF is so fast natively that any difference is barely perceptible.

Thanks. This seems like a big improvement over previous lenses, especially EF, with a 2x TC. It'll be interesting to see about AF speed and IQ if Canon does release some sort of 0, 1.4, 2x TC.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Mike.

Do you have a cheat sheet as to which is what?