Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM

[rand thompson]

By Newsshooter


Article
Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM - Newsshooter

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The pro: optical quality of zooms is getting really good, so why not exploit that? Why limit yourself to primes?

The con: it's very expensive. More than the Leica 90-280/2.8-4 SL, and that's not a cheap lens either.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Canon is going to kill the RF mount doing things like this, no way is the 100-300 2.8 worth basically $10,000! Even looking at the 1.2 RF lenses at around $2,500 each for their 50mm and 85mm, it's ridiculous that competing lenses at 1.4, 1.2, and 0.95 come in at a fraction of the price and not only come within spitting distance of but, depending on the lens, equal or better image quality on top of that. Not to mention, for $2,500 a lens, I would rather get a cinema lens or even opt for a whole set of lenses at or under $2,500 price range, which has become far more possible these days.

As for zooms, a nice 70-200 2.8 can be had for much, much less and good deals abound more often these days with EF mount as well, much like my literally new Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX DG zoom that I picked up locally for a steal. Not to say that I don't appreciate Canon's craftsmanship and quality but I won't be buying an RF mount camera with Canon's lenses in mind if they keep staying out of touch like this, even $5,000 would be a lot but I would understand that a little more based on previous generation lens pricing.

 

[Phil Holland]

Canon is going to kill the RF mount doing things like this, no way is the 100-300 2.8 worth basically $10,000!

A question. Did you have this same reaction when Nikon released the 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR in a similar pricing tier in 2020?

It's an expensive lens, no doubt, but it's positioned where the market would put it really and in a zone where working professionals wouldn't scoff at it. And optically it's better than anything else currently in that range. Even older EF primes from nearly everybody who's tested it. It's also the lightest weight thing out there in this class, which is notable.

I own the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and optically the Canon is far, far superior. But it's also a much newer and state of the art design. The Canon is 1.6~lbs lighter too. The weight savings I think are strongly tied to the shorter flange depth and it's impact on the overall design, which is a continued story for mirrorless mounts.

Only real odd ducks here are the omission of a drop-in filter. I will also say, for this price, throwing in that $650 lens hood would have been a nicer play. And I think if anything this alludes to Canon not releases a dedicated RF 300mm Prime anytime soon. If they do, I would expect maybe an f/2 or something to differentiate and add value to that concept as the zoom will be tough to compete against that in their own lineup.

Mentioned this elsewhere. In tandem with the 1.4X TC in particular, this lens might encroach on 400mm f/2.8L IS sales a bit depending on how that fares.

Side note, mainly to say it. Optics of all sorts have a home in all professional fields, but when it comes to bleeding edge optics there's still a price to play. And there are fairly large differences in primes and zooms that are 1, 2, or more decades apart now. Some of this is due to what transpired industry wide in 2003, but the other aspects are modern manufacturing practices, technologies, and techniques that are available now. Optically what Zeiss and Sigma did with the Otus and Art series is still right up there, but Canon's new L RF Primes are just slightly ahead in a fractional percentage which shows either their patience in getting those designs right or a mega flex of what they can actually achieve. A frustrating thing for me as I do own all of these and generally use them for different things. The main thing I can site that is shared between those designs are vastly improved aspherical element manufacturing methods, the actual quality of the glass itself, and improved coatings. And it's a pain, because all of these lenses have their own unique beauty to them if you've shot on them a bunch.

 

[Zack Birlew]

A question. Did you have this same reaction when Nikon released the 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR in a similar pricing tier in 2020?

Man, Phil, I'm still in mourning over the price of the Nikon Z 58mm 0.95! :biggrin5:

It's true though, Nikon doesn't get away either with the Z mount as they're running neck and neck with Canon's RF lens shenanigans. It is much better than it used to be when most everything was F4 but you have the other 2.8 zooms like the 15-35, 24-70, and 70-200 coming in around the $2,400 mark but then to leap all the way up to $10,000 for the 100-300 2.8? That's a lot of bloat! Canon and Nikon should be figuring out how to make these optics for less, surely there's some new tech out there or some R&D that can uncover some new way of doing things.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I don't think that great optics can be cheap. One good thing to come out of this is that people will stop saying that Leica lenses are too expensive. They aren't and never were - with some exceptions.