p.5 #1 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
No chance this lens is a big white, internally zooming and in the 6-7k price range. I expect it to be around $9500 if it’s ever made at all.
If it has a built in TC then it’s $12k. Like the 200-400 was.
Sigma proved that high end glass with world class optics can be made at a reasonable price. The 300-600 F4 is a true gem and that thing is complicated inside.
p.5 #2 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
jaredmizanin wrote:
A 1.4x extender would make a 300-600/5.6 a 420-840/8; without the extender restrictions that the 100-500 has, I think that would be a great combo, wouldn't you agree? It would be sharper and better built, with internal focusing versus your 200-800. And if the lens is actually a 300-600 f4-f5.6 variable aperture, even better! Then a 420/5.6 to 840/8 zoom. I personally feel the 1.4x extender on the 100-500 is amazing and thus would expect no less from a higher-priced telephoto zoom. I just feel this lens will be quite pricey and although it certainly would bridge the gap between the 100-500 and 600/4 prices, many would still wish for a 5 or 6K lens offering.
Agreed on the extenders. I have very good results with both RF´s. Even on the 200-800. Have not yet tried the 1,4x on my 100-500 as I got the -800 before the 1,4x.
But I see no advantages with internal focusing. The lens just gets big and heavy, two characteristics I avoid. Therefore a 800/8 would be nice. Sharp, clear, colourful as well as handy and native 800. Slap the 1,4x on for a 1120/11 and 2x for a 1600/16.
Ok, so diffraction I do not like. But I´d rather take some diffraction than a lens at home when I need it. Big and heavy stays at home all to often. And the 800/11 is nice on the R5´s at f/11, so why not a 1120/11?
The one thing I would like to try these days is to write about all my fantastic experiences with my brand new Canon RF 300-600 f/5,6 L IS. How much does it take to get some very interesting AI results about Canons incredible newest tele zoom lens??
p.5 #3 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
netexpress wrote:
What is the use case where I need a zoom like this instead of my RF400/2.8 and RF600/4 and my old EF 300/2.8 II and EF 500/4 II?
Get a couple of Canon RF bodies and be done with it!
As far as price anything Canon puts out over 50mm holds it's own! If it is a prime I'll buy it. If it a zoom I'll try it. End of story!
To lug around those primes where I carry my 200-800 you´d have to be a triathlon top third Ironman. As I´m more of a hammer throw build, I like to swing it fast but not for long. Tripods? Never, except for timelapse, northern light and comets. Most of my shooting is opportunistic with very little time for lens swapping. A Goldcrest here, a Razorbill there, as they come, whatever comes. The seasons and weather windows are too short and narrow. Be too picky and you´ll miss most of the party with 8-10 months to the next chance.
p.5 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Imagemaster wrote:
Perhaps you mean 'zooming' and not 'focusing'?
Hehh, so you DID understand that masculinity reference! Well done you!
I could try an escape by pointing out that L´s have external focusing but many non-L´s don´t. You have to decide what to dedicate the control ring for, something useful or focusing. But any further reference within the realms of masculinity might go into too much detail for good decency on a forum without age limits.
p.5 #8 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
Of course. MTF of the 200-800 is poor, but it is consumer grade. For me the 100-500 is acceptable at 500 when used within limits, but not very good with a TC.
A high-grade f/5.6 lens is not so diffraction limited as the slower long tele zooms and won't have the disparity between the tangential and sagittal MTF common in the lower grade teles. I'm also expecting the AF to be top notch.
EBH
"the tangential and sagittal MTF common in the lower grade teles."
p.5 #9 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Alan Kefauver wrote:
"the tangential and sagittal MTF common in the lower grade teles."
Stop typing Greek to me.
I believe a divergence in these lines is sometimes taken as an indicator that bokeh might be "restless", though according to Zeiss, MTF curves cannot always reliably characterize the appearance of defocused areas of the image.
p.5 #11 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
garyvot wrote:
I believe a divergence in these lines is sometimes taken as an indicator that bokeh might be "restless", though according to Zeiss, MTF curves cannot always reliably characterize the appearance of defocused areas of the image.
Still, I expect that the ideal case (where these curves are a close match) is more characteristic of higher quality rendering than not.
I believe it can indicate 'restlessness' due to astigmatism. With high divergence it generally translates as good sharpness in one direction but not in the other because the optimal plane of focus for each is not the same. And when this happens, details blur unevenly, which contributes to busy bokeh, particularly closer to the plane of focus, and more so with shorter focal lengths where blur outside the plane of focus is less. But I think for a telephoto lens, the significant consequence of divergence is how it affects image sharpness. It would kind of be like taking a perfectly sharp image and sandwiching it with a softer one. You'll still see the sharp details, but there will also be a veiling effect of those details by the less sharp plane. When the divergence is zero at the point of focus but increases along the plane of focus off-axis, the image will transition from excellent sharpness/contrast at the intended point of focus to an increasingly veiled/lower contrast/softer/smeared-looking image off-axis. That's my interpretation.
p.5 #12 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
rscheffler wrote:
I believe it can indicate 'restlessness' due to astigmatism. With high divergence it generally translates as good sharpness in one direction but not in the other because the optimal plane of focus for each is not the same. And when this happens, details blur unevenly, which contributes to busy bokeh, particularly closer to the plane of focus, and more so with shorter focal lengths where blur outside the plane of focus is less. But I think for a telephoto lens, the significant consequence of divergence is how it affects image sharpness. It would kind of be like taking a perfectly sharp image and sandwiching it with a softer one. You'll still see the sharp details, but there will also be a veiling effect of those details by the less sharp plane. When the divergence is zero at the point of focus but increases along the plane of focus off-axis, the image will transition from excellent sharpness/contrast at the intended point of focus to an increasingly veiled/lower contrast/softer/smeared-looking image off-axis. That's my interpretation. ...Show more →
p.5 #13 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Will I be considered heretic if I compare this 300-600 to the dark side’s Nikon Z 180-600? Granted, the 180-600 is not has sharp as Canon’s existing L zooms, and is only 6.3 vs 5.6, but how could Canon manage to justify asking three times as much for an xxx-600 zoom, even if it is almost as sharp as a prime?
Let’s be realistic, I am not the only one looking at other alternatives than Canons offerings. I got a Z8 because Nikon’s 500 5.6 PF is so sharp, small and light, and their 800 6.3 PF is so much easier to use from my kayak than my EF 500 f4 L IS II. I would not use a zoom in the 600-800 range if it is lacking in the sharpness department. It would be left at home and I would use my Canon and Nikon primes. I could not justify paying three times as muck as Nikon’s 180-600 for that L zoom, no mather how much sharper it is. A very sharp 4000$ 300-600 zoom paired with a 40 Mpix stacked sensor R7 II could be a dream combo
David83 wrote:
No chance this lens is a big white, internally zooming and in the 6-7k price range. I expect it to be around $9500 if it’s ever made at all.
If it has a built in TC then it’s $12k. Like the 200-400 was.
Sigma proved that high end glass with world class optics can be made at a reasonable price. The 300-600 F4 is a true gem and that thing is complicated inside.
p.5 #14 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
I agree, either it is closer to price to a 100-500, maybe 1 grand more or it does have a much faster variable aperture e.g f4-5.6 if the rumours of being f4 at 400 were true it would be a winner for me, but even then i don’t see it coming in the price range of a 100-300 2.8 to stay relevant.
In the end it may not come to light at all, nobody knows.
"I have been told that in a recent retailer meeting that the lens was once again mentioned in a presentation, but that there is still no announcement date, other than “coming in 2026”, but we heard the same “coming in 2025” last year."
"My confidence level about this lens hasn't wavered, but it's time to write about the lens existing and not that it's coming.
While this information isn't new, where it came from is. My confidence level has gone up by the quality of the source."
"The speed of the lens is still up in the air and was not disclosed. We have heard that a variable aperture design of RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM as well as a constant aperture RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS VCM."
"One thing mentioned is that the 300-600 will be lighter than most people would expect it to be. Canon is always trimming weight from lenses, so this is highly probable. We also have the new world of computational correction for Canon lenses to consider."
"I think we're getting close to the new super telephoto zoom lens from Canon. I expect to see RF super telephoto lenses addressed ahead of the World Cup in June. That is the biggest sporting event on earth and Canon always has a big presence.
While new lenses may not be officially announced, development announcements are very likely."
I think that is a pipe dream at introduction. That would be a 150mm exit pupil for that lens. The same as a 600 f/4 and it costs a lot as you increase the size of the glass that way. I would expect at introduction such a lens to be at least $14,000. Now if you waited to buy it used 5 years later you might get it for under $10,000, but I don't think it would be that cheap when they first brought it out if they ever did.
p.5 #18 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
I find the rumored specifications for this lens to be truly curious (as in, they don't make sense to me).
To me, the most obvious reason for a 300-600mm lens to exist is for it to be a complement to the RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS. And for this to be the case, it almost certainly would need to be a premium design having a fixed aperture (ideally f/4.0, but certainly no slower than f/4.5).
I could see Canon offering a 200-600mm lens having a variable aperture. If it were significantly faster, it might make some sense as a more serious alternative to the 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS, more so if it received a 'L' badge. But this is not the lens that is rumored.
I am not Canon's product planner, but 300-600 feels like too short of a zoom range for it not to be a premium, fixed aperture 'L'-series lens. A lot of people will be disappointed if it is not, or if it is f/5.6, I think.
p.5 #19 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Personally I wouldn't mind one IF it is any good. After Canon's offerings in the last few years EXTREME caution is the word of the day.
The nonsense with the 800 and 1200mm lenses is nothing short of "Do we cheat them and how".
As of now Canon does not have a birding lens for me, 100-300 Nope, 600/4 nope.
If the 300-600 is extremely light then it is the first birding lens that I might be interested in.
Time will tell.
p.5 #20 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
garyvot wrote:
I find the rumored specifications for this lens to be truly curious (as in, they don't make sense to me).
To me, the most obvious reason for a 300-600mm lens to exist is for it to be a complement to the RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS. And for this to be the case, it almost certainly would need to be a premium design having a fixed aperture (ideally f/4.0, but certainly no slower than f/4.5).
I could see Canon offering a 200-600mm lens having a variable aperture. If it were significantly faster, it might make some sense as a more serious alternative to the 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS, more so if it received a 'L' badge. But this is not the lens that is rumored.
I am not Canon's product planner, but 300-600 feels like too short of a zoom range for it not to be a premium, fixed aperture 'L'-series lens. A lot of people will be disappointed if it is not, or if it is f/5.6, I think....Show more →
Yes and no. I can see a moderate speed 300-600 being the 'missing link' in Canon's lineup for serious birding/wildlife for those who would like something similar to the Nikon semi-fast (slow) PF primes. IOW, a ~$5-6K lens with internal zoom, fast AF, TC compatibility and L-lens sharpness at 600mm.
Currently with Canon, it's either prosumer slow primes or the 200-800 zoom, which absolutely have a place in the market but apparently not what many on this board would prefer, or top-tier, very expensive super-tele primes which IMO are increasingly becoming very niche.
The 100-300 with 2x is certainly an option, with respect to performance, but at over $10K. I'd expect a 300-600 to be optically optimized at 600mm, whereas IMO the 100-300 and 2x starts to show some minor IQ loss. That said, I do wonder what corners Canon would theoretically cut to fit a 300-600 at a price point half that of the 100-300.
From a sports photography perspective, the mythical 200-500/4 TC would be a lot more interesting because f/4 constant is still usable in higher-end/pro indoor/night facilities. I could even live without internal TC as I find I am using it less and less with the 200-400 when paired with the R5II. Price though would be painful...
