-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 300-600 rumoured price
- Thread starter Misgav
- Start date
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
It’s interesting that you are able to compare the performance of a rumored lens with two actual lenses. You may not be aware of this, but top class Canon zooms actually perform as well as primes. Maybe Sony hasn’t achieved that yet. I don’t know. I had both the EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS II and the EF 200 F2.8L II for many years. The zoom at 200 was every bit as good as the prime, and both were superb. I’m very confident that the 300-600, if and when it appears, will have prime-like performance throughout its range, just like the 28-70 F2, both versions of the 70-200 F2.8, and the 100-300.
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
I haven’t tried the RF 2x, I’ve just been told that it’s an improvement over the EF 2x iii. Yes the EF 2x iii did give more detail than cropping an image from the lens with the 1.4x but the images with the 2x just had a certain look to them that I wasn’t thrilled with.
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
Stig Nygaard
Leading Member
Just want to clarify...
If you are referring to the article I have seen on CR, the price(-range) is presented as a guess or speculation, not as a rumor based on some source. So if you feel you are good at guessing prices, your guess can be just as good - maybe better - than the price CR is guessing.
Don't trust rumors too much. Most of them turn out to be wrong... But be even more skeptical towards pure guessing
--
/Stig (Copenhagen, Denmark)
https://www.rockland.dk/
https://flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/
Flickr Fixr: https://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrhacks/discuss/72157655601688753/
xIFr, the Firefox exif-viewer: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xifr/
Last edited:
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
That wasn't Canon strongest performing prime....
According to tests online the zoom was better. The prime made sense compared to predecessors of the 70-200mm mkII, although even these predecessors could compensate by some stopping down due to ILIS in cases with not a huge amount of subject motion, whereas the prime lacked ILIS.
It's interesting someone else needs to be able to compare while your confidence would be evidence enough here.
...and, who knows, a future RF 50-150mm f/2.0 L as well.
Zooms have improved, but so have primes. If older primes are adequate for you, so will be these high end modern zooms. Modern primes high end primes might still best modern high end zooms.
That said, like you, I also expect the RF 300-600mm to perform a bit better than the Sony 200-600mm.... as it should, at it's expected price point.
--
R5 & RV
EF & FE
homebodyMacro
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 483
The first rule of CanonRumors: don't trust CanonRumors.
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
I would imagine that everyone here knows that quite well. There doesn’t seem to be any harm in discussing the possibility of the lens and imagining how we might use it and what such a lens might be worth to us.
Ephemeris
Veteran Member
If I recall around this time three patents were filed.
- 400-600mm F2.8-4
- 300-600mm F2.8-4.5
- 70-300mm F4
John Crowe
Veteran Member
You definitely lose contrast, so that might have done it.
John Crowe
Veteran Member
Good to know. Thank-you.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Do you disagree that the 28-70 F2, the 100-300 F2.8, and both versions of the 70-200 F2.8 perform like primes throughout their ranges? When the 28-70 came out, pretty much every reviewer said it could substitute for three different primes. The assumption that a zoom will automatically be worse than primes is way out of date.Canon should definitely put you on the payroll
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
It was, and still is, an excellent prime. Given some of the amazing lenses Canon has produced, not being Canon's strongest performing prime is not much of a criticism.
As you know, because you read my whole post, I am basing my confidence on actual evidence (the performance of recent high end RF zooms). The poster I was responding to seemed to be working on an outdated assumption--that zooms have to be worse than primes. I also supplied evidence that this assumption is no longer accurate (actually hasn't been for at least thirty years, now).According to tests online the zoom was better. The prime made sense compared to predecessors of the 70-200mm mkII, although even these predecessors could compensate by some stopping down due to ILIS in cases with not a huge amount of subject motion, whereas the prime lacked ILIS.
It's interesting someone else needs to be able to compare while your confidence would be evidence enough here.
I haven't seen the rumors about that one. I'm sure it will be very popular with lots of people. Probably too big, heavy, and expensive for me.
Yes, they will 'best' them, in the sense that studio test shots, when peered at at 100% (or greater) magnification, will reveal slight differences. My RF 135 F1.8 is probably the best lens I have ever owned (or used). It may be the best lens Canon has ever made (certainly right up there). For pretty much every real photographic purpose (that is, every purpose other than producing test shots), no-one will be able to tell the difference between a shot with that lens at F2.8, and one from the RF 70-200 F2.8 (either version) at 135mm at F2.8. Improvements in zooms are far bigger in recent years (30 or so) than improvements in primes. I owned an FD mount Tamron 35-70mm zoom in the late 70's, and the Canon FD 50mm F1.4. The difference between shots with that lens, at any aperture, and the 35-70 zoom at 50mm were easily apparent in a 6" X 4" print. Canon released the EF 200-400 F4 in 2013 and the EF 400 F4 in 2014. How large do you think you'd have to blow up an image taken with both lenses at 400 F4 in order to notice a difference? An awful lot bigger than a 6" X 4" print.
Ephemeris
Veteran Member
I think it would be odd to say it's the best lens they have made.It was, and still is, an excellent prime. Given some of the amazing lenses Canon has produced, not being Canon's strongest performing prime is not much of a criticism.
As you know, because you read my whole post, I am basing my confidence on actual evidence (the performance of recent high end RF zooms). The poster I was responding to seemed to be working on an outdated assumption--that zooms have to be worse than primes. I also supplied evidence that this assumption is no longer accurate (actually hasn't been for at least thirty years, now).According to tests online the zoom was better. The prime made sense compared to predecessors of the 70-200mm mkII, although even these predecessors could compensate by some stopping down due to ILIS in cases with not a huge amount of subject motion, whereas the prime lacked ILIS.
It's interesting someone else needs to be able to compare while your confidence would be evidence enough here.
I haven't seen the rumors about that one. I'm sure it will be very popular with lots of people. Probably too big, heavy, and expensive for me.
Yes, they will 'best' them, in the sense that studio test shots, when peered at at 100% (or greater) magnification, will reveal slight differences. My RF 135 F1.8 is probably the best lens I have ever owned (or used). It may be the best lens Canon has ever made (certainly right up there).
If I have my requirements for an optical lens solution on the left hand side and I look for solutions to validate those results I can't say the 135 would close many of those requirements off.
I do read it's 'one of the sharpest canon lenses' but that's different. It wouldn't do what we need but that doesn't distract that it has very impressive optical capability (from what I read).
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
No loss of contrast is super easy to fix, it’s more the bokeh gets a little funky, especially in the almost in focus areas.
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
Have you carefully tested all those lenses in a controlled way? I haven’t so I can’t say if I agree or not. Also, perform like primes? What does that even mean? I’ve used some primes with some less than great performance over the years and I’ve used some truly amazing ones. Then, what aspect of prime performance are we actually talking about? Sharpness? Contrast? Bokeh? Distortion…???Do you disagree that the 28-70 F2, the 100-300 F2.8, and both versions of the 70-200 F2.8 perform like primes throughout their ranges?Canon should definitely put you on the payroll
Yeah I think Canon themselves were first to suggest that. Again what does that mean? That the focal length covers the focal length of three different prime lenses????
Maybe, maybe not, it all depends on what aspect of performance you’re talking about.
R2D2
Forum Pro
A big +1. That's exactly how I would characterize these new zooms too.Do you disagree that the 28-70 F2, the 100-300 F2.8, and both versions of the 70-200 F2.8 perform like primes throughout their ranges? When the 28-70 came out, pretty much every reviewer said it could substitute for three different primes. The assumption that a zoom will automatically be worse than primes is way out of date.Canon should definitely put you on the payroll
I use the 28-70 f/2 and the 70-200 f/2.8 for much of my work, and even though I own several primes within those ranges, I find them to be almost superfluous. That's how amazingly these zooms perform. I couldn't operate without them!
And the way Canon has been hitting these new zooms out of the ballpark, I'd agree that the chances that the 300-600 would be a winner too are very high.
R2
I predict Canon thinks it is 2x version of RF 100-300mm,
So the price will be slightly higher than the RF 100-300 for the " Premium" built in 2x.
LOL
Last edited:
I'd sort of agree, plus the lens is now rumored to be 150-600 5.6, at very high cost!
To be fair, 200-800 is a great lens too, and 5.6 + 1.4 = f8! 1/3rd stop better than f9 for 5x cost.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum