I disagree. Reason being that the slower 100-400 is easily more usable now in similar situations that EF 70-300 ii was used in 10 years ago.
A stop is a stop is a stop. Jump yourself to a time in the future when you have both choices in front of you. Will a stop still remain
worthless to you? No way.
I never said that a stop was worthless, but I might guess that the average buyer of a "cheaper" consumer grade tele zoom (like RF 100-400 or 70-300 equivalent) doesn't think too hard about stops of light.
The vast majority of them will be looking at reach as their almost exclusive criteria (and price). Half of them won't even really know what f5.6 means, but they will know about IS.
The reason being - the improvements in software NR (like DxO, which really isn't a big cost, especially if buying on BF sales) and better sensors in newer R bodies allows for ISO speeds that were unheard of 10 years ago. I can take shots on R10 + RF 100-400 at ISO 12800 (or 25600 on R8) and produce images with less noise than I could with 70D + EF 100-400L at ISO 1600 (3 stops lower) 10 years ago, so the 1 stop lens speed difference becomes MUCH less significant.
The physics does not change. A shooter still runs into hard limits even though the goalposts have moved. A stop is still a stop. There are always times when I wish I had another stop. This coming from someone who espouses DxO at every chance!
I would guess that at least 80% of target users (not pros and not complete beginners) would choose a RF 100-400 f8 over RF 70-300 f5.6 if they were the same price.
If they were the same aperture. However there would still be those who would prefer the 70mm wide end. But put both benefits together and you get your target market.
Again, I didn't say that there wasn't a market for a 70-300 f5.6 lens - I do, however, think it will be a LOT smaller than the 100-400 f8 market, and more so if the lenses are priced similarly. I suspect that a fairly large part of the target market you mention would choose a 70-300 L over a consumer lens (given the choice) anyway, further reducing the target market for a consumer 70-300 f5.6.
I would also guess that a similar percentage of the EF 70-300 ii buyers really wanted a 100-400, but couldn't afford (or justify) it because it was a white lens that cost 6x as much (nothing from Canon in-between). THAT is why they ended up with 70-300, not because they really wanted 70-300. Or, they bought a 3rd party offering, which is a different discussion.
If they were a birder. But not everyone shoots birds with their telephoto.
No, but if Dad can sit in the stands and still reach junior on the field, that is the reason for 400mm over 300mm.
A 70-300 with a faster aperture (and wider wide) would still have a unique appeal.
Agreed, as a L lens.
I don't think that the lenses (100-400 & 70-300) do have "significantly different capabilities", other than the extra 100mm of reach of course (which is significant). For many (most ?) people the loss of the 70-100mm range isn't significant,
You're just speaking for yourself. No way would I give up even my 70-200 for the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8.
Perhaps, but not everyone (including me) has multiple tel-zooms of different speeds and focal lengths. Again, the average buyer of a consumer grade tel zoom is a person who buys a single tele zoom (because they can't afford, or can't justify buying more than one), accepts the compromises that comes with it and deals with them.
especially with the popularity of the RF 24-105 (both STM and L f4) and RF-S 18-150, but show me a tele-zoom buyer who turns down a "free" extra 100mm of reach.
It's not free. That's the point I've been making. You lose a stop at ALL apertures. Plus you lose a significant part of the wide end. It's a different lens.
I get that it isn't free to a pro or more advanced enthusiast but, again, the average buyer of such a lens is likely to not know the significance of the extra stop, and has a finite budget and just wants more reach than their kit lens.
As mentioned above, the difference between f5.6 and f8 isn't nearly as significant as it used to be - back in the day when most of the DSLRs struggled to AF at f8, and noise was a real issue - those days are almost gone.
The days are not "almost" gone where you can Double your shutter speed "for free" however. Light still matters. It will always matter.
I agree that light matters, but as mentioned I have been able to more than double my shutter speed, in spite of going from a 100-400L f5.6 to 100-400 f8 - simply by advances in NR and the ability to use higher ISO speeds.
And yes, I acknowledge that there are other drawbacks to using higher ISO (like reduced DR) but the average consumer tele zoom buyer doesn't know that.
There are still a lot of people out there who, unlike many in this forum, simply cannot afford, or cannot justify, having the faster, more costly and much larger and heavier lenses, so they look for the lens that seems to tick the most boxes for a limited budget and accept the compromises (if they even know what they are) - and with a tele zoom, additional reach is likely to win most of the time.
They have been a number of threads here, including mine, about people looking for smaller and lighter gear - either for travel, or because they are getting older, or both. I am loving my new R gear, and on a recent trip (my first decent trip since retiring) of Sri Lanka and Maldives I loved the fact that my entire bag weighed only 5.5kg (down from almost double that) and covered everything from (FF FoV equivalent) 15mm to 640mm, and that I could simply switch my RF 100-400 from R10 to R8 while on an afternoon safari and the light dropped a bit, and I still got decent shots at fast shutter speeds at ISO 25600.
Heck, my previous 6D ii + EF 100-400L ii alone weighed half as much as my entire new kit. Yes, there are some compromises, but I can deal with them - photography has always, and likely will always be about compromises - until someone invents a 14-600mm f2.8 lens that fits in a coat pocket
I am trying to look at a 70-300 f5.6 consumer lens vs 100-400 f8 consumer through the eyes of the average buyer, who is likely to be someone who knows enough about photography to know that a longer lens is good thing, rather than trying to digitally zoom a phone camera, or crop a "proper" cameras kit lens photo.
I am not looking at it from an enthusiast hobbyist who has been doing photography for a number of years and has the means to indulge their hobby (which probably describes many on this forum). They are the ones who are likely to (as I did) eventually indulge in a nice white zoom and love it - until they get older and don't want to cart the heavy beast around anymore :-D
