Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 - Useful for Wildlife Photography? Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2023
- With "only" 300mm focal length, the Canon RF100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM may seem a bit short for wildlife photography. And even though it was certainly designed primarily for sports photographers, I was extremely interested in this telephoto lens from the start. In this video, I'd like to share my experiences with you and discuss sharpness (with and without a converter), autofocus, image stabilizer, and other practical aspects.
You can buy the lens here and support my channel (affiliate links):
Canon RF100-300mm f/2.8: adorama.rfvk.net/vNNo33
Canon RF600/4 replacement foot: adorama.rfvk.net/oqLqZn
I use DXO PureRAW 3 to reduce noise in my images:
Test it for free: tidd.ly/42l1Lwi
You can buy the lens & replacement foot here (affiliate links):
Canon RF100-300mm f/2.8: adorama.rfvk.net/vNNo33
Wimberley replacement foot: adorama.rfvk.net/oqLqZn
Really enjoyed this review and comparison of the different lenses with real world shots. Thank you.
Thanks!
Excellent review per usual!
Thanks a lot
Nice review! I'm very interested in this lens. I really like capturing more of the environment in my shots, and I think this lens will be perfect for that.
Thanks! I actually bought it 2 months ago and absolutely love it! It’s great for showing more of the environment and lately I have been using the RF100-300 way more than my RF600/4
Very sincere and objective review. I have bought this beast, mostly for sports shooting. No regrets and very good experience. For wildlife … all is perfectly covered in the video.
Thanks a lot! Yes, I also think sports is the primary target group
Awesome detailed review of this lens btw
Thanks
My go to lens is a 400mm f/2.8. There is no better look than a 2.8 lens!!!
$$$$$
I was actually hesitating between a 400/2.8 and 600/4, but in the end many of my subjects are just too far away for a 400/2.8
Not very good for birds though...especially small ones.
I learned a long time ago that in wildlife photography 300mm just isn't enough for a main lens. I also learned that using an extender should be limited to rare occasions (if you are always using an extender your lens is too short) and using one on a zoom is even less advisable. As a second lens to be carried alongside a longer focal length it would be too large and heavy. A 70-200 f2.8 is more manageable and would give the option to have wider viewpoints with shallow depth of field. And, let's be honest here, Canon are once again pushing their customers to the limit with the ludicrously high cost of these new lenses.
For a specialist sports photographer I can see that this lens may well be a very welcome piece of kit as it would replace the need to have both a 70-200 f2.8 and a 300f2.8 prime.
But for wildlife I feel this lens would be totally unsuitable. I suspect that there will be many people out there who want this lens simply to say they have the latest piece of new kit and I equally suspect that it won't be too long before we see examples creeping onto the used market as they realise it is not suitable for what they actually need.
Once again you present an excellent review and cover all the bases.
Thanks for your comment. i think it really depends what you want. Unfortunately, I think we will see these higher prices from all bug manufacturers in the future (Canon’s 600/4 is relatively inexpensive compared to Nikon and Sony)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ..."relatively..." Love it! On the other hand, Canon does not offer an alternative like a 180-600 5.6-6.3 for $1,700.00 like Nikon does. If you want to spent less than 5 figures on a Canon 600, you are stuck with a virtually unusable fixed f11. (Yes, I know, it takes beautiful pictures of static subjects in ideal conditions, but in the real world wildlife rarely cooperates!)
I am a retired photographer after shooting professionally for the last twenty years, using Canon equipment. When the RF lenses & R bodies came out, I decided after much thought to sell all of my Canon bodies, along with numerous “L” lenses. Although, Canon gear served me well & I still admire Canon products, the cost of the gear became prohibitive for me. I invested heavily in Fuji lenses & a couple of their camera bodies. APSC sensors have greatly improved over the years & the cost savings have been “significant.” Naturally, there are some “trade offs” in comparing these systems, but I do not regret making this change. Best wishes.😊
If I were rich , I would buy a Canon 400 2.8 and 600 mm f4 , only these lenses for wildlife.
An excellent, thorough review. I have this lens and have been very happy with the results so far. Works well with both TC’s. This is perfect for owls, especially larger ones that are crepuscular. Smaller birds, not quite as good only because it is a bit short. I got this mainly for my primary subject, owls. My secondary subject is photographing dressage horses indoors, and this lens is so good for those typically dark environments. Now that the rumored price of the upcoming 200-500 f4 is said to be $16K US, I feel even better about getting this lens. I also have the RF400 2.8 which is great, but not as versatile as a zoom. The 100-300 is not for the masses, but for those who specialize in certain subjects as I do, it is a great fit.
Thanks, I totally agree. Are you keeping your 400/2.8?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yes, the 400 2.8 will always be my first choice if the context fits. I have used Sony, Nikon, and Canon’s best prime lenses and although all are very good, the Canon RF400 2.8 is at the top for my photography niche. It is also great for travel compared to the 600 and my old lens the EF500 f4.
Thanks!
Thanks for supporting the channel!
Thanks Fabian, always appreciate your experience and insights! Always a challenge to find the perfect lens and was just wondering what you would do with your 100-300 f2.8 and 600mm f4 if canon comes out with the RF 200-500mm f4 ? Would this one lens be able to replace the other two for most of your wildlife photography ? Thanks 😊
I think I would keep the RF100-300 and 600/4 as they are quite different lenses. But it’s always hard to speculate about a lens that is not announced yet
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography very true since we don’t know if it will have a built in 1.4 TC and the price. I would assume the weight will be around 7lbs. Then there will probably be production issues like they are having with the 200-800mm and will make it had to get anyway. Whatever the case I look forward towards your thoughts and review on the lens if it should ever become a reality 😊
Great video and I have to admit that lens is stunning, I have been doing wildlife photography since the film days and I have learned there is no such thing as the perfect wildlife lens.
We all hope they make that 100-1000mm F 2.8 made from carbon for lightness and a price tag of £2000 but we know that will never happen.
I also shoot the Canon 600mm F4 MKII unlike you I won't be swapping it for the RF version, from what I have seen there is not enough justification to sell my lens and spend another £8000 for the RF lens.
In the UK I shoot mostly birds but all wildlife my 1.4 extender lives on my 600mm but so many times I have missed wildlife because it's so close.
In the end I purchased a F stopper bag, I can now get the R3 1.4 extender and 600mm in one half and the R5 and 100-500mm in the other half, and can pull out either one so quick, the problem now is I am carrying the weight of a small child 🤣🤣
But when I travel I know this set up won't be going with me, when I did my last safari I used my 100-400mm MK2 more than my 500mm prime.
Sometimes I wish canon would release a 200-600mm like all the other manufacturers have.
I totally agree! I also hope a 200-600 f/6.3 is coming, it would be nice for wildlife photographers that are on a tighter budget
Thank you for the detailed and well done review. I have the RF400 f2.8 along with the extenders as my primary wildlife lens. That lens though is too much for dolphins and whales, so I am planning on getting the RF100-300 this summer for that purpose. Your review helped to make that decision.
Happy to hear that
Thanks for the review. What an awesome lens. Canon should improve that focus preset and recall feature. This would be my ideal lens. Perfect for my use case, however the 70-200 keeps me going
Thanks! Yes, I also think this could be feasible via firmware update
I’m really impressed by the 100-500mm. Yeah, they’re different lenses for different purposes and the 100-300mm lets in way more light, but the fact that the 100-500mm, a $2,700 lens, kept up with (and sometimes even surpassed) a lens almost $10,000 in sharpness detail speaks volumes to and convinced me I bought the right lens.
Don‘t get me wrong, I really like my RF100-500. but for more environmental shots I clearly prefer the RF100-300 😊
im excited rent this lens for a trip to Alaska and plan on using it with a 1.4x and maybe with my R7 crop sensor
Have fun!
It's a gob smacking shocking price for what it is (UK prices) £ 11,499.99 shameful Canon. I already have a 300mm f2.8LIS it's super sharp quick enough I often use it with either the 1.4x or 2x III. Likely the prime 300mm handles the 2x better than that 100-300 zoom. I bought it new years ago they are reasonably cheap these days second hand.
Nikon has much better mirrorless super tele primes and zooms these days. Now with the Z8 and Z9 and the stacked sensors superior cameras too. No sense in staying with closed system Canon. I'm keeping my old EF lenses though.
I agree that Nikon has some amazing lenses, but an equivalent to the RF100-300 is still lacking. I’m quite happy with my Canon equipment and really prefer the AF of Canon over Nikon
Or - the 70-200 f2.8 on the R7. I know it’s a crop rather than actually being 112-320 but it’s a superb setup and a fraction of the price of the 100-300 on a FF body. Just a thought.
Yes, that’s an option if background blur is not so important
I'd be very interested to see how this lens stacks up against a 200-400 f/4 optically.... also I think think this lens was primarily intended for low light/indoor sports mainly.
Yes, definitely! But I sometimes really like having a shorter focal length
I use to used the Canon EF 100-300 1:5.6 L for a few years and not having enough reach was my reason behind buying the Sigma 150-600mm a few years later and for my current use case its just fine.
Enjoy the lens! Is it the contemporary version?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography it is
When I first started out in wildlife photography I had a 300 2.8. Obviously, it worked well with a 1.4 (f4) and reasonably well with a 2x (5.6), but even with the 2x, I never felt like I had enough reach. I was constantly frustrated. The biggest game changer I can recall in over fifty years of photography was when I ditched that for a 500 f4. With the 1.4 alone I had more reach than was ever possible with the 300. Since then I have always thought of a 300 as a kind of orphan length lens, too long for some things and too short for others.
I would also not consider the RF100-300 as my only wildlife lens, just as an addition 😊
Can you compare this RF100-300 F2.8 to the Sigma 120-300 F2.8?
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the Sigma
Thanks for a very careful and thoughtful review. I can't help but observe that this lens costs between three and four times as much as the 100-500, and all you get is better background blur. Everyone has his own priorities, but it's quite an endorsement of the 100-500.
f2.8 makes a huge difference in low-light
Anything indoors, especially sports, is impossible to shoot with 100-500 properly, it is just too dark.
There is a very similar pattern for the RF600/4 vs RF600/11 😉
Yeah, it's more than background blur. It's low light capabilities, without having to use ISO Ridiculous!
I wonder if Canon will release the RF 200-500 F4L that has been rummored
I hope so
Nice thorough review and in the new RF era this probably is a great lens. But at that price point, I just rather keep my EF 300mm f/2.8. Still super sharp on R bodies and I only take it with me for specific type of shots. Mostly it is just too heavy to carry both the 300mm and 500mm primes, certainly when this new RF 100-300 is bigger/heavier. My in-between solution is using the EF 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x Extender to make it 280mm at f/4. Very satisfied with the results and much lighter/compact. Canon missed the ball on that one when releasing the RF 70-200 f/2.8 in my opinion; it does not accommodates RF extenders! Without that versatility, it is not worth the money for me, so I'll stick with the EF glass I already own.
Yes, I‘m also have very mixed feelings about the RF70-200 not taking extenders. I get, that that helps for the small form factor, but still…
Very true. For me the RF70-200 is a disappointment as it’s lost the compatibility with the extenders. I do understand however that compactness was a primary goal. I love the EF version and will keep it.
I agree completely on your 70-200 thoughts. I have the RF 70-200 2.8 and love it... much more than the 100-500 RF, but miss not having an extender. Weight is an issue for me... and the RF 70-200 2.8 is very small and light compared to any other option.
Good job :-)
Thanks for your support
I use the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, which DXO rated as best IQ available on a zoom. I paid £1100 used mint condition. An EF 300mm f2.8 second hand, £1750. RF 100-300mm £11,500. That is all you need to say, who can afford that?
It really wasn't designed for you though. Its primarily a lens for high end pro sports shooters and you'll see it at many indoor sporting events or court events where 300mm is enough. It will easily out resolve your Sigma, which is very decent, but no better than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 ii.
@@stubones I bought the Sigma when I was doing professional motorsport photography, although I mainly used a 50-500mm for the wide reach, when it was chucking it down I often needed f2.8. In January it was a little longer than my 70-200mm f2.8.
The sigma is quite heavy, and I highly doubt it can compete in terms of image stabilization and AF. So I would happily pay the extra money for the RF100-300
The auto focus motor in the Sigma lens cannot match the number of frames captured in modern cameras, as you can take 40 pictures per second, all in focus.
The dual USM motors in the RF lenses can do that
The sigma lens will not give you more than 15 frames in focus
@@jassim_pic I did not say that the Sigma lens was perfect, on my 150-600 the motor can be heard when using an external mike, only it costs £11,500, TEN times more than I paid for my Sigma. I have been a professional all my life, I choose what images I take, rather than use the camera like a machine gun. Sorry, but now I have retired, live on a pension, I am amazed that so many people are reviewing lenses that cost £15-20,000.
I tried photographing my dog on a leash but just couldn't get close enough w the 300mm
For me it was enough for quite some wildlife 😉
100-300mm is fantastic for wildlife where you need 100mm to 300mm. Has been for decades. I dont understand these reviews. This lens is like 100 times as good as the Sigma 100-300 2.8 from years ago at about 10 times the price. It is an amazing piece of glass that I will probably never own.
I also thinks at 100-300 it really shines, even at 420mm it is still very good. But what do you mean that you don’t understand these reviews? Are you talking about the parts with the extenders?
Because when you take out a loan and get the 600mm II f4 lens instead of getting a better car or spending $200 on dinner, you won’t want to go back to the shorter lenses like a 100-300. That focal length is like trying to put a fire with a squirt gun. You CAN afford a long lens. You just don’t want to invest in it. I honestly hate the “I can’t afford it” comments. You can, you just have to decide if it’s important to you or not. I’ve paid off mine and it’s a spectacular lens. It’s like going from a Porsche back down to a Honda. Both get you where you have to go, but the Porsche has the handling, power, etc. it’s all relevant. Don’t make excuses. Go get you great lens and stop complaining how you can’t or can never afford one.
hi fabian
thanks for sharing your experience with this lens. the Canon Rf 100-500 is a very sharp lens, and I am very happy with it. Apart from the very high price of the 2.8 100-300, I find both the high weight and the disappointing image quality a reason not to buy this lens. lenses in these price ranges have to deliver images of top sharpness, and that is not the case here. that is very disappointing. I hope the upcoming 200-500 F/4 will show better results.
I would not call the image quality disappointing. Without extenders it’s amazing and it also takes the 1.4x very well. But in the end every one has different use cases
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography hi Fabian
with a lens from this price range, it shouldn't and shouldn't matter whether or not you use a teleconverter. it is a missed opportunity for Canon to put a top lens on the market. to name one. my Canon RF 100-500 is razor sharp right down to the corners, even with the 1.4 teleconverter on it. as said before, I can hope that the expected Canon RF 200-500 F4 will do it better.
@@theflyingdutchman7127 I'm not really too sure what you're expecting out of this lens I'll be honest.
All L series lenses and their equivalents from other manufacturers have been as good image quality as they're going to get for a decade now. I see this all the time from photographers that they're disappointed that a new lens isn't sharper than their lens they already have, and the reason for that is because it's not. It's the same. IQ has been the exact same for a decade or more like I've said.
There's so many videos out there for example comparing the EF 70-200 2.8 IS II to the version 3 and the literal only difference was the version 3 was lighter and had better lens coating to reduce lens flare. The image was the exact same.
Then the version 3 to the RF version exact same coatings, but the RF is a different lens since it's external zoom vs internal like the EF counterparts. Professional photographers held onto their EF versions because the IQ was the exact same but they didn't like the weight distribution of the RF. RF was more for wedding photographers and people who wanted something more lightweight.
It's the same thing with telephoto primes. I have an EF 400mm 2.8 IS II right now. I know several people who held onto the version 2's because if you had a version 1 you would not get full fps out of the new mirrorless bodies. I tried out the version 3 and the IQ was the exact same. Literally no difference. Just better weight distribution again and lighter but it ended up on a monopod anyways. Why the hell would I pay twice the price for the exact same IQ?
People are so obsessed with consumerism, but that's the thing and why you're seeing more manufacturers make new lenses like this because they can't do anything with the older lenses that have been around for 2 decades. It's why you see images taken from older lenses and they look sharp it's because it's not getting better or if it is we're talking about 1% increases in optics. You get this lens for the 2.8 and the reach especially if you're shooting indoors. If you're shooting outdoors in sunlight you're not the demographic market for this lens. Very obviously if you took the 100-500 outside compared to this lens in afternoon with even sub-par lighting you'll never get any usable images out of the 100-500 comparing both at 100-300 and especially not at 500. 7.1 in the afternoons or early mornings is entirely unusable.
Sony user here wishing Sony will have a large aperture tele zoom like this
It looks like Sony is going for lightweight prime lenses
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography the thing is such a super tele zoom is very useful in bird photography when it’s much easier to zoom out, track then zoom in to frame the subject, especially of birds in flight. Good luck shooting birds in flight with a 600 f4 lol
I shoot a lot of BIF with my 600/4, basically all handheld 😊 But for swifts I appreciated something a bit shorter (e.g. 400mm)
I am sold. Get me 2 please 😅. Kidding aside. Nice video
Haha, thanks!
Look like your 100-300 is out of focus. Problem with the lens maybe ?
In which image do you think it’s out of focus?
No No No. I do miss the real elephant in the room: 1.8 85mm 2.0 135mm 2.8 200mm 4.0 300mm EF’s!
The longer I do think about this, the longer I tend to think: do we forget the photographic basics?
The advantages are enormous of changing lenses as well in image quality as well in weight.
How much would you miss if you think in advance about having the right lens on your camera and do crop once in a wile?
If you are a professional for who are you working: for Canon (investing far to extreme) or for yourself and the public?
Rethink all this is my advise to many of you being a photographer for decades already and heaving grey hear now. 😊
Greetings, Onno Nugteren the Netherlands.
Personally, I‘m not so interested in a 85/1.8. but there is a RF135/1.8 available 😊 In the end the lenses are tools, and for different use cases we might need different tools. I can imagine adding the 100-300/2.8 to my lineup, but let’s see
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yeah shure. :-) But you didn't mention the elephant. ;-)
Weight possibilities and investments: all together.
I agree about the EF 1.8 85mm EF: it's not modern but it's well underestimated.
But I was just mentioning it.
The RF 135 is again very! expensive again and not so much better. ;-) Remember the elephant? 🙂
image quality is the exact same on all modern professional lenses of the last decade. You're not getting sharper images by changing lenses shooting at the same aperture.
This was probably true a long time ago, but it's the same arguments from people who hold onto logic from that time probably saying the same thing also about how primes are sharper than zooms.
I had an EF 200mm f2 a lens that people proclaimed was "the sharpest lens ever" (god I love this because it's simply objectively not true lol) and I had so many tests between it and a EF 70-200 2.8 II and III as well as my RF. At 2.8 and 5.6 if I showed the images to people even professional photographers would not be able to tell a difference. People who say primes are sharper than zooms are just flat out lying and trying to feel justified on their purchases, but also I wouldn't tell people to change gear either.
This lens is made for a very niche group of people hence why this focal range at this aperture does not exist elsewhere.
Photography has evolved so much over the last 2 decades and especially in the last decade. It's always so odd to see people saying to hold onto photography rules that are entirely outdated and would just handicap people. Lens manufacturers are making lenses like this to make life easier for people. This lens replaces a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8 or even 400 2.8 for people who use both entirely and allows them to recompose shots and focus on taking photos instead of.. like you said.. switching lenses.
Pro tip: if you stand closer to the animals, they appear larger in the frame.
Thanks 😅 I‘m curious: are you referring to a specific part of the video?