Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2023
- Yet another potentially incredible Canon supertelephoto L lens arrives in my test lab - so let's see what it can do, on an R5 and an R7.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
All pictures taken by me on Canon EOS R5 and R7 cameras.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music: 'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/b... 
Хобби
Your wife is a good sport for being willing to be photographed for your videos. My wife would not be willing to do that.
Kudos to Canon for using a lens cap rather than a black clothing hood.
Christopher Frost, the only youtuber that encourages me into a life of crime to afford lenses that I truly do not need but damn do I want them.
😂
I mean.... you may not NEED it, but were you to rob a bank and buy one, I'm sure you could put it to use!
Your wife and the lens outperformed you this time Chris! 😃Great review though as usual!!
For sports photographers, this could be one solid choice
And if you are on APS-C camera, you can use it on wildlife, too
Maybe others would try to make the similar kind of lens
Sigma have 120-300 f/2.8 in its fourth iteration (and that was released 10 years ago and I would expect newer lighter version) ... Nikon released their 120-300 2.8 lens about 4-5 years ago ... those are really expensive yet wonderful lenses...
I own the Sigma ex OS version (3rd iteration and it is excellent wide open at focal lengthes) ...
Amazing image quality results - you weren’t kidding about its performance. B&H has had my preorder now in backorder status since May. I am not sure they will ship in 2023 😢
"...it had no problems for me in tracking moving subjects such as animals or ATTRACTIVE WIVES."
Later that day...
"Honey, my dear, have you seen my last review? And you know, there is that lense I was happening to review, and, well it's not really at the cheaper end, but you know, I know we wanted to move in a new house and need a new car and we agreed on not spending too much on new lenses, but you really looked even more beautiful when I shot you with that lense, so I wondered if you maybe wouldn't mind if I..."
What a perfect lens! Not a Canon shooter, but if this lens was my main tool, would switch camera system just for this lens. Gorgeous! Great review too
I’ve tried this one in horse racing photography and I loved it 😍😍
Wonderful combination with R3
A dream lens
This lens cost more than my car.
... and it lasts longer ...
Reminds me of a line from Glengarry Glen Ross.
And hold value longer
Sell your car ! 😂
in my country this lens costs same value of cheapest car, u r lucky :(
Thanks for your outstanding review Christopher. Much appreciated.
Thank you Christopher
Pictures look gorgeous. If only I could justify the price…
Great review as always. This lens is a dream.
Another great review, Christopher. In the future it would be very useful if you could test how these lenses perform with teleconverters. I think many wildlife shooters would be interested in this, and I believe Canon would oblige with loaner units. Thank you again.
Yeah, that was always the biggest selling point of the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II - it's just as sharp with a 1.4x extender as it is bare, and with a 2x extender it only loses a little contrast, which comes back by stopping down just half or two-thirds of a stop. That lens with TCs gives you 300-600mm with perfect focus, stabilisation, optics and build. Zooming out to 100mm is nowhere near as useful as being able to get a usable 420/600mm. Whether or not this new lens holds up with TCs is really vital.
@@sebastianmatthews1663exactly!! I just bought a slightly used 300mm II. It’s for travel photography when I can’t bring my 600mm II lens.
The 100-300 is just not worth it for what it is. Especially for wildlife. I have been a canon shooter for many years but I feel strongly that they play a lot of games with their consumers. Or you could call it clever marketing. Lately they like to give you just enough to get one benefit, while robbing you of the full spectrum of uses. The 100-500L is to my point. I’m selling it now. It’s just not useful for birds unless you have a lot of light. Maybe I’ve just grown used to the look of the primes, but canon could have easily made a 200-600mm f4.5L if they wanted to which would please all of us. Instead they tease you with a lot of these lenses. Just my opinion
What a stunning lens and proof to the saying you get what you pay for. It’s not cheap but you get one heck of a lens for anyone earning money from photos or video.
So jealous that you are allowed to test this awesome beast out. Not sure if I will ever get it, I just can't pay it. But damn great video yet again.
Having purchased this lens for sports photography I can tell you Chris is spot on. It might very well be the best sports lens Canon has ever made. Amazing piece.
How happy are you with the bokeh? I have seen sample shots that were less than convincing. It’s a deal breaker for me.
@@meibing4912Just a word : Amazing !
This and the new 24-105/2.8 is twin lens goals for 2024!
Own both and they're great !
Awesome review!!! I'm waiting for the review on the Nikkor z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3. 😅😅😅
Canon have me salivating over this lens
Great zoo lens, but for less money you could buy a spare R3 and the 135mm f/1.8.
Nah, I think I'll shell out the money for this beast. Just good enough for a cute baby seal photo. Gotta find a cheap zoo, though, for the rest of my life...
@@HenryPiffpaffEasy work around - just become friends (or family members) with someone who works there- free admission for as long as they work there!
And then you don't have a 300mm lens.
You could also buy a used car for this amount of money, but if what you need is a bright medium telephoto zoom, it will be useless.
So will be a R3+135mm. I don't get your comment
My solution was the new Sony fe 300mm f2,8 ,half the price and weight and superb image quality with my a7C ll and also excellent IQ with both 1,4 and 2,0 teleconverters. Ive been using it over a month now it was shipping very early in Finland ,Cheers
I just can't believe what I am seeing here in the test charts.... I have watched hours upon hours of your reviews, Chris, and furthermore even more reviews from other reviewers. The sharpness results on full frame was just beyond spectacular. 😮🤯
I feel kind of sad I am now using Sony, all while reminding myself I would never afford to buy this.
$9500 ? NINE and a half THOUSAND DOLLAR?
Amazing
I wish they make a Nikon Z100-300 f2.8 version equivalent for this.
After so many years of watching your reviews, I can’t be the only one who noticed the switch from “due to the effects of diffraction” to “due to diffraction”? 😂
This is an absurdly expensive lens that I'm actually trying to find a budget for, like a high dollar prime is a bit too specialized, but this is like a 70-200/2.8 on steroids, useful for many things.
It's such a shame RF cine camera bodies are few and far between. I work in live events with videos cameras, but really our best option is Sigma's 120-300 sport (would love to see an updated review of that lens if you get the chance to properly compare it to this).
We could work with Nikon' 120-300 if we had the right adapters I suppose.
Canon unstoppable
I'll buy it
In this case, when you "only" show the shortest and longest focal lengths, have you also tested one or two intermediate focal lengths (like 200 mm) and concluded that there is no significant difference?
Wonder how it works with a 2x TC
What the hell? This lens is insane. The price is absolutely justified if you want "the best of the best with honors sir".
There's literally nothing that could be improved in this lens, even the weight and size are reasonable.
11K justified?? Really? Does it do the shopping for you??
@@MrPetebuster1find a photo/video job that can pay for this lens.
@trym2121 You think this lens is insane?? In what respect?? It takes pictures like any other lens the only insane thing is the price
@@MrPetebuster1you don't understand anything and you don't respect craftsmanship
I find this lens to be worth it for what I do (theatrical and dance performance), where I need versatility, speed and high resolving power, but don't need drop-in filters or builtin TC. $9.5k USD is worth it for the performance and reliability I expect for the time period (10-20 years) I plan using this lens. To address the comment on a job paying for the lens: if you go by the job as your basis, you should rent your lenses. If you are like me where I use a lens like this 3-4 times a month for paid jobs, you buy it and factor its purchase cost against the rental fees you would have had to pay. Plus I plan to sell my current EF200 2.0L and 300 2.8L, and possibly my RF 100-500L (when the variable TC shows up), so this lens will already be more than half paid for whenever Canon decides to ship my preorder. Don't assume that a lens isn't justified because it is impractical for you in particular.
This tipe of Lens should test also with exenders
Wow!
Absolute dream lens. No way in hell i can afford one but my god do i want one.
Have you considered your R7 might have issues? Have you tried another body? Have you found any lenses that are very sharp on the R7? Thanks!
Wow! Sure am glad I bought the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport long before it was discontinued, but can still be purchased through Amazon or eBay and for a fraction of the price. The Sigma lens is outstanding with fast focus and sharp images on my Canon R3s for various media sports I cover. While about .8 lb heavier than the Canon, the Sigma zoom throw is short, which I love. I will continue to treasure this Sigma lens for years to come.
Cristopher why you mentioned that Canon made from plastic? It’s magnesium alloy but not plastic. Maybe you have to explore deeper Cabon technology. I faced with same mistake with headphones review of Meze Lyric. It also made from magnesium alloy, but very often it was confused with plastic.
Price is literally insane! Especially the UK price…. Pretty sure £1 > $1!
Why no drop-in filters?
I notice on several sites, the Canon lens hood is $650 US. WTF?
I'm pretty sure Tamron can make a lens with same specs for under $2500 for the Sony. 😅
Is this the best performance weve see on CF? looks stunning.
I feel like a few Sigma telephoto primes have done better
It depends. In absolute terms? Probably not. But for a bright telephoto, might well be.
to me it looks like it lacks sharpness
Why on apsc and less resolution sensor, it is less sharp? I thought it would be better on apsc.
The apsc sensor has smaller pixels so higher resolution. R7 = 3.2 micron versus R5 = 4.4 micron
Such a great lens at a good price- you’re getting an amazing range at optically superb quality
Really ? your only getting a 200mm range for £11 thousand😧 good price🤣🤣
The lack of focus breathing is great. Not sure why they made RF 70-200mm 2.8 and F4 have so much focus breathing.
probably a compromise of making the lenses se compact
You scored bonus points with your wife. Well done
How is it so expensive in the UK? If you got the USA version it would be like £7500 . I don't understand the robbery going on here by canon
Lack of drop in filter is disappointing. Wonder what they will do for the 200-500, if that has no drop in filter a lot of people are going to be upset. Need ND filters, and C-PL filters.
Canon sgould make more lenses in price range of 10000-30000 USD, they will be extremely popular...
Hey Chris, do you remember the EF 70-300 f4.5-5.6? that was (still is) a excellent lense, very sharp, L quality, fairly priced, compact due to the extending barrel, and a very good range for anything airshows to landscapes (i love the compression in the mountain valleys here in switzerland). I love that lense and could not bring it over me to sell it. Eventhough i dont use it anymore :3 - BUT when i saw the 100-300 i thought "hey cool they finally update the 70-300, probably 100 so its shorter and maybe f4 troughou.... oh 2.8.... oh boy... oh my that price... oh nonono... (yes my purse actually hid under the couch until i could convince it i wont torture it with that lense :D )
Holy shit that is so sharp..I was a bit disheartened when I saw Sony 2470 mark 2 was way sharper than RF 2470 f2.8 counterpart, but I guess I just have to trust Canon and give it a bit more time
As a lens freak, I can only say one thing: 🤤🤤🤤
I recognized John 1:1 at 7:38 😃
This lens is effectively the sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 (ok, a 3rd stop darker) if you add a 2x teleconverter to it.
It should not cost so much in my opinion, especially when you have the 70-200 costing way cheaper.
Here's something to keep in mind when considering teleconverters and speedboosters - they change the size of image circle.
100-300 2.8 + 2x TC -> 200-600 f/5.6 that doesn't just cover an FF image circle, but up to 2x larger one (in practice they're intended to be used on same sensor size, so they might not reach that theoretical increase).
When you just take a cheap FF 200-600 f/5.6 design, add a good 0.5x speedbooster to it (which will be expensive on its own), you won't get a 100-300 f/2.8 for FF, but the one that will only cover m34 image circle.
And while it's not hard to extend 70-200 2.8 design into 120-300 f/4, increasing the light gathering by one more stop increases complexity (and in turn price) at least 2-3x, so the difference is not surprising. Similar price difference ratios can be observed going from high quality f/1.8 primes by stop and a bit to f/1.2 primes.
300mm and f2.8 is going to cost money.
Think of it like this, what does it cost to make a 50mm with an F2.8 aperture? $30?
What does it cost to make a 400/2.8? Obviously a LOT more, well this is a 300/2.8 that doesn't limit you to 300mm only, it can zoom out to 100mm and thereby becomes radically more useful than a 300 prime.
@@G95G95 I agree, price will increase, but not so much. Sigma made a 120-300 f2.8 for 3500 USD.
@@anulearntech That price for the Sigma was almost 12 years ago and it was $3599 Put that price in an inflation calculator and you are pushing toward 5,000 today for a lens nowhere near as good as the Canon optically ..if Sigma made a 100-300F2.8 today almost as good as the canon it would be more than 5K
@@77appyi then there's the dramatic difference in AF speed and accuracy.
What kind of maniac drinks crystal pepsi? 😀
Now make a 100-300 f/4. In black
Tracking attractive wives on country lanes. Brilliant 😂
everytime he says softness, take a shot
Is it just me, or does it look soft on the chart?
That’s one sexy lens 😍
At 200mm , is 100-300mm from 2.8 gives better sharpness like primes in compare to 70-200rf2.8 photo taken at 200mm ……
Please clarify ,
Also is this Lens gives prime level output !!!????
Yes
Why is the lense not super sharp at 300mm? If you can afford that price you have already a 70-200 f2.8 in your bag. So the extension in reach that you are looking for should be super sharp at the long range, not at the short range.
No super sharp ? Bullshit
I was thinking, what a cool lens, probably somewhere between 3000-4000, whut? nvm
difference between 200 and 300 is not that much actually. Although 300 2.8 is kinda special
Its a shame coma wasn't tested
For the price I would go for a slower lens. Was disappointing to see the aps-c performance at 2.8
Obviously this lens is junk because it's not f2. Go hard or go home Canon! Tsk!
I kid of course. I would love to try a lens like this out one day. Not only is it optically good, but you can do some bicep curls with it! XD
RF 28mm 2.8??? when will the review will be released?
Yess, waiting this little gem too 😔
I think it’s already released for his Patreon supporters but will be released to everyone soon 🤞
Secondpointeight
Canon, as always, relies on agency budgets and other buyers for whom money is not a question.
At that time, Nikon and other manufactures are developing a lines of telephoto lenses that are only half a class lower in terms of focal length/aperture ratio at the same time quite comparable in capabilities but costing incomparably less. In fact, so much less that ordinary professionals and amateurs without access to a cash cow can afford them.
Canon is simply not interested in this. Just kindergarten toys like 100-400 or something like that for the price of a car. Nothing like “great opportunities for ordinary people” like 200-600 6.3 or 400 4.5. This is not comparable to their philosophy.
It didn't impress me as an APS-C lens
A great lens, but as a hobbyist, no way would I buy it!
I dont get why whould anybody buy this 10K lens over 70-200 2.8 for third of a price. 200 vs 300 is not that much in real world and weight/price advantage of 70-200 is just no brainer
My EF 70-200 f2.8 non-IS is as sharp as this on my 20mpx R6, and you buy used with 450€; they're out of their minds. Good lens for 3k, no more than that.
Its more for pro sports photographers that earn a living with it, which are more limited in where they could position themselves. And 300 vs 200 is already more than a 1.4x teleconverter. The difference of a full body shot vs half body, or a head shot on an aps-c crop.
@@kanaheiusagi ok, i see your point, in case journalist transfer simultaneously to the publisher without post procesing, it starts to make sense. Thanks buddy :)
100-500 is better and versetail in my opinion
good lens, but It's too expensive
Hey that's a bargain 😂
You can get an RF 70-200mm 2.8 for $2400. The 200-300mm range 2.8 is not worth an extra $7100.
I would consider it at $5,000, but not $9,000.
Images look great but for 10 grand, how attainable is something like this, even for wealthy hobbyists?
Especially if you compare it to the aforementioned Sigma lens. No doubt, this lens is better in any way, but 6000 Dollars is such a huge difference in price, I wouldn't get it.
I'd go with a 70-200 and a tele prime on two bodies before this
I want 😋
second
I could take 5 years loan.
no rear filter? really???? lame.
Renting this for a month for 250 usd
The bokeh is imo OK for a telephoto 2.8 lens. A 300mm 2.8 prime would obliterate the background in some of the shown sample photos.
The amount of blur would be identical between a 300mm 2.8 prime and a zoom at the same setting.
@@opalyankaBG theoretically yes but in practice no. All zooms render busier backgrounds compared to theire equivalent prime at the same aperture.
first
I have the nikon 300mm f4 pf lens which was 10 times cheaper with better IQ These 2.8 tele lenses are so over priced its ridiculous
So you have a completely different lens, not a zoom and not f2.8.
@@russellbaston974 Every lens is different its a stop difference better iq or at equal to and 10 times cheaper , do you have difficulty understanding my point??
Well, exactly, it's not a tool for a hobbyist unless you're extremely rich. My point being which is completely missed is that it's not good value for money. After all, all it does is take pictures and can't do that on its own.
NOPE! The RF70-200 F2.8 L is a FAR better priced lens.
I see a $9000 price tag and only 100mm additional focal length.
You telling me seriously that 70mm more focal length throw and 100mm additional focal length on the long end is worth $7000 more over the 70-200? You are smoking crack. Canon made a dud with this lens. Way too overpriced.
You just don't realize because you don't need it ! It kills your RF 70-200
More than 9k for get a sharp image in f4. This lens is a B.. sH.t
I watched a guy on RUclips who has been a photographer for 40 years and he said that Canon only has a line for the very rich and the rest that are not suitable for photography, the question is when this company will go bankrupt, I hope too.