Finally! Someone testing this lens where it should shine, indoor sports. You even included testing it with the 1.4x TC. Looking forward to seeing how the production version performs compared to the 300 f2.8 II and (with 1.4xTC) 200-400 f/4. Thank you for sharing! May is going to drag while waiting for preorder to arrive.
I do a lot of hide photography with a 300 2.8 and then add a 2x converter when I’m wandering about in both full frame and APS-C bodies…. And that’s what I love about the tack sharp 300; it’s versatile with negligible drops in quality when you crop in. If this is as sharp it’s a game-changer for the wandering about side of things; being able to find your subject at 200mm and then zoom in to 600mm to take the shot will lead to many more images.
@@bngr_bngr "Me". here's why. In equestrian sport there is a rocking forward and back as the horse canters. The distance between the horses head and the body of the rider is for ever changing. To achieve the appearance of sharpness throughout the image f4 will achieve this. At F2.8 if the focal point is on the horses head the rider will be out of focus and the same if the focus is on the rider. If shooting from the side them its not a problem but head on this is where the f4 comes into it own. Just because has a "F" point doesn't mean that is the best for the job at hand. Be lucky stay safe.
@@bngr_bngr the 200 400 is to long on the short end. And if the need arises for 2.8 then the versatility is good to have. I owned a 200-400 f4 and it was a thing of beauty but to much for my requirements. I know people who shoot with longer lens and if that fits their needs then fine. But for my purposes it doesn’t.
Something that was not discussed was how this lens lightens your load when attending a game. Currently I am lugging around 2 bodies; one with a 300mm and the other with a 70-200. Now I could quite reasonable attend a field sport with only one camera equiped with the 100-300 and leave the other camera with the 70-200 at home. Or for added for more variety at the game leave the 70-200 lens at home and use a 2 camera system with the 24-70 and 100-300.
Canon and many other brands call them teleconverters…and can uses EX on the lens which seems like an abbreviation for extender. But yes, that’s what he’s referring to.
This review gives very limitated information for indoor sports - an indoor sport with fast multidirectional action is where the test should be done to examine how well the lens will focus. For example volleyball or badminton. Shooting through the net with indoor light would be especially informative
Interesting lens .. but the price is alittle crazy. Does the 201-300mm f2.8 warrant the extra cash to be paid pass the 70-200. This is also not a lens 1 will or want to carry around the body for a whole day.. 300 isnt alot of range for some wildlife/bird and sports too. Sports maybe still passable. Then if were to slap a 1.4 or 2x. Not counting price of the converter. For 10 grand this lens is. 1 could easily buy a a7iv or riv/rv and 200-600. Still cheaper!
From what I have read, the Canon EF 300/2.8 II has the highest image quality of all Canon lenses. This lens super passes that lens. Canon also claims there is no drop in image quality when using the 1.4 or 2.0 converter on this lens. Not sure if AF performance is effected at low light levels.
Hello! This lens is aimed more towards press and sports photographers - it would be amazing at somewhere like Wimbledon. So in that sense, it's worth the spend but very niche!
@@WexPhotoVideo It's turning into a Golf Club membership , i still haven't seen anyone do a decent review of the RF800/1200 For Aviation , Shipping ..Captures
Thats what I do as well (R5 shooter). Screen has better resolution and just generally seems higher quality. I much prefer looking through the EVF compared to LCD. On the R5, not even close, 5.76M dots for EVF vs 2.1M dots on the LCD. R3, gets closer, 5.76M vs 4.15M. But, still an advantage, and then, if like my R5, better contrast, less glare, etc.
Because shooting outdoors you can review images in dark isolation to properly gauge exposure. I hardly ever use the rear LCD to review a photo when I’m outdoors. The image in the viewfinder is always glare free, perfect to see, zoom into and manipulate where you’re looking at.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally! Someone testing this lens where it should shine, indoor sports. You even included testing it with the 1.4x TC. Looking forward to seeing how the production version performs compared to the 300 f2.8 II and (with 1.4xTC) 200-400 f/4. Thank you for sharing! May is going to drag while waiting for preorder to arrive.
Thanks, Goa! We wanted to give it a proper real-world test.
Some nice cinematography during the tennis section of the review. Always good to see Eddie.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed the review. And it was lovely to work with Eddie - a true pro
Informative Review Thanks Wex.
Hi, with which lens did you shoot the video
Hi Vincent - we have a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm Sony G Master
First shots are super dark. But TC bright? What was the iso? And 1.4tc?
I do a lot of hide photography with a 300 2.8 and then add a 2x converter when I’m wandering about in both full frame and APS-C bodies…. And that’s what I love about the tack sharp 300; it’s versatile with negligible drops in quality when you crop in.
If this is as sharp it’s a game-changer for the wandering about side of things; being able to find your subject at 200mm and then zoom in to 600mm to take the shot will lead to many more images.
We'd say it's perfect for something like Wimbledon or protest work and news reportage.
Anyone know the brand/model of the monopod being used in the video?
Hello! It's Manfrotto Carbon Fibre
What if the 1.4x and 2.0x were built in the lens?
The perfect length 100-300 for equestrian sport.
That has been on my wish list for years.
What is it like stepped down to f4?
Who would ever do that?
@@bngr_bngr "Me". here's why. In equestrian sport there is a rocking forward and back as the horse canters. The distance between the horses head and the body of the rider is for ever changing. To achieve the appearance of sharpness throughout the image f4 will achieve this. At F2.8 if the focal point is on the horses head the rider will be out of focus and the same if the focus is on the rider. If shooting from the side them its not a problem but head on this is where the f4 comes into it own.
Just because has a "F" point doesn't mean that is the best for the job at hand. Be lucky stay safe.
@@R8135003 if that’s the case, a 200-400/4.0 would be a better choice.
@@bngr_bngr the 200 400 is to long on the short end. And if the need arises for 2.8 then the versatility is good to have. I owned a 200-400 f4 and it was a thing of beauty but to much for my requirements. I know people who shoot with longer lens and if that fits their needs then fine. But for my purposes it doesn’t.
It would be an ideal lens for equestrian as you asked, especially if paired with the R3 or R5 for animal tracking. Thank you!
Something that was not discussed was how this lens lightens your load when attending a game. Currently I am lugging around 2 bodies; one with a 300mm and the other with a 70-200. Now I could quite reasonable attend a field sport with only one camera equiped with the 100-300 and leave the other camera with the 70-200 at home. Or for added for more variety at the game leave the 70-200 lens at home and use a 2 camera system with the 24-70 and 100-300.
Thank you! That's a great point :)
my 100-500 with the r3 is not much heavier at all and offers a lot more range.. higher iso on the r3 is nothing to worry about either..
@@DAVE_WHITEtry using that indoors or under crappy outdoor floodlights and see how you get on.
Is this matches the quality of 400/600 mm Rf primes in terms of sharpeness and bokaaa ?? (70-200 Rf f2.8 is crap )
Hey Ios, we thought it did - it was a beautiful lens to use. I would say perfect for Tennis.
@@WexPhotoVideo oh k thank you for feedback
By 'converter' I assume he means 'extender'?
Canon and many other brands call them teleconverters…and can uses EX on the lens which seems like an abbreviation for extender. But yes, that’s what he’s referring to.
@@kevindiossi thanks!
Yes, varying brands have varying names!
Which monopod/head are you using?
Manfrotto Carbon Fibre
instead try using a 70 -200 and photo /enhance the resolution in lightroom, use the the money you saved to build a tiny house
Haha - we're not sure the lens would fit in a tiny house... just kidding.
This review gives very limitated information for indoor sports - an indoor sport with fast multidirectional action is where the test should be done to examine how well the lens will focus. For example volleyball or badminton. Shooting through the net with indoor light would be especially informative
Thanks for letting us know - we had limited testing time but will bear that in mind for the future :)
Absolutely hilarious how massive this lens is.
It's a beauty though :D
@@WexPhotoVideo It's not, it works badly with extenders, AF is slow, it's not terribly sharp, it's heavy and it's overpriced.
this lens is making me consider coming back to canon
I never had a reason to leave.
@@bngr_bngr eos r made me leave
@@raGEEE1986 sorry to hear that you bought that camera. I kept using my 1Dx s until a camera came up that would work for me. That was the R6II.
@@bngr_bngr i regretted that but the a9 and subsequent a1s have been stellar , just want that 300 2.8 etc
@@raGEEE1986 I think if you do indoor sports, concerts, etc that is a nice lens. Plus a short fixed lens or short zoom.
Crazy expensive. Unless you are getting paid serious money for your photography there is no reason to own this lens based on its price
Hello! It's quite specialist so probably more towards high-level sports and press photographers. But it is a dream to use 😍
Leica just dropped their new Monochrom for about the same price. Most those buyers are not professionals.
And its nearly 30 grand in Australia
Interesting lens .. but the price is alittle crazy. Does the 201-300mm f2.8 warrant the extra cash to be paid pass the 70-200.
This is also not a lens 1 will or want to carry around the body for a whole day..
300 isnt alot of range for some wildlife/bird and sports too. Sports maybe still passable. Then if were to slap a 1.4 or 2x. Not counting price of the converter. For 10 grand this lens is. 1 could easily buy a a7iv or riv/rv and 200-600. Still cheaper!
From what I have read, the Canon EF 300/2.8 II has the highest image quality of all Canon lenses. This lens super passes that lens. Canon also claims there is no drop in image quality when using the 1.4 or 2.0 converter on this lens. Not sure if AF performance is effected at low light levels.
Hello! This lens is aimed more towards press and sports photographers - it would be amazing at somewhere like Wimbledon. So in that sense, it's worth the spend but very niche!
Nobody dares complain about the price ...
Haha - it is a lot, but it is also quite a niche lens for sports and journalism which generally requires specific focal lens and apertures.
@@WexPhotoVideo It's turning into a Golf Club membership , i still haven't seen anyone do a decent review of the RF800/1200 For Aviation , Shipping ..Captures
@@colintravellerThat's because nobody is buying them.
The focus in the camera filming the actual interview is very erratic 😢
Hey Bryan, thanks for the feedback. We'll keep that in mind for the next one.
Love it! If your thinking of getting the 300 2.8! Save the pennies and get the 100 -300 2.8 ,thats alot of pennies, made me laugh!
Wow to be able to sell enough shots to fund this!!!!!! Must brush up on marketing (complete lack of knowledge)
Hey Phil, we have a few videos that can help with that on the channel :)
@@WexPhotoVideo never saw those, I am goin bed early so I’ll grab my ipad and have a scooch thanks
Move out of the UK and get approx 25% reduction
£12500 when it's $9500 in the USA, sounds a tad unfair again?
Your countries tax policies are crazy. Plus you have a VAT?
I could not understand why the photographer preferred an electronic viewfinder to look at the photos he took instead of the LCD screen.
Thats what I do as well (R5 shooter). Screen has better resolution and just generally seems higher quality. I much prefer looking through the EVF compared to LCD. On the R5, not even close, 5.76M dots for EVF vs 2.1M dots on the LCD. R3, gets closer, 5.76M vs 4.15M. But, still an advantage, and then, if like my R5, better contrast, less glare, etc.
Age view
Because shooting outdoors you can review images in dark isolation to properly gauge exposure. I hardly ever use the rear LCD to review a photo when I’m outdoors. The image in the viewfinder is always glare free, perfect to see, zoom into and manipulate where you’re looking at.
@@kevindiossi Thank you Kevin.
Sometimes glasses have a polarizing tint that doesn’t allow one to see the screen on the back of the camera clearly.
seriously over priced lens, hope sigma re releases its 120-300 f2.8 mirrorless version glass with half of this $
The Sigma already weights in at 7.5 pounds. If they make a mirrorless version it will only be bigger.
It's only 3/4 stop better at 600 with 2x compared to rf 100 500 , at 500 not huge
Yea hold my beer while i spend 10 grand on a 100-300 zoom. Bugger off!
Haha - that made us laugh Chris