Expensive, Exclusive, EXCEPTIONAL! Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- For decades, professional photographers have been using the combined pairing of a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/2.8. But Canon introduces the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM, an extremely versatile professional zoom lens that just about covers the range of both those lenses. Is this the best Canon lens for wildlife and sports shooters? Chris Niccolls froze several body parts off to find out.
See more photos and read Chris's full review on PetaPixel: petapixel.com/2024/03/09/cano...
Buy the Canon 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS:
Amazon: amzn.to/3V3kaMO
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/ca100300.html...
Rental equipment provided by The Camera Store:
www.thecamerastore.com
0:00 - Intro
0:53 - Wildlife!
1:31 - Size and handling
3:42 - Sharpness
5:18 - Hockey!!
5:51 - Autofocus
6:39 - Flare
7:09 - Bokeh
7:30 - The wrap 
Наука
My wife asked, "What are yoyu watching?" I said, "A video about a camera lens." She asked, "Is it expensive?" I said, "Let me put it this way, it costs more than almost any car we ever bought."
"Oh it's so cool, I wonder what it costs" "oh."
Lol
definitely one to rent rather than one to own
1:29 beautiful shot, nice work Jordan!
The bird was a paid actor
So glad the Noct unit of measurement is back!
The transition in 7:40 from deer in the snow to stag in the background of Chris is subtle and yet phenomenal.
Breathtaking slow-mo sparrow at 1:28. Favorite shot I’ve seen on your show, usurping the “Chris’s shadow is happy for a long lens” spot.
Correction: Chris’s shadow was happy for the Sony 35mm GM, which makes me wonder if he’s in 35mm denial.
having used the olympus 40-150 for a bit for m43, that 80-300 range (fov) is really really useful to have. well done canon! only wish it was more affordable!
Excellent pun Jordan!
I feel like there ought to have been a section in the video illustrating the difference between 200mm and 300mm in practice, because I know a lot of folks look at this and figure that a 70-200/2.8 is a quarter of the cost and half the weight. Such as, what does a hockey player across the rink look like at 200 vs 300mm. What does more than a kilogram and an extra $7000 actually get you?
Excellent point, this review did not tell us anything about why you should pay the extra $7000. Once the R1 comes out and if it has close to 45MP you would be better off using your $7000 to buy an R1 and just crop a little.
I'm glad you're using the noct as your unit of weight again
nice lens but cant afford that. I got a Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and works great on my R6
Might not be as fast , good is and as Sharp at 2.8 but for what you pay pretty good lens
General purpose , sports, wildlife, portraiture , it's good, especially between 100-200mm for zoom in 2.8.
However , it cost a bomb , that's what the fact it is for such a glass.
Well Ill keep my EF 300mm f2.8 is ii used that I got for 1600 EX for another decade
I rented that lens in January and absolutely LOVED it for sports and wildlife. I ordered it from my local camera store.. when it finally came in I had Covid and they didnt hold it. But ill order it again.. For sports its a game changer. The use case a aperture are unmatched
How does this lens perform with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter? Thank you for the review. Cheers.
Super sharp and versatile
Im excited to see the review of the 200-500mm f4.0 (Hopefully with the new 1.0 / 1.4 / 2.0 teleconverter) when it releases later this year.
Gorgeous
now it's finally clear why they always make some lens bodys white: when you shoot in snow!
Lol
Or in a white room
Great lens, happy to see that Chris looks more well-rested this time around! 😊 Thanks for the joke Jordan, made me laugh!😆
No doubt an excellent lens.
Wonder how many units Canon will be able to move ?
An absolute revelation for concert photography.
why don't camera companies use arca mounts?
I hoped to see it tested with extenders.
i wonder how it fares on the canon r7, r8 or r10 even
Got this from the Camera store in Calgary! Yay! I think their first unit :-) then I could not resist and got the 24-105/2.8 too ahahah
Carrying these two around on 2 R 5 bodies these days all the time, if the x1.4 tc works on the 70-200 it will be for transportable.
Deadly combo, congratulations!
- Jordan
@@4KLiveyes, i use the A1 with 70-200/2.8 II for that. I prefer internal zooming
I was in Bahrain F1 pre-season test. My cameraman who is predominately a Canon photographer says the 100-300, among F1 photographers, has replaced the 400 2.8 & 70-200.
Wow, that's huge. That's a major shift among professionals. This lens has replaced my 300mm 2.8 and 70-200mm for a ton of subject matter I shoot for clients. So nice to just use one lens to cover that range.
I love "Moose't buy"!!
how long were u ther trying to get a bird land on yer hand
It's exciting to see when a manufacturer pushes the boundary of what is possible in lens design. There has never been a 100-300 mm f2.8 FF lens before. The closest things were the Sigma 100-300mm f4 or the 120-300 f2.8 released over a decade ago.
Nikon have a 120-300 f 2,8 f-mount.
Sig100-300/4 is GREAT balance of size/weight/performance.. my favourite telezoom.
More a sports lens than wildlife. Definitly a dream lens to have.
10K plus 5K for a sport set up... No thanks, Get a D500 used for $800 and put on a 70-200 2.8 used. Now you have 105-300 @ 2.8 for about $1600 USD
@@DAVE_WHITE And you have 1 stop worse low light performance. Which matters when your ISO is already thru the roof with indor action.
@@todanrg3 Lol there is software of course now that we did not have when the d500 was released to fix that issue in post in a few seconds.. Grow up, stop the lies..
@@DAVE_WHITEit’s about AF performance in low light not post processing. Maybe if photographing stills indoor.
@@bngr_bngr Wow guess you need some skills, I was shooting hockey with good results back in the day with a d90 and my d500 and D3 works better, pre focus learn the sport just like anything, I also made $$ shooing motocross with a d60 and football with a d60 and d90 again get off the keyboard and go out and learn..
Nice price
It's a shame, there's no drop in polarizing filter, that's missing for motorsport photography
You can attach a filter in front of the lens.
@@bngr_bngr If you're keen on purchasing a 112mm filter for another $300+ in addition to the already insane price tag of this lens.
@@bngr_bngr The drop-in polarizing filter is more convenient for a lens like this. The knob to turn the polarizer is immediately accessible, rather than being trapped under the lens hood.
@@UnconventionalReasoning the drop in filter was part of the optical formula of the lens. That added to the size of the lens. Yeah that sounds like a bummer to take off the hood to adjust the PF. I personally have never used a filter while shooting sports. Maybe that guy that makes custom lens hoods will come up with a solution.
@@bngr_bngr It seems that the AF motors are in the back of the lens, eliminating the space where the drop-in filter could go. A polarizing filter is very useful when using lenses like these in sunny conditions at the water or on snow. Using an ND filter can also be beneficial with video.
This is every hockey dad's wet dream.
As amazing as the new Sony 300 f:2.8 is, this is the lens Sony should have launched with the A9iii - it’s the indoor sport shooter’s dream. Awesome innovation by canon. Now the price is certainly on the stiff side at first glance but not if you consider a 70-200 + 300mm f;2.8 prime + one extra body, memory cards and batteries. For those who have the need for it, it’s fairly priced.
Sony shooters can just use the superb 70-200mm f2.8MKII. It's internal zoom, 1045g, stunningly sharp 75% cheaper than the canon 100-300 and on an A1 cropped to 300mm you still have a 21MP image compared to Canons excellent R3 at 24MP. The Sony 300 is proving hugely popular with wildlife photographers using a 2x giving them a very light 600 f5.6, not sure that was Sony intention and hopefully will encourage them to bring out a 600 f6.3 like Nikon.
Canon has a 70-200 too, but it did also a 100-300, where is the problem? I think that Sony's 300 2.8 is a fantastic lens, and Canon's 100-300 too. I don't need any of them, but I would prefer a more versatile 100-300 if I should choose one of them.@@nickwilliams7867
What's with the plastic that's in line with the contacts of the lens? Looks like it was (badly) cut by hand...
And 2.6kg is heavy whichever way you look at it - there is a 300mm f2.8 at 1.5kg and yes, this des zoom, but there's no reason for the zoom mechanism to weigh 1.1kg; there is a 70-200 f2.8 at 1kg and yes, it's not 300mm, but it's a telephoto zoom and you could stick the whole other 300mm f2.8 on top of it and still end up lighter; heck, there's even a 600mm f4 that's just a bit heavier than this at 3kg.
definitely a good lens and a bit of a niche
great for indoor sports as said (olympics will get a good workout on loaners im sure)
for 95% of shooters, like me i'll use the EF 300mm 2.8ii and a 70-200 combo and pocket the other 1/2 of the money
Lack of drop in filters is a pain for anyone doing daytime motorsport too.
As soon as I can find one in stock I'm probably going to trade my 100-500 and 70-200 2.8 in on it. This and my RF600 F4 will be a great wildlife setup for me along with the two teleconverters.
That’s my dream lens, even selling my kidney won’t help me
What's Beer League hockey?
What is a Noct?
google Nikon Noct
@@definedphotographyNo kidding, I never thought of that. I found ten different definitions. Nobody was sure what it meant.
A noct is a unit of measurement equivalent to 2kg and is the exact weight of the Nikkor 58mm f0.95 Noct lens. We have made it an “official” way to measure lenses that we test. We have since added the Plena as well which is 1kg.
@@niccollsvideo Thank you!
Compare this to Sony 300 2.8 .Which is better?
Sony is as sharp half the weight and half the cost. The canon can do 100-299 which theory can't. All depends on what you want it for. I think Sony will sell a lot more of their 300 due to weight cost and how well it works with teleconverters.
@@nickwilliams7867for shooting sports and wildlife u cant be in 1 single focal length only as subject moves in different distances, dunno why sony makes such a useless kind of lens
@@mbismbismb Thats funny, many sports shooters use a 400 f2.8 and have done for years and many wildlife photographers with deep pockets use a 600 f4. Or as I said a Sony A1, Nikon z8/9 or a canon R5 with a 70-200 cropped to 300mm is still 21mp on the Sony and 19MP on the other two, not far from the R3's 24MP. This 100-300mm looks a great lens but way too expensive compared to any other zoom, nearly 4 times that of the 70-200 f2.8. You could buy an R5 15-35f2.8L 24-70f2.8L and 70-200f2.8L all for about the same pice as the 100-300. As for the Sony 300mm f2.8 being useless, going by amount of posts I am seeing of great photos taken with it, would suggest it's selling well. If this lens works as well as the Sony 300 f2.8 with a 2x it will be a great rival to Canons 600f4
@@nickwilliams7867 I don't know any professional sports photographer that uses one setup lol. The majority of them are using two and even three lenses. The normal setup for just about all sports was a 24-70, 70-200 and a 400 2.8. Olympics I guess they use one body and one lens a lot for those that use 200-400s. This lens is replacing two camera bodies and is actually replacing upwards of 3 lenses maybe even 4. That's the reason why it's so expensive. If you factor in the release of the ef 300 2.8 is ii price and the current rf 70-200 it would come up to around the price of this lens. It was also meant to be a 200-400 replacement and for some people a 100-500 replacement. Hell there's F1 photographers who have replaced their 70-200 2.8 and 400 2.8 setups because of this lens. If you only used one of those lenses it's probably pointless. If you're using multiple it's incredibly worth the price tag.
where is Jordan's video review?????
He refused since it lacks the option for a drop-in ND filter...
I wish Sony would make a 100-300 in the near future.
Buy 2x teleconverter with this lens and you have 200-600 F5.6 also 😯
But you have zoom lenses like 200-600 5.6-6.3 for 1500€, not like this for 12000€ :-P
Cool lens and the zoom is nice because it can replace the 70-200 f2.8, but the price is insane and Sony's 300 f2.8 is so crazy light that it makes this way less appealing.
Their Olympics lens?
For many sports, yes. It's perfect for basketball and volleyball, as well as some where the photographers can get close to all the action like badminton and table tennis.
It's more of a portrait lens
Yes, it would do great for portraits and fashion.
I'd give my left arm for that combo (R3 + 100-300 2.8) but I think it's clear my arm won't fetch that much on any market. Anyone lookin' for some reasonably priced organs?
I'm chipping in as I want to see you holding that combo with one arm olny
ISO range?
of the lens?.lol 😂
@@simonmaduxx6777 iso setting in the camera for the photos taken in the ice rink with the low light.
@@dwightd1161 oh that's fine and all you just had to be more specific.
Since he is shooting with the R5 might as well leave it on auto. the iso performance is so good I generally have not bothered to set it
Should be used at f2.8 all times.
Confused about all the images at f4……. Why not at 2.8 most of the time
What utter nonsense... bet you think the only good wildlife photography is a bird on a stick with a blurred-out background.
@@RockyColaFizz Because, as it turns out, it is necessary to have a reasonable depth of field. A smaller, cheaper, lighter constant f/4 version would probably be the better lens most of the time.
While in real conditions, there will no doubt be a lot of times when it should be stopped down… more shots in the review should have been wide open.
yup - my point exactly. Its a $9K 2.8 lens. The review should be at that 2.8 for every possible shot. Why carry all that weight and spend that money otherwise. I get that many shots are more appropriate at f4 or f.56 or higher. But its the 2.8 you want to feature and pay all that money for.@@thebitterfig9903
A years rent in Cdn$$$
“Socialist apology geese” Chris, you nearly killed me with that one 🤣🤣🤣
I wonder if Sigma, Tokina,Rokinon, or any of the rest of them have something like this.
Sigma has had a 120-300mm f/2.8 in the EF and F mounts for over a decade.
Thanks. I didnt know that.@@UnconventionalReasoning
Pleasant review, as always, but I think Chris you're no hockey photographer ! 😁 I'll admit I was expecting more challenging shots, especially from closer range. But hey, I still love you all !! 😊 And as always I look forward to your next PP review
To be honest I have to be an everything photographer and shoot multiple styles and genres. I can’t be great at all of them all the time.
@@niccollsvideo of course. And if I allowed myself this comment it's only because I always enjoy your pictures and your enthusiasm during your reviews 😊
Definitely! a Moose-t buy! :-)
The best $5000 I've ever spent on a lens.
I love this angle-of-view range. Since this is clearly a spare no expense, top of the line piece of glass, I’d like to see it compared to the only other fast lens in this angle-of-view range: the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8, which is 1/7 the cost.
$9500 USD
Lol
Wow
why would you shoot almost everything at f/4 ?
I also found that odd
Controlling dof. Eg, when I shoot bif to nearly fill the frame @ 300mm, and the back ground is far away, I stop down to F7 to have the entire bird infocus.
@ 500mm, I normally stop down to f9 for the same reason. Even @ f9, the birds body can be in perfectly sharp focus but the eyes slightly oof - a small amount of sharpening hides that slight oof.
Thus, if shooting with @ f2.8 lens, stopping down to f4 or more, makes perfect sense to me.
@@nordic5490 in which case this lens would be a massive waist of money for you, a 100-400 4.5-5.6 would surely be better. The only people who will buy this lens are those needing f2.8
I wish I was a successful orthodontist...
That's a lot of money for no drop-in filter.
You can add a filter in front of the lens.
Fuck.. that must pre order🤤🤤🤤
Canon is really knocking it out of the park with their lenses.
Out of the budget, you mean, surely. ;-)
Surely, if Sony were to make this lens, it would be lighter and smaller.
excuse me, whats that price 😵
At over three times the price of canons 70-200 f2.8L this makes the Sony 300 f2.8 look very cheap. Both amazing lenses but wow this one's not good value compared to both the Sony 300f2.8 and Canons 70-200mm f2.8.
Still waiting for a 35mm RF L 🤓
"socialist apology geese"
Cobra chickens
Apologising for the $10k roadblock price tag, I presume 😂. Good news for Canon pro sports photographers…with very deep pockets…and dentists, doctors and lawyers, of course. 😉
@@borassictime918waiting for the 400-600 f2.8 that is big as a current 300/2.8.
What is he meaning by that? I’m curious as a leftist.
@@christillThese magnificent birds are officially Canadian geese. Socialist apology is a synonym to Canada. Unofficially they are called cobra chickens, because they are surprisingly nasty animals protective of what they consider their turf.
23 elements, 18 groups, just like the Sigma 120-300 2.8 with OS from...2011? 🤔🤔🤔
You think Canon using a Sigma design? LOL
@@todanrg3 I don't think they can be ~the same~, I'm sure their stabilizers are very different and very patented, but it's interesting that they arrived at the same optical formula
Just sell a kidney!
Foking hell!
Love its versatility but it’s overpriced to me. Struggling to pick either this or RF400/2.8L……
How so?
@@bngr_bngr I’ve already got a RF800/5.6L and wanted to have either a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 as a compliment. So it’s a struggle between versatility and a bit longer focal length for roughly the same price (around USD$ 10k).
Now, let's sell the house to get a decent lens!
@@lionelradionoise cheap???
$10,000, huh? Nice lens, but fuck that.
That’s my general reaction to all of Canons latest L glass.
Just because you don't want it isn't a reason to curse at it, others may see it as a good investment.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I don't have a problem with that. Just personally lol
I’m sure it’s a great lens if you can afford it but more people would be better served with an RF 100-300mm f4L lens that works with the teleconverters. Smaller, lighter, and more affordable… 🤷🏻♂️
why can't we have something like a 100-300 f4 for enthusiasts. No one but prof. sports photographers are gonna buy this.
This is EXACTLY the reason why I only use MFT...
Exactly. The new Canon gear looks and seems to perform amazingly. BUT the expense and size of their best stuff is truly insane for a non billionaire hobbyist. Every time I am tempted away from my X-H2S I appreciate a video like this.
equivalent in mft is a 50-150 f1.4, there's nothing like this in mft. Closest thing is the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, is equivalent to a 80-300 f5.6
Olympus 40-150 f2.8, cost 7 times less, weight 3.5 times less, so happy with my MFT
There is no MTF lens that comes close to the quality of a full frame lens + this lens combo.
It's not about the quality (small differences). It's about the carry weight and size.@@todanrg3
Sony made an amazing 300mm f/2.8 that is very light and small, but Canon just killed it with the versatile range of 100-300!
Nobody cares about the Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8 F-mount from 4 years ago, or the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 from 1-2 decades ago.
@@UnconventionalReasoning well the Sigma is a very old lens, probably slower AF and not so perfect optical, but if you find it at a good price why not. The Nikon is a harder choice, not so much cheaper it's the new and modern lens and will work great on bodies like Z9 and Z8, but with the adapter, we are talking 1kg more as weight. If you own it or can rent it for a specific task it's ok, but to buy it to use it on mirrorless... hmm it's a tough choice.
Nikon for sure will make lenses like that, but will it be 120-300, 100-300 or 180-400 who knows..
@@AnastasTarpanov My main point was that it is a less unique lens than many might think.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I think it's unique because it's the only zoom at this range with a mirrorless design and it's very light. For these specific reasons the new Sony 300 f/2.8 it's also unique lens.
Of course, this doesn't mean you can't use other gear to make great images. These tools just make your job easier.
@@AnastasTarpanov Yes, you squeezed in enough qualifiers to make it unique. Also, it's white.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 mejor me compro una casita en el campo.
I have Sigma 100-300/4 - great lens, but not mamoth like this. Love it on my Pentax APS-C with good IBIS for shooting birds, deer, squirrels, horses, airplanes and even flowers.
100-300/2.8 would be nice, but even the F4 is already 1.4kg and that is about the limit I am willing to carry.
No built in TC? I'll take a pass !
@petapixel I don't think this lens is supposed for any teleconverters.
This lens works just fine with the RF teleconverters.
@@kilohotel6750 oh yes sorry. it does support it.
Man, if I had $9500... I still wouldn't buy that lens, because I have no use for it...🤷♂
Almost 10k what a waste of money. I have a 300 2.8 used for $800.00. I am happy with that.
5 hockey journalists are eagerly awaiting this lens.
Hilarious most shots are at f/4
He just sucks at photography
I wanted more depth of field for most of the hockey shots, and the light was fairly bright in there. So sometimes I shot stopped down slightly. Still usually got 3200 iso or so. I did take some at 2.8 as well but I’ve long given up on using settings that everyone else wants me to use, and instead decide what I feel like doing for that situation.
@@niccollsvideo I’m not complaining or criticizing, and I agree that the hockey scenes benefit from more dof. I just thought it was amusing that most of the real world usage had you not using the lens’ headline feature. More of a proof you can get away without insanely wide apertures, much to, I’m sure, Canon & gear snob’s chagrin, lol.
Controlling dof. Eg, when I shoot bif to nearly fill the frame @ 300mm, and the back ground is far away, I stop down to F7 to have the entire bird infocus.
@ 500mm, I normally stop down to f9 for the same reason. Even @ f9, the birds body can be in perfectly sharp focus but the eyes slightly oof - a small amount of sharpening hides that slight oof.
Thus, if shooting with @ f2.8 lens, stopping down to f4 or more, makes perfect sense to me.
@@Makta972do you understand the concept of controlling dof ? @ 300mm with a subject nearly filling the frame, f4 of higher is necessary to have the entire subject in focus.
Because 70-200f2.8’s exist, this is useless. You pay $8k more for a .25 more zoom in day when 50mp cameras are everywhere?
Fantastic photography / videography in there. That bird to the lens b-roll was amazing
so then why does the 300mm 2.8 exist then? Lol.
You can crop on a higher resolution, but you're going to lose detail and depth of field. It's not useless at all.
I like the drastically less weight of my Sony 300GM.
10K plus 5K for a sport set up... No thanks, Get a D500 used for $800 and put on a 70-200 2.8 used. Now you have 105-300 @ 2.8 for about $1600 USD
No, you don’t
@@dwightsbeetfarms3611
Math is your weak point or using a real focus system? which is it?
so you have to use the new baby tracking with mirrorless to get an image? and you try to pretend you are a photographer?
Yeah, you're right, and all these crazy professionals who spend that crazy amount of money for absolutely no reason .... I'm sure you know better than them.
@@nicolasletellier6162 I know many that do not fall for the GAS and still use dslr cameras full time..
Oh dear. Oh, Jordan. Please stay after class and write out 100 times "Mooset buy? Just no!"
first
Socialist apologetic gees hahahahaha 😂
i farted on stick in canada. fartsicle
"Socialist apology geese." Almost spit out my beer ;-) Moose Head, of course. [Lying, BTW.]
1 word
Over priced
What was Sony 300f2.8 thinking 🤔.
in 8 years….MAYBE 😂
Sony will sell far more 300f2.8 compared to canon and this 100-300 due to price and weight. Interestingly every post is see on the Sony 300 is with the 2x which works better on the 300f2.8 than on any other lens. Giving shooters a stunningly light and sharp 600 f5.6. Seeing how popular this is will hopefully make Sony realise the demand for the 600 f6.3 like Nikon superb lens.
"Socialist apologists" made me snicker down to my expat core.
6000$ will be reasonable price for this
Canon 100-300 2.8 12.000 €
Sony 300 2.8 6.000 €
Sony 70-200 2.8 2.500 €
Canon is too expensive …
It is expensive but those other lenses are not in the same league.
With sony 300mm you loose the benefit of a zoom, which is a big deal shooting sports especially. Too short for wildlife and no zoom for sports.
Canon has its own 70-200mm that is a direct comparison to sonys. Comparing sonys 70-200mm to this 100-300mm lens doesnt make any sense.
I rather carry one big lens at a track meet that last several hours than fumbling with two cameras plus lens.
Yeah, I know, there is always at least one argument to justify spending 12.000
I could also say that in my setup I have extra 70mm, or that prime is higher quality, or with adding extra converts I could have 70-600 range.
Ps. Teleconverters on zooms like 100-300 are working a bit worse than on primes, because of more compromises in zooms…
On BH photo :
Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II : 2557€
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM : 2284€
Canon doesn't have a 300mm prime but the 400mm and 600mm are the same price between Sony and Canon.
So yeah Canon is too expensive, right ...
@@pawelmod3292 actually according to Canon engineers. The image quality of the zoom lens plus the converter is equal to the image quality of a L prime lens.