Canon RF 100-300 f2.8 announced

JohnStewart

JohnStewart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,160
Name
John Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
I had a email from wex, thought that looks good, scrolled down a bit and saw the pre order button and thought bet that’s going to cost a fair bit, scrolled a bit more and £11.5 k. :oops: :$ Guess it’s a cracking lens and sometimes got to pay for it.
Must show the email to my better half and hopefully she will be happy when I only spend 1 or 2 k on a lens :thinking:
 
Last edited:
nog said:
I had a email from wex, thought that looks good, scrolled down a bit and saw the pre order button and thought bet that’s going to cost a fair bit, scrolled a bit more and £11.5 k. :oops: :$ Guess it’s a cracking lens and sometimes got to pay for it.
Must show the email to my better half and hopefully she will be happy when I only spend 1 or 2 k on a lens :thinking:
Click to expand...
11.5k... Jesus!

Random but one of my favorite lens is the 200 2.8L... such a tiny great lens and works good on the R bodies!
 
Basically the perfect sports lens but my god, £11,5K. Canon really have gone mad with their pricing recently haven't they?
 
The RF system is on another planet when it comes to pricing. I'm sure it'll be a cracking lens but wow, it's gone right into ultra-niche territory at that price.

The old Sigma 100-300mm f4 was a stunning sport/motorsport lens at a very, very respectable price. If Canon had maybe launched this pro lens with a 'downgraded' 100-300mm f4 or even f5.6 lens alongside it I could get on board!
 
The Nikon version retails for 10.5... these are expensive lenses.... but for a multi sport event, this is perfect. I imagine a lot of guys will be renting / buying these for Paris 2024... It's also slight less expensive than the 2-400 however, just looked at the specs, doesn't have a built-in tc. But this lens is imo much more useful than a 70-200 for a multi sport event.
 
Last edited:
There was a 300L 2.8 EF mount on LCE last month for £499....I almost bought it for a laugh to use on my Sony!

Should have in hindsight.
 
Raymond Lin said:
There was a 300L 2.8 EF mount on LCE last month for £499....I almost bought it for a laugh to use on my Sony!

Should have in hindsight.
Click to expand...
I picked up a very affordable Canon 300 2.8 IS I just to have when I need it. It's a lovely piece of kit, really special.
 
toohuge said:
I picked up a very affordable Canon 300 2.8 IS I just to have when I need it. It's a lovely piece of kit, really special.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine how much they bought it into the store for....the depreciation on that from new is insane.
 
ukaskew said:
The RF system is on another planet when it comes to pricing. I'm sure it'll be a cracking lens but wow, it's gone right into ultra-niche territory at that price.

The old Sigma 100-300mm f4 was a stunning sport/motorsport lens at a very, very respectable price. If Canon had maybe launched this pro lens with a 'downgraded' 100-300mm f4 or even f5.6 lens alongside it I could get on board!
Click to expand...
I've always wondered why nobody makes a 100-300mm f/4 lens for a reasonable price. Perfect sports lens, particularly for APS-C bodies. I'd only ever shot Canon DSLRs (and film before that), and I did look at the RF system when I changed all my camera gear last year but the prices are insane and their lack of support for third party lenses put me right off.
 
Nikon F made a 120-300 F2.8 and there wasn't any change from £10k. It isn't over priced. That extra 100mm from the beloved 70-200 2.8's is really where the money is.


Sigma do a 120-300 F2.8 for a lot less, but it's a bit of a dog from the reviews I've read.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Sigma do a 120-300 F2.8 for a lot less, but it's a bit of a dog from the reviews I've read.
Click to expand...
The older versions aren't great. The more recent Sport version is very good, last time I looked it was about £3200. I hired one a few years ago, unfortunately the lens had an AF problem, but when it did actually achieve focus the images were great.
 
RichardC27 said:
The older versions aren't great. The more recent Sport version is very good, last time I looked it was about £3200. I hired one a few years ago, unfortunately the lens had an AF problem, but when it did actually achieve focus the images were great.
Click to expand...

That was the main criticism I read, along with ergonomics - and given it's likely to be used for fast moving subjects speed/accuracy of the AF is important. I tend to find this is where the native lenses win over the 3ps. If you wanted to use it for static things I am sure it would be fine.
 
ukaskew said:
The RF system is on another planet when it comes to pricing. I'm sure it'll be a cracking lens but wow, it's gone right into ultra-niche territory at that price.

The old Sigma 100-300mm f4 was a stunning sport/motorsport lens at a very, very respectable price. If Canon had maybe launched this pro lens with a 'downgraded' 100-300mm f4 or even f5.6 lens alongside it I could get on board!
Click to expand...

The Sigma 100-300 f4 was a great lens. I had one and I regret selling it. It was as sharp as Canon's L range, and covered a useful zoom range.

I now have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II and the Canon 100-400 L II, both of which I find very good. I do have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, but its very heavy in comparison and as such is only dragged out when I need f2/8. I keep thinking of selling it. Before I do, I'll try it with my new R7. I preferred its results with the 7D Mk2 to the 1DX Mk2.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
well sigma the one is considerably cheaper.
I doubt Nikon or this new Canon is like 4-5x better than sigma.
Click to expand...

Law of diminishing returns I guess. Also depends on your ability, camera body and required levels of pixel peeping. The native lens will be very sharp all over the frame, the Sigma may not be as good. These things show on the high res bodies, on a D6/D750 resolution less so, and if you have an APSC rig, then not at all.

I'd struggle to justify such a cost.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I can't imagine how much they bought it into the store for....the depreciation on that from new is insane.
Click to expand...

For professional use, since Canon cease providing spare parts and repairs five years after the lens is discontinued, that makes them a riskier choice which I would expect would take a huge chunk off their value.

The EF 300/2.8 Mk I was discontinued in 2011 and the Mk II in Feb 2022, so that will fall out of official repairs in less than four years.
 
Apparently with all taxes paid (including VAT at this end) and shipping this still comes in comfortably below £10k from the US. It's a rare case where you could fly to the US (NYC) buy one, including paying sales tax, stay the night, fly home, declare it and pay tax in the UK and still (just about) come under the UK RRP (which surely is never going to shift).

I thought those days were largely behind us (and generally they are, especially for smaller items where the difference just doesn't make it worthwhile).
 
Musicman said:
For professional use, since Canon cease providing spare parts and repairs five years after the lens is discontinued, that makes them a riskier choice which I would expect would take a huge chunk off their value.

The EF 300/2.8 Mk I was discontinued in 2011 and the Mk II in Feb 2022, so that will fall out of official repairs in less than four years.
Click to expand...

For £500...i'd take that punt.

p.s. 15 year previous Canon user, Platnium CPS member, i know about the spare parts thing.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
Apparently with all taxes paid (including VAT at this end) and shipping this still comes in comfortably below £10k from the US. It's a rare case where you could fly to the US (NYC) buy one, including paying sales tax, stay the night, fly home, declare it and pay tax in the UK and still (just about) come under the UK RRP (which surely is never going to shift).

I thought those days were largely behind us (and generally they are, especially for smaller items where the difference just doesn't make it worthwhile).
Click to expand...
Its US$ 9.5k plus local sales tax, which if buying from B&H equates to approx £ 8300. Adding UK VAT brings it to £ 9960. I don't think there is currently import duty on photographic lenses, so £ 1.5k saving to spend on flights, hotel, strippers and burgers.
 
RichardC27 said:
I've always wondered why nobody makes a 100-300mm f/4 lens for a reasonable price. Perfect sports lens, particularly for APS-C bodies. I'd only ever shot Canon DSLRs (and film before that), and I did look at the RF system when I changed all my camera gear last year but the prices are insane and their lack of support for third party lenses put me right off.
Click to expand...
That would be a good lens for Fuji to bring out. I'm trying to work out what to replace my 55-200 with, 50-140 f2.8 probably won't be long enough, 70-300 won't be fast enough at the long end.
 
Craikeybaby said:
That would be a good lens for Fuji to bring out. I'm trying to work out what to replace my 55-200 with, 50-140 f2.8 probably won't be long enough, 70-300 won't be fast enough at the long end.
Click to expand...
If it was, say, £1300 I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I'd definitely trade the stop of light and constant aperture over 400mm reach on Fuji. 150-450mm FF equivalent is a perfect zoom range for outdoor sports photography. It just seems such an obvious lens to me, it's always amazed me nobody makes one.
 
There have been discussions about why another 100-300mm f4 hasn't surfaced for about a decade now! A number of now very successful pro Motorsport photographers I know started out with the Sigma, it was the perfect bridge between cheap tele zooms and the exotic stuff.
 
Raymond Lin said:
There was a 300L 2.8 EF mount on LCE last month for £499....I almost bought it for a laugh to use on my Sony!

Should have in hindsight.
Click to expand...
Oh wow that’s cheap I guess that’s the original non IS version still a great lens though
I’ve had the MK 2 IS version from new it’s still my favourite lens will never sell it works so well on the R5 too
 
LCPete said:
Oh wow that’s cheap I guess that’s the original non IS version still a great lens though
I’ve had the MK 2 IS version from new it’s still my favourite lens will never sell it works so well on the R5 too
Click to expand...
Must admit it was well used with plenty of wear on the outside but it was still functioning which was the most important.
 
Expensive for the hobbyist absolutely but it’s pocket change for the companies/ news paper’s buying these for their phototog staff
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
Expensive for the hobbyist absolutely but it’s pocket change for the companies/ news paper’s buying these for their phototog staff
Click to expand...

Eh? Newspapers hardly have staff any more. Papers rely on 'permalancers'; contract self employed (and equipped) photographers.

there are probably less than 15 staff photographers on national news titles and virtually none on regionals.

It's the opposite way around. Working photographers can't afford the lens and it will mostly be used by 'hobbyists'.
 
DemiLion said:
Eh? Newspapers hardly have staff any more. Papers rely on 'permalancers'; contract self employed (and equipped) photographers.

there are probably less than 15 staff photographers on national news titles and virtually none on regionals.

It's the opposite way around. Working photographers can't afford the lens and it will mostly be used by 'hobbyists'.
Click to expand...

My point is if you are buying this lens price isn't an issue, I’d be interested to see the data on the bulk of customers buying these lenses. I’d expect working professionals even permalancers to be purchasing vat free through their companies and itll pay for itself through their work
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
My point is if you are buying this lens price isn't an issue, I’d be interested to see the data on the bulk of customers buying these lenses. I’d expect working professionals even permalancers to be purchasing vat free through their companies and itll pay for itself through their work
Click to expand...


Meanwhile, in places where people understand this sort of stuff, everyone is saying that it is unaffordable.
 
DemiLion said:
Meanwhile, in places where people understand this sort of stuff, everyone is saying that it is unaffordable.
Click to expand...
Right well help me understand then instead of being dismissive, you’re quite correct I know very little and I would like to

It seems reasonable to me though to assume in a global market Canon have a good idea on how to price their lenses and what the market will bare, less likely they may have it completely wrong this time and it won’t sell
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
SFTPhotography said:
Nikon F made a 120-300 F2.8 and there wasn't any change from £10k. It isn't over priced.
Click to expand...
I disagree, just because another manufacturer makes one for an obscene amount of money doesn't mean it's not overpriced. I'm not sure £1.5k for an extra 20mm at the short end is good value either.

Lenses (and cameras) on the whole are getting crazy prices though, £2.5-£2.8k for the latest 70-200mm f2.8's, £1.5k for 50mm f1.4's etc etc. But even with the 70-200mm f2.8 being a whopping £2.5k Canon want a huge/ridiculous (imo) £9k for an extra 70mm :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
snerkler said:
I disagree, just because another manufacturer makes one for an obscene amount of money doesn't mean it's not overpriced. I'm not sure £1.5k for an extra 20mm at the short end is good value either.

Lenses (and cameras) on the whole are getting crazy prices though, £2.5-£2.8k for the latest 70-200mm f2.8's, £1.5k for 50mm f1.4's etc etc. But even with the 70-200mm f2.8 being a whopping £2.5k Canon want a huge/ridiculous (imo) £9k for an extra 70mm :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

Good points well made.
 
Well there must be a market for this lens otherwise Canon would not have produced it, and it is not the most expensive lens currently being produced by Canon. And at all major sporting events there is always a plethora of these big white lenses being used by accredited photographers.
 
snerkler said:
I disagree, just because another manufacturer makes one for an obscene amount of money doesn't mean it's not overpriced. I'm not sure £1.5k for an extra 20mm at the short end is good value either.

Lenses (and cameras) on the whole are getting crazy prices though, £2.5-£2.8k for the latest 70-200mm f2.8's, £1.5k for 50mm f1.4's etc etc. But even with the 70-200mm f2.8 being a whopping £2.5k Canon want a huge/ridiculous (imo) £9k for an extra 70mm :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...
SFTPhotography said:
Good points well made.
Click to expand...

To continue the cycle of R&D costs (increasing) and cash input inton a company in a dimishing market, something has to change, either we have less products (which we will moan about) or prices have to rise (which we will moan about) - its just the market situation.

For instance - in very simple terms

10 years ago it cost £1,000 to make each product (inc R&D amortised) and they are going to sell 500 of them at £2,000 each in the product lifetime - Total Cash Input £500,000

Now (2023) it costs £1,500 to make each product and they are only going to sell 250 of them, to make £500,000 from that product line the selling price needs to be £3,500


If more people bought camera equipment then prices wouldn't be as high, but if prices weren't as high then more people would buy camera equipment - who wins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top