Canon RF100-300mm f2.8 Review for Wildlife: Expensive 200-600mm

[@robertgilbert484]

Hi Duade, I was one of the five old guys who rocked up at Winton Wetlands while you were filming part of this video. It was a real pleasure to meet you, hope we didn't take up to much of your time. We were so impressed with Winton that we went 5 times in 3 days! Rob

[@Duade]

G'day Robert, it was a pleasure to catch up and glad to hear you had a great time, a very nice spot to visit. Cheers, Duade

[@georgeandreou695]

Even as someone with no desire, or the funds, to buy this lens, I watched this all the way through. Brilliantly put together, excellent detailed analysis and very well articulated. Thanks for putting the time into this.

[@Duade]

My pleasure Geroge, thanks for watching, I appreciate it, Cheers, Duade

[@JohnSwen-p6b]

Maybe I have a very sharp copy of this lens, but I used this lens extensively in Alaska with the 2x TC and found that it provided very sharp images at 600 mm f5.6. With that said, I did find that one of my RF 2x TCs was sharper than the other so there might be some variability based on the TC used. It was definitely sharper when I compared it to the Canon RF 200-800 mm and much brighter as well. In fact, I returned my Canon RF 200-800 mm lens because the sharpness was not very good and the AF in good lighting was okay at best.

[@KrisLuckPhoto]

I agree, it was incredibly sharp at 600 5.6

[@karlagerst111]

I love the black and white version of the kite. Great choice! The recall switch/button sounds very, very nice.

[@catalyst_6]

Always the most comprehensive reviews… You seem to answer every question I have before I even know to ask them. Thanks for all your efforts!

[@twodogs2009]

Hi Duade, Thank you for this detailed and honest review. I too will be sticking with my 100-500, its bloody awesome.

[@willherondale6367]

Your bronzewing shot is maybe on of my favourites you've ever taken. Wow, blows me away.

[@mluu83]

Nikon Z8/Z9 have the recall focus distance built into the menu and can be programmed to the LFN1 and LFN1 buttons like what you showed in this Canon lens. Just an FYI if you didn't notice this when testing the Nikon bodies. Hope you get a chance to compare the Nikon 180-600 when it's available.

[@paulinefollett3099]

I loved this video. The comparisons were really informative. I appreciated your unbiased review. Thanks Duade.

[@Duade]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@doug11127]

Thanks Duade for this in depth video and really appreciate all the time you must have put in to bring this to us. It was a great watch but I would never be able to afford or justify buying this lens. It’s nice to know that my RF 1-500 is still a high performer. I find the images are as sharp from this lens as they were from my ef500 f4 mk 1 which I have sadly sold a number of years ago. All the best Doug 😊

[@Duade]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mikem922]

Hi Duade, I needed a second view after an early morning view as so much great content! Many highlights for me incl the AF capabilities of the R3 with that dual pixel CMOS sensor, how pin-sharp the 100-300mm lens is wide-open, the preset/recall lens function(wow), a number of amazing habitat shots incl the beauty with the Swamp Hen (definitely a place for habitat shots like these in your collection alongside your amazing prime lens portrait shots), how the 2x extender works best stopped-down, how well the 100-500mm lens stands-up, that amazing winter landscape with the snowy mountains in such gorgeous light. Two creative shots really stood out for me too with the B&W Kite shot and the cropped cockatoo silhouette (basically a B&W). In heavily contrasting light, silhouettes, or with a bird plumage like the Kite or Magpie then B&W is definitely worth a try and these two shots would be worthy candidates for your collection. Hopefully we will see that new extender you talked about alongside other new lenses (and the R1) in time for the Paris Olympics in 12 month. I really appreciate how much works goes into a review such as this so a BIG thanks Duade 👍

[@Duade]

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate the feedback, it was a lot of work and I am happy it is helpful. Yes, we have a very busy year ahead with the R1, R5II, 200-500 and new converter. Cheers, Duade

[@mikem922]

@@Duade Hi Duade, I will seriously consider the R5II (the R6 still has a place for me but the extra size of the R5 sensor would be great) and the variable extender but cost of the later will be interesting! The 200-500mm f4 will be an amazing lens and price for sure! Will be fascinating if you can get your hands on this lens much like the 100-300 lens to review, on behalf of us ordinary folk that are unlikely to be able to afford this lens! Thanks again and I appreciate winter light is not always the best for you shooting and same for me across the Tasman. Cheers Mike

[@Duade]

@@mikem922 Thanks mate, yes, very tough this time of year, yep fingers crossed Canon will send me the 200-500. Cheers, Duade

[@FamilyofTech]

Amazing review. The info I was looking for. I shoot with the 3 major camera brands and this lens for sure has me intrigued. The Nikon 400mm and 600mm with TC is the other combination I’m most excited about.

[@jonzmoviebar7580]

I'm glad you have tried it with the R7 and confirmed the constant auto focus hunting issue. This rules out the problem related to the 100-500mm lens you had and solely related to the R7 body.

[@colintraveller]

If your clearly able to afford 11,449 yer not going to by an R7 .

[@jonzmoviebar7580]

Not sure what's your point. The R7 is an excellent body. It has its flaws but still get the job done.

[@colintraveller]

@@jonzmoviebar7580 If one can AFFORD TO SPEND 11,499 on a Lense you also can afford a better Camera .

[@KyleJones-kk8vw]

As you mentioned, the variable teleconverter is going to be a game changer when/if it comes out. I would be surprised if it works with external zooming lenses like the RF100-500, though.

[@Duade]

Thanks Kyle, yes, I look forward to it, I am hopeful re the 100-500 as the new converter does not appear to have a protruding barrel which I believe is the reason for the 100-300 restriction. Hopefully we find out soon, Cheers, Duade

[@martinpettinger]

Great to hear a wildlife photographer singing the praises of the R3 ... I shoot mine with the EF 500 F4 and I love it 🙂 Thanks for a great well thought out video Duade

[@davepastern]

are you shooting with the mark 1 or 2 500f4? I'm using the R3 with the mark 1 and it's outstanding imho.

[@joanhuggett5164]

You take the most pleasing, most beautiful, most heart-warming images, Duade. Nothing quite like your channel. I imagine your experience is the experience of the majority of us. It's why we look to you for advice. The Common Bronzewing sunlit with a moody dark background was awesome (hard to single one out). Oh, and the Victorian Alps Landscape

[@Duade]

Thanks Joan, I appreciate it, yes I loved those images also. Cheers, Duade 👍

[@bruceholmes4006]

Wow what great Mountain Views outside your residence, lucky guy! Thanks for the lens comparison and the number of shots. Surprised at the weight of the RF 100-300 as I do a lot of walking and hand-holding might be a challenge on a long day of walking and shooting. I believe I need a longer lens. i.e., a. 500 or 600 and yes an extender would help but has some negatives to them. As for birds here, they tend to be farther away so a kit that can get me far out is what I need. It just seems the Canon lens are $$$$$ and staying that way. Oh, I love the Kite shot, very creative shot.

[@Duade]

Thanks Bruce, yes, I think we do need slightly more FL, the RF100-500 gives us that natively and is much lighter. Cheers, Duade

[@HollisRules]

Duade, great review as always. I own an EF 300 2.8 IS II and since the release of the RF 100-300 I’ve been curious about the accuracy of Canon’s claim regarding the sharpness of the later versus the EF prime. You make some good points about the usefulness of the lens for ‘birding’ and ‘wildlife’ but I do believe that ‘birding’ not withstanding that I’d offer a different opinion on wildlife based on the situation. I’ve been on quite a few African safaris and the reason I picked up the EF 300 was that after renting one for a couple of game drives at a reserve I was staying at I found the 300 to be a perfect length for certain scenes where its common that animals get reasonably close to the safari vehicles. On game drives I tend to carry 3 bodies, one with a super telephoto, 600 or 800 one with a 300 and one with a 70-200. I find the 300 to be a pretty nice sweet spot, especially where the vehicles can leave the paths. I 100% get it’s not a birding lens but I think there’s more than a niche for wildlife. Keep those great videos coming!

[@Duade]

Thanks for sharing your use case experience, very helpful. I had a lot of fun with the 300 2.8 IS II and took some very memorable shots on my trip to the subantarctic, it was perfect for that. I do think the 100-300 would be great for exactly the situation you mentioned. I guess it is nice to have the options. Cheers, Duade

[@aaronsmicrobes8992]

This is a great video comparing so many lenses. I will definitely come back to re-watch when I'm deciding on my next lens since there's just so much info here, even if I'm not at all interested in a $10k lens that isn't even a birding lens.

[@Parroting_Australia234]

Another great and informative video, your property just gets greener and greener as the months go by. Looks like the environment and the birdlife has recovered well since the fires and drought. *edit* I actually have gary the Galah.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Duade thanks for the video I hope you enjoyed your time with the lens. Being more into sports, it’s a dream lens but the 70-200 will make do

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Fantastic video, thank you for the very thorough testing. The 100-300 looks like a fantastic lens, but perhaps not so much for birding. I've been using the R7 with the 500 f4 mki for a few months now. Purchased a mint copy used for around 3400 AUD (3000 cad), which believe it or not, is almost 40% cheaper than a brand new RF100-500 around here in Canada! Great optics, stable AF tracking and very decent performance with the 1.4x. Monopod only but it hasn't been too much of a problem for me. I initially tried a used sigma 120-300+1.4x, but the autofocus was horrendous (much worse than the sigma 150-600C, similar pulsing but on steroids) and it was actually pretty soft with a TC and the R7. Very informative video. I loved the shots you were able to get as always. Did you see that Nikon just released an affordable 180-600? It would be great to compare it to Sony's, and remind canon how much us consumers want an affordable 200-600 aswell! Cheers! Simon

[@MichaelFogleman]

Excellent video as usual! I completely agree about that "void" between the 100-500 and the 600 prime. I've been using the 100-500 for almost three years and am just dying for Canon to fill in that void.

[@Duade]

Thanks Michael, I agree and hope they come up with something, Cheers, Duade

[@chantaljacques7664]

Great review Duade! Totally enjoyed it. Very useful information... love how effective and comprehensive your review is... lots of information in a very good timeframe. thanks for sharing this!

[@Duade]

Much appreciated!

[@denisesavage2382]

Interesting to see all of that. Watching your video is as close as I'm ever going to get to a lens like that. Love those little fairy wrens and the cockies in flight. Stunning images. Getting some of those fast moving little birds is a real feat. You do well. Thanks for sharing Duade. Always enjoy what yo share.

[@Duade]

Thanks Denise, I appreciate the time you take to watch and comment. Cheers, Duade

[@Hummingbirder1]

I just love all the photos you got during this testing! Faves: the jump-shot of the Fairy Wren and ofc the hard-to-photograph Yellow-rumped Thornbill (a bird I hope I get to see!). The Bronzewing photo was also very nice (sadly no glimpse of those fantastic wings from that angle). Yup, I somehow figured out which Kangaroo was the male.🤔🤭 The flight shot of all the Sulphur-crested was amazing, imo, as was that silhouette-quarrel shot! I had ofc no problem spotting the (last?) new softie, an Eagle Owl of some sort (I'm guessing, it could theoreticaly be one of the Asio Owls, like Long-eared) complete with a little owlet. Like so many other Canon shooters, I'm very curious about that might-or-might-not-happen tele converter combo. Time will tell... The lens in question for this video though, is of no interest for me, that's for sure. Not only bcs of the price and short focal length, but that weight is just totally out of the question.

[@Duade]

Thanks, yes, you will see plenty of Thornbills whilst here, the issue is telling them apart as they are tiny and often in the trees, fortunately the Yellow-rump is unique and spends a lot of time on the ground. Yes, the lens is a bit too big for me also but I look forward to the converter. Glad this soft toy was easier to ID :-) Cheers, Duade

[@thomasbednarowski1651]

Well done Duade. Im waiting for the new Tc. It would be amazing to have 1,0-1,5-2,0x in one combo and it should work with all RF tele lenses. Then having rf 400mm f2.8 would be great

[@Duade]

Yes, I agree it could be game changing for sure, fingers crossed. Cheers, Duade

[@ForrestWest]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that incredible lens. I would love it if they would add a custom button setting in a firmware update that might allow us to preset a focus distance with any lens! It seems like that would be a great way to help fix the problem of mirrorless cameras trying to focus on the background so often.

[@onnonugteren2935]

Indeed!

[@henrysteadman963]

Love your reviews Duade, and as I’m watching I’m imagining that even Canon themselves would even gain something from your tests, demonstrations and insights, especially given your very fair minded and unbiased stance, bravo 📷🙌

[@manulization]

Oh, I was thinking about 100-300 2.8... Right now I film on 100-500 and it's a pretty good lens for video! I tested all other similar lenses EF\RF (100-400 I/II EF, 100-300 EF I/II, RF 100-400) and 100-500 is an absolutely winner for my kind of work. EF lenses are great - very robust, well built and they are not so expensive, but IS in video doesn't work so well as IS in RF lenses I'd say. Of course 100-500 has some issues... But I'd say price/quality ratio is pretty good for this lens. I'm a bit sad that 100-300 2.8 mst be so heavily stopped down with 2x tele to produce decent shots... Maybe it's a bug of some kind and it'll be fixed in a firmware update later :)))

[@NickTheGreek-m3x]

Hi Duade! I am a beginer photographer and I want to give you your thoughts about gear. Firrst of all, do you suggest buying the canon r10 with the rf100-400 and the 600f11, the canon r10 with the old 400f5.6 the new sony a6700[will be released in July 12th] with the tamron 150-500 or do you think that I should wait until nikon releases a z90 [apsc] and combine it with the new 180-600. To give you an example of my style, I like both smooth backrounds and habitit shots and I love your work as well as Steve Perry's. What is more, my budget is bellow 3000US dollars because I am only 14 years old. Last but not least, I want to make a good investment within my budget because I am going to use this kit for a lot of years. Keep creating amazing content!!! And sorry about my english. I am from Greece.

[@enri_1986]

At the price that the R series commands, I’ll be shooting the EF lineup a little while longer. I understand the price of optics and it’s justifiable. As a stills shooter, I think I’ll appreciate second hand values of bodies once they’re replaced across the board in the years to come. The future of RF is quite exciting.

[@martinrosen9742]

The same for me, im very intrigued by the 100-500, especially since the ef 100-400mm ii does not very well with teleconverter(my combo anyways) and weight savings of 500g or so with adapter. That said i bought my 100-400mm for half the price of a used 100-500mm and without tc it gives stellar results. Canon has the benefit of full compatability which nikon dont really have and I think a lot of ef glass will live on for some time, especially where weight is not crucial

[@OnlyNature]

Same. I’ve always been a Canon shooter but the price of these RF lenses is pushing me towards Sony

[@DeputyNordburg]

EF lenses are Canon lenses. They work better with RF cameras than they did with EF cameras. I owned a 400mm f2.8 for about 8 years buying it when it was 6 years old. I bought it for $4800 and sold it for $4200. I sold it to purchase an EF 600mm f4 IS II This is a reason I won't go Sony. The availability of legacy lenses is just not there and won't be for the next 10+ years.

[@stubones]

Agree with you and with the RF 100-300 release its dumped a few 200-400 f/4 lenses onto the market at a relatively sane price (compared to new). I'm in two minds whether to invest in a RF mount camera and adapter, or whether to invest in a lens I dreamed of owning since I had the funds to buy a special lens. At the time the 200-400 was 50% more expensive than the 500 f/4 ii so I had to go with the prime, which is still staggeringly good, but if I'd had the extra money I'd have purchased the zoom for the flexibility. Pairing the zoom with my 1DX ii would probably do me for a while... Choices :)

[@Smokeyr67]

I’m in the “fortunate“ position where all my gear was stolen, and with the insurance payout I can rebuild my kit. After a bit of research I’ve decided to stick with Canon, and jump on the RF bandwagon-I’ll miss a few of my old lenses (200mm f2) but in all I’m very happy going to the mirror less system.

[@msyuan1124]

What a nice, detailed and thorough review. I sure hope that “One Teleconverter to Rule Them All” comes to fruition. It would be my “precious”. Unfortunately, it would mean I would have to sell my EF 600 f4 II and get an RF 600 f4 because I’m sure it would only work with RF lenses. 💸💸💸

[@Duade]

Thanks, yes, I assume so also, we will wait and see, the 200-500 with the converter could be amazing. Cheers, Duade

[@VABrowneMDPhD]

Duade, thank you for this very informative and thorough evaluation of what is undoubtedly one of the best and most exciting lenses Canon has made to date. I think it’s extremely important to reflect on your observations that wildlife photographers have different needs than sports photographers. Birds, in particular, require greater subject to camera distances, and even for large mammals, a significant standoff distance is often needed and preferred. In my experience, the focal length range from 400 mm to 800 mm is particularly important for wildlife photographers. It will be very interesting to see your future review of the upcoming Canon 200 to 500 mm RF f/4L lens. The concept of a single Tele converter that would allow the photographer to use the lens at 1.0 X, 1.4 X, and 2.0X is quite intriguing. It would be particularly interesting if the magnification could be continuously varied from 1 X to 2X.

[@Duade]

Thanks, yes, I agree with what you have said and the 200-500 should be interesting. That is the big question re the converter, if it is only 1.4 and 2x it loses some of its attractiveness. Cheers, Duade

[@trevor9934]

I agree with your initial statement that this lens is a pro sports lens, not a unit for a wildlife photographer. I totally agree as well with your comment that the more suitable lens will be the RF 200-500 f/4 L that Canon Rumors say that Canon has confirmed for late this year or early next year. However, that is going to be priced outside most folks' abilities. Since Sigma have announced they are making some RF lenses, it may not be that long until the 60-600 they already have for Sony is ported across to Canon RF. That is bound to be a LOT cheaper than the Canon units, and address that 600mm point (plus a lot more). I use the EF version of this unit on my R5, R6 and R6II units, and they are all working well.

[@toejamr1]

I LOVE my rf 100-500. For the price it’s perfection.

[@paulkalliokoski1467]

Hi Duade! Thank you very much for another very professional review! Very beautiful pictures as examples of what you want to tell! One thing I noticed among your pictures (and in some other youtubers) are the glorious colours in the R3. The spectrum of light, colours and color palett it gives are among the best or even the best on the market at the moment in my opinion. This in combination with the smooth bokeh the lens delivered were delightfull! Tony Northrup sometimes calls the discussion of bokeh ’snobby’. I disagree. A beautiful bokeh simply gives more beautiful pictures.. Wish to see some pictures taken with the R3 and your old thrustworthy EF 400/5,6 and perhaps EF 300/2,8 L IS II which is sharp and has a fantastic bokeh and a not to hefty compression. Thanks again and take care! Best regards from Sweden. Paul

[@davepastern]

The R3 has gorgeous colours, DR and noise performance. I'm VERY happy with it.

[@paulkalliokoski1467]

@@davepastern Thank you for sharing your experience Dave! I think this is very important information. Best regards! Paul

[@davepastern]

​@@paulkalliokoski1467 the only issue with the R3 is the "low" megapixels. I personally think 24 is enough, and up until the R5's release, people were happy as pigs in mud with only the 20mp of the 1Dx II. I have had quite a few weird problems with the R3 though, which Canon haven't always been able to answer. Unexpected drained battery after 2 days of storage (answer - turn aeroplane mode on and set GPS to mode 2 as the camera is still in operating mode even when physically turned off). Currently dealing with the camera deciding to revert to default camera settings for the AF multi-function and eye control buttons, despite myself NOT changing them back to defaults. Even reverting to my preferred camera settings from the store file on my memory card didn't fix this and I had to remember where to delve in the extensive menu settings to fix both issues. Not a lot of fun for an older bugger like me with memory and cognitive issues. Other than that, the R3 has: 1. superb AF (albeit AF accuracy for birds heading directly to the photographer head on) not being accurate and having a very low hit rate imho (use eye detect, not zone AF - have yet to test with zone AF) - caveat at the end of this comment. 2. superb high ISO performance 3. superb DR, even at higher ISOs 4. superb EVF 5. superb LCD screen. Magnificent! I'm loving the silent shutter in ES mode too. Ergonomics are good except for the shit memory card area - easy to pop open accidentally. The older 1 series cameras with their door on the back (not side) of the camera and locking mechanisms are MUCH BETTER designs imho. The textured grip etc is very nice to the touch and "grippy". Caveat for point 1 above - I am using the mark 1 500f4 and a mark 1 1.4x TC. It is possible that some of the AF performance issues that I have noticed are due to using this combination. I do not have access to the mark 2 lens to compare. If you have the money to afford the R3 and are happy with 24mp, then go for it imho. If you want more mp, wait for the R1. I do think the R1 will have several significant areas of improvement (QPAF, higher count EVF with higher refresh rate, even better LCD screen and 61mp BSI stacked sensor). I'm not affiliated with Canon, and I have no access to any "leak". These are just the specs that I strongly suspect will appear on the R1.

[@georgemccormick1247]

Thanks Duade, although most of this stuff is out of reach financially at this time I appreciate the information, knowledge is king. Really like the black and white Kite starting to enjoy black and white wildlife a lot more especially when it’s done in the right conditions. Thanks again👀👀

[@creightonholub]

Best review of the RF 100-300 f/2.8 that I've seen. Thank you!

[@Duade]

My pleasure, Cheers, Duade

[@santiagomontalvo3252]

Duade, thank you for another great video. As a wildlife photographer, I don’t see using this lens, as amazing as it is, and even if I could afford it! I wish I had the preset feature on my 100-500; it would help so much. Oh, and one last thing. I thought I was the only one fastening the seatbelt on lenses! I do it every time with my 100-500. It’s very convenient. Thanks again!

[@Duade]

Thanks mate, my pleasure, Cheers, Duade

[@benoutside7593]

Not a lens in my budget or interest, but I enjoyed the video and seeing your images. I always learn something from your videos, and I appreciate your honest reviews.

[@Duade]

I appreciate that!

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

Thanks for the video! I love my canon EF 600mm II lens. It’s hard to beat it for birds. And it keeps me in shape because it’s so heavy. Lol I’ve been debating upgrading to the RF 600 but I’ll probably wait to see if anything else comes out. I know the 100-300 won’t be long enough to justify the cost.

[@glennschiffer1742]

me 2 have the 600mm f/4 mark II AND THE 100-500 RF, 840MM with the 600 and tc1.4 is just to good

[@jamesseward9263]

Yup! I have the 200-400mm and it is also a little soft with the 2x and have to stop down one stop to f10 for sharper images. Just the nature of all zoom lenses as they are slightly less sharp that the Pro-prime’s. Great in-depth review, thanks! 😊

[@KurtisPape]

I know someone who uses the Nikon 300mm f2.8 with 2x converter quite successfully usually at F8, he used the lens originally for wedding photography so it's awesome to see all he needed was a 2x converter to take quality bird photos. But if you got a 300mm lens specifically for bird photography and only used it with a 2x it would be quite silly, this lens should be considered a rainforest lens and for occasional use of a 2x converter.

[@DEBJYOTYROY]

Excellent as always. Would you please review Fuji XH2S with Fuji 150-600 F5.6-8 combo. On paper seems like a great wildlife combo. Looking forward for your review.

[@Duade]

Thanks, I would love to, I have reached out to Fuji but as of yet I have been unable to secure the gear to test. Cheers, Duade

[@ladyethyme]

I just love your reviews and that gorgeous property!!!

[@Duade]

Thank you, I am very very lucky to live where I do and I try not to take it for granted. Cheers, Duade

[@joncothranphotography9375]

Awesome lens and review! It's great to see that my second hand starter setup is still comparable to the high dollar kit. I am getting close to the quality of shots with my $1000 USD kit. I do want to upgrade my camera for better low light performance and better focus though. Great job Sir!

[@Duade]

Thanks for watching!

[@MikeCullis]

Great video. I have the 100-500, 300Mk1 and 500 Mk2. 100-500 is great in good light, but loses out when the light levels are low. I had to travel to the Falklands and could not take the 500mm with me. Did some research and used the Mk1 300mm with times two converter. Very pleasing results!

[@erkkisiekkinen286]

Hello again ,I have the Sony 2x TC now and I have been photographing with it and my Sony fe 300mm 2,8 for a week. I have photographed wide open f 5,6 and results are astonishing ,super sharp and good colors. I have today a7C ll and AF is very good with this combo ,in most cases in tracking mode this combo focuses on birds eye very rapidly. So this is actually a reasonable way to get wildlife combo -but of course you are limited to 600mm reach ,and of course there is no zoom flexibility...

[@DanDill]

Love the way you created the black-shouldered kite image.

[@Duade]

Thanks Dan, I really like it also. Cheers, DUade

[@christophercarlimages9003]

The EF 300 f2.8 is often mentioned as one of the best lenses ever made. For quite some time DXoMark had that lens on the 5DSR as the combo with the most "perceptual" megapixels. I still use the EF 300 f2.8 all the time. Even coupled with a tc it's still a tremendous performing lens. The only issue with this new replacement is that it's still very heavy. But I guess it's limited by physics. The new style focus preset seems much better designed and more intuitive. Thanks for the video. My choice would still be the 500 prime hands down for price/performance. Cheers!

[@David-rc8fb]

Interesting Video, have used a 300 for Wildlife for years without issue. Nice Lens but, out of reach for many, still great to here your review 👍 keep well & stay safe 👍🇬🇧

[@Duade]

Great to hear!

[@ForrestWest]

With my limited budget and the R7 I went with the EF300mm f2.8L and ef1.4x teleconverter. I can also adapt it to my Sony A7iv and that gives me lots of different focal lengths and apertures to work with. I'm very happy and it was all much less expensive than the RF lenses. At my home bird photography area the ef300mm and even the ef-200mm f2.8L is plenty to catch the visiting birds and hummingbirds.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Im in the same boat. I shoot Nikon , Sony and canon. Looking for a super telephoto lens but I don't want to compromise with just one camera brand with such expensive lenses. I have the canon 100-400mm and use it on all my cameras. For photos the AF is almost perfect. For video, that's when it sometimes struggles. But I'm considering EF lenses for this reason

[@sunil3135]

Top notch review, detailed and impressively put together

[@fasttracksportsphotography6311]

Fantastic review of the lens. Best review on youtube!!!!

[@Duade]

Glad you think so!

[@6gwilliams]

Thanks Duade. I will stick with my Sony A1 and the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 for wildlife. The Sony 200-600mm is just $2000 USD vs $10000 USD for this Canon 100-300mm and a 2X TC. And f6.3 is just 1/3 of a stop difference from f5.6 . Not worth 5X the price and a much heavier combo, as I do most of my wildlife shooting handheld. And the zoom throw is MUCH shorter on the Sony 200-600mm, a gamechanger when in the field tracking subjects. I am a professional photojournalist of 50 years in the business, and YES I have used expensive 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, 600mm f4 in the past from Nikon, Canon and Sony, supplied to me and the other staffers at my publications, but I dont need to personally spend that much money now to get the shots I need. I have superb 70-200mm f2.8 GM II lens, and 135mm f1.8 GM lens when I need fast apertures in that range. Some pros can justify this cost, or well-healed hobbyists, but it just doesn't interest me at these costs. Thanks for your fine efforts.

[@privatebydesign1808]

My original EF 300 f2.8 IS from 20 odd years ago has the focus distance preset. Didn’t realize some of the big whites didn’t have that feature.

[@ste286ste]

Another well made video Duade, but I am a little bemused that there was no mention of the Sigma 120-300 Sport as it can be had for Canon bodies and is much less expensive, even more so when purchased used. I use the Sigma, shooting sport with it, on a Nikon Z9 and it is a solid performer, if a little less crisp towards the edges. As you have spoken well of the Sony lens I am now having to consider the Nikon 180-600 more seriously, my wallet thanks you for its potential weight loss, or even just get the Sony and use it on a magadap (?) adapter and blend in with all the other white lens users 🙂.

[@Duade]

Thanks, yes, that was a slight oversight on my part, I have not used that lens and the reports I have had on RF are mixed, but sounds like you are having good success on Nikon which is great. I hope to try the Nikon 180-600 soon. Cheers, Duade

[@danyg0827]

Thanks so much for the video Duade! You have ignited a passion in me for bird photography and although I have an R7 and two fantastic Sigma lenses (18-35 Art and 50mm Art) I don’t yet have a telephoto. That’s my next hopeful purchase so that I can try to get some incredible shots like yours. Love your sense of humour and your videos are always so interesting and informative, which as a teacher, I know is so important when teaching kids. Keep up the amazing content 🎉

[@Duade]

Great to hear!

[@glennalexon1530]

Ten years of using Canon big primes, and I've never taken a single excellent frame with a 2x TC. The 1.4, on the other hand, has always been excellent. I had hoped that the RF formula would solve this problem, but it seems it hasn't. Good video, thanks.

[@PaulBawby]

Wow, this is a very thorough and very interesting review. You've answered so many of my questions. I quite agree with your assessment, Canon needs to fill the huge gap between the rf 100-500mm and the 600mm f/4. Thanks for your great work. Cheers.

[@Duade]

Glad it was helpful!

[@666JGNotts]

Another great video, thanks. As a matter of interest, what do you use to label your lens caps?

[@Duade]

G'day, they came like that, not sure what they used, some sort of white marker. Cheers, Duade

[@deanteam813]

Thank you DP...good review on new lens...I to love my RF 100-500. Recently met another DP fan in Vermont USA...keep videos coming.

[@Smokeyr67]

It’s tough to compare lenses with different focal lengths and aperture’s, but you did a great job with that👍

[@nilanjan160]

Great review and video as usual. What I still don't is why is this a bad combination with a APSC which will give a 480mm F2.8 effective focal length. Yes, that's still not enough really for birds but why isn't that a excellent combination for mammalian wildlife. Are crop sensors still so bad these days when compared to full frame?

[@Harry-bh5dg]

Great vid as per normal, really interesting results, really well explained

[@Duade]

Thanks Harry, I appreciate it, Cheers, Duade

[@mmd90]

Thanks for showing raw, keeps expectations real

[@DalsPhotography]

Thank you so much! you saved me a lot of time! I can't really understand what is going on with those heavy lenses? Wasn't the idea that mirrorless would be a lighter system? At this point, they could have gone with the older cameras, and just add IBIS to the bodies.... Canon EF Lenses were already good and heavy !! Thank you again, best from Uruguay , Duane.

[@steveparent8788]

Thanks Duade, very informative video ! I just love the RF 100-500 :)

[@BkiyhffuRtdfujv]

I bought one and whole set of kase filters for my wildlife photography, that was awasome!

[@davesmulders3931]

Great video again Duade :) To me, stopping down to f/8 is not that much of an issue on the R3 as that camera is unbelievably good in low light using high ISO. Many times I use as high as ISO 32000 (yes thousand) and the amount of detail ánd colours preserved is unrivalled. Also, the noise cleans up nicely with the new Lightroom AI NR which makes it even less of an issue. I find that around ISO 100-6400 the R3 performs about the same, but above that the R3 doesn't degrade as much as other cameras.

[@peterorthmann5608]

Do you think the new teleconverter would work on the RF 70-200? I’d love the xtra reach on that nice lens! Thoughts? Also: your cropped photo without the stumps is best!

[@PianoSW]

What a magnificent review and comparison of the RF 100=300 f/2.8! By far the very best that I have seen. I had the chance to bring this lens to Indonesia this year to photograph the Orangutans and Proboscis Monkeys (larger Mammals) and I have to say that it performed Amazingly well with exquisite sharpness with and without the 1.4x TC. I did not try the 2x TC because my experience has always been that, no matter the lens or the brand, image quality suffers significantly when using a 2x TC. On the other hand I did notice a benefit in stepping down to f/5.6 when using the 1.4x TC to obtain that crisp sharpness in the image. But what I can tell you is this is NOT a BIRD Photography lens. I DID NOT have great results in my limited Bird Photography in Indonesia or Malaysia. I think using the EF 500mm f/4 or the RF 600mm f/4 would have yielded much better results when photographing birds. Than you so much for such a great review!

[@sigurdrille9693]

Thank you for that in depth review and comparison! Although not a Canon shooter (any more) it is always a pleasure watching your detailed and down to earth videos. Who knows, one day I might switch back to Canon again and then I can tap into all your great knowledge and hands-on clips. And seeing you in action is ALWAYS great tutorial on the how-to. Looking forward to the next video already 🙂

[@Duade]

Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment, I really do appreciate it, Cheers, Duade

[@TheLDunn1]

Very good review. I was on the Canon Eos EF system from its introduction ~1987 until end of 2017, when I switched of Sony (A7R3). When on the EF system, i recall watching reviews with long lenses and converters, and the consensus was that the 1.4x had an almost negligible impact on IQ (my own testing on a 70-200L 2.8). However, the 2x converter did impact IQ noticeably. One review I watched showed that you were better using the 1.4 & cropping (to same size that shooting with 2x would give). I have the Sony 200-600 (although I’d love the 400/2.8), and I’ve been more impressed with the 200-600 than I expected to be, to the point that I think for me, it might actually be a better option than a 400/2.8 would be….just the benefit of being able to zoom out, acquire the subject, then zoom back in.

[@michaelpoole8410]

An excellent review Duade. I have seen a couple of reviews of the lens and wonder about the quality of the bokeh. Like Carl, I have the EF 300 f2.8 and have used it with the x2 EF converter and got some excellent results wide open with the R5 (sharper than with the 1DX). How do you think the bokeh compared to the 600mm f4.0? It is probably the screen I am using, but to me the bokeh looked a little harsh.

[@Duade]

Thanks Michael, I suspect the 600 f4 will always win due to the larger diameter entrance and it is hard to know as I don't have the 300 2.8 prime with me but my anecdotal experience is primes have a certain look as I am sure you are used too. I also suspect the poor light was a contributing factor in this scenario or primes just take converters better. I really needed the 300 2.8 to compare it with. Cheers, Duade

[@michaelpoole8410]

@@Duade Ah, I'd be happy to pop over for you to try it, but you are a tad too far away...

[@bensaunders616]

Thanks for this terrific video. Excellent comparisons. Your comment about needing more dedicated wildlife lenses in the "midrange" price range is spot on. Right now Nikon and Sony have that market cornered. I shoot the R5 with the RF100-500 most of the time and leaping from a now $2700 lens to a $13K lens as the next upgrade step is kind of ridiculous. Nothing for wildlife shooters between these price points. Canon telephoto lens development has always been driven by sports shooting and it seems wildlife is always an afterthought, or maybe no thought!

[@henrikolsen5]

Wonderful content. Thanks for this quality productions. Big fan.

[@johnclark9499]

Hi Duade. Thanks for the great video. Really interesting from a wildlife/bird photographer point of view. I was a bit concerned that having watched it I would be really wanting something I would never be able to justify! However I am now even more content with my RF 100-500 lens than I was before, which to be fair is not actually a cheap lens even if it's a fraction of the cost of the RF 100-300. A really helpful video and your testing/evaluation is so relevant to us bird photographers, thank you. Glad I'm not a sports photographer or I really would be lusting after that R3 and 100 - 300 combo! Mind you, I (and my wife) am extremely jealous of the winter view of the Victorian Alps you have from your house! What with that view, and Winton Wetlands not far away, yes definitely a touch envious. Best wishes. John

[@Duade]

Thanks John, yes, I am very lucky to live in this part of the world, if you ever visit Australia, it is well worth a visit. Yes, I am slightly concerned when I review the 200-500, that might end up being a very expensive exercise. Cheers, Duade

[@johnclark9499]

@@Duade Oh No, I hadn't even thought about the forthcoming 200 - 500 F4 !! Now that is pretty certain to be something special for bird and wildlife photographers. Short of a lottery win or similar I think that will definitely be just as far out of my price range as the 100 - 300. Still, I look forward to seeing your review of it as and when you get hold of a sample. Thanks again

[@Duade]

@@johnclark9499 Thanks John, not sure I want to review it as it will likely cost me a fortune :-) Cheers, Duade

[@JeffreyHauser]

Glad to see the 100-300mm is compatible with teleconverters. It is a shame that Canon’s 70-200mm cannot use teleconverters. Nice review, Duade.😊

[@howardholtzman1331]

Great video. What kind of lens foot do you have for the RF 100-500 and is it Arca-Swiss?

[@jeffolson4731]

I am glad you tested this setup. I was curious about the combination of this lens with the 2x converter. If I had this combination I would want to shoot at 600mm f5.6 most of the time. I use the RF100-500 and love it. Is it perfect, nope, no lens is. I wish it was a $1000 usd less and wish it was wider at 500, f5.6, but it is very sharp even at f7.1. I think I will rent a EF300 f2.8 and a 2x EF converter and give it a try.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Great review!. Do you have a video on how you make money with your photos ?? Iim sure there are other videos online about the subject but I Love the way you explain things ,

[@Duade]

G'day Joel, the quick version is I don't, all my revenue pretty much comes from KZbin, the only time I make money from images is for books, magazines and some government uses. I don't really sell individual prints anymore as it was a lot of work and potential for things to go wrong. I used to do markets where I sold cards, prints etc and it was a lot of work. Good luck, Cheers, Duade

[@fasttracksportsphotography6311]

Definitely worth the money for a sports photographer. It means I can attend a soccer game with one lens. With a 1.4x its a 140mm - 420mm lens which is perfect for daytime field sports

[@Canon1DMkII]

I’ve never been thrilled shooting the EF 2x extender on my 1Dx with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I have, in rare cases, used the 1.4x with it for baseball when the diamonds have large amounts of foul territory. With my 300 or 400 2.8 lenses, the 1.4x is just fine and the 2x is slightly less sharp. I’d love to have the 100-300 for sports but seeing how it performs with converters, combined with the very high entry cost, I doubt I’ll ever go for it.

[@danielson_9211]

Still using the R5 and 100-500 waiting to see if that new TC comes out being ablke to go from reg to 2x with a switch flip would be amazing if the quality holds that is.

[@MrWDCash]

Hello Duade, Another great review, thanks. I noticed your using a ball mount on your tripod vs a gimbal mount. Are you just trying something new or did the new lense and extender force a change?

[@Duade]

G'day, I was sent the flex shooter to try out and have been enjoying its size, it is very expensive for what it is however. Cheers, Duade

[@ai-fantacy-story]

The button on the RF lens can be customized in the Menu > Customize buttons. Just like the control ring on an RF lens, the button is an extra control button.

[@jamesseward9263]

Yes I had the same issue with my 200-400 and 2x and had to stop down to at least f10 for better image quality. But recently I test the Canon RF 400mm f2.8 with 2x TC shot wide open at f5.6 in the store and R7 and the images were stunning at high ISO’s of 8000-12800 not seeing much of any noise! This shows how much lens sharpness has on showing less noise because of less refractive light coming through the lens and made me actually buy the lens among many other reasons . Maybe you can test this out in a video because it’s making me now wanting to keep my R7 😊

[@jenky1044]

Great show, Duade. Thank you. Did you say 1.4x converter won't work on a crop sensor.? I have a Canon 7d with a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and wondered if I could use the 1.4x on it.?

[@Duade]

G'day, I suspect it would but I'm not sure if the EF1.4x works on the Sigma lens. Sorry about that. Cheers, Duade

[@meibing4912]

Thanks for a great review as always! The first proper review/test I have seen on this lens. Confess I'm very much on the fence. Broke my heart that Canon did not do a RF 300mm f/2.8 prime. Too much overlap with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 for me - no reason to go up to 300mm via a heavier, longer zoom.

[@Duade]

Glad it was helpful!

[@ludowild]

Hello Duade, for your autofocus problems with your R7, why are you not sending it back to Canon under warranty? No focus problems with mine!

[@AndiusTeijgeler]

As a wildlife photographer I am quite often confronted with low light, especially in the early morning and late evening. For photographing mammals, like badgers, foxes and deer it could be very useful. Especially next to my 500 mm F4 type II. It is indeed expensive, but could proof to be valuable. I have decided to wait for further Canon developments like the rumored converter and the 200-500 MM f4.

[@jonashovden]

300/2,8 , 420/4 and 600/5,6 is the same amount of background blur 😊 The size of the aperture is the same . Nice overview anyway 😊

[@Duade]

Thanks, very good point, I guess the big difference is the size of the subject as you increase the focal length. Cheers, Duade

[@Kingofgibraltar]

What Tripod do you have? I love the easy mount you have there.

[@djmills9549]

Hey Duade, I recently got the R3 and decided to see if it would have the pulsing issues on the ef sigma 150-600mm C, which I discovered it did not, at least from what I could see. May I suggest taking a look at this?

[@vlogbysree1695]

Very nice review, am a canon user, do bird photography. All my canon froends switched to sony A1 + 200-600 combo, seriously thinking about shifting to Sony systems since canon is not providing a good fast affordable lens compared to Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600. Knowing the strengths of canon, I don't believe that they can't produce a lens in f5.6-6.3 range in the price range of Sony 200-600.

[@user-kk9cw]

Duade which wetlands you do keep going to in your videos? Visiting Victoria from the UK Oct 2024 and planning a trip.

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Hi Duade. I always prefer using super tele prime lenses. Zooms induce barrel distortion. May I request your opinion on this? Thanks in advance.

[@moonchai152]

That's what I wanted to know. Nice review. Thanks,