Canon RF 100-300 2.8 REVIEW: NOT Worth $10,000 or a DREAM Lens?!

[@chefdezishere]

I only watch gear review on this channel for the wind tunnel test.

[@jgaffney567]

Not famous for the review but the shtick

[@johnqsak]

What about the sniff test?

[@ASouthernBoyCanSurvive]

thats literally the only thing that is worth it from this guy

[@obsidian00]

I swear...when I win the lottery, I'm going to spend it all on camera gear...🥴

[@tdawg719]

I’m going to spend it on hookers

[@Duckstalker1340]

When I win the lottery, I will buy the FroPack 1-2-3.

[@WrongEnd]

And never use it, it will stay on shelf forever. When I bought my camera i said ill go everywhere to take pictures, got the A7iii when its released and the shutter count is still less than 3k

[@tdawg719]

@@WrongEnd sounds like a you problem

[@jarenplayz1083]

I like how you use “when” instead of “if” Great optimism

[@annajosek9282]

Got the lens 3 weeks ago. I do a lot of indoor/outdoor horse photography, especially dressage. The combination with RF 100-300 and R3 is just fantastic. AF performance (horse tracking/people tracking), high ISO of R3 and the versatility of the lens is just amazing.

[@_equipix_]

Hello Anna, I read your message and I also use an R3 and an R5 for photos on CSO/CSI and dressage competitions. Which country do you live in because in Luxembourg the RF 100-300 is not yet available.

[@tannerjagim4241]

This range is basically what you get on apsc with 70-200 and that’s honestly incredible. The fact that apsc 70-200 was already fantastic for a lot of college sports outdoors and now you have a 100-300 f2.8 for full frame is amazing.

[@mrwashur1991]

I guess lol

[@roberto19801909]

Not so much the price

[@tannerjagim4241]

@@roberto19801909 oh yeah the price sucks but at the same time for the professionals it is truly a fantastic option. I use Nikon but this Canon lens is awesome and I’m happy it’s pushing the higher end part of the industry forward like Nikon is with the TC’s incorporated in their primes.

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

I’m drooling. I have the rf 70-200 f4 on my R7 and the bokeh gives the look of f6.3 so not so great despite the reach

[@michael-4k4000]

Am picking up 3 of these…. He’ll yes

[@iTriguy1]

The Nikon 120-300 is the only lens I shoot lacrosse with now. For daylight games I will regularly add the 1.4III teleconverter. The versitility of the zoom in a fast moving game just can't be beat.

[@artlist_io]

Awesome video, love the way you talk and explain what you're talking about!

[@JGZphotography]

Wow! Sure am glad I bought the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport long before it was discontinued, but can still be purchased through Amazon or eBay and for a fraction of the price. The Sigma lens is outstanding with fast focus and sharp images on my Canon R3s for various media sports I cover. While about .8 lb heavier than the Canon, the Sigma zoom throw is short, which I love. I will continue to treasure this Sigma lens for years to come.

[@krijnbuijt]

Same here, even after switching to sony a9ii the sigma is one my cameras the most. For Sony It still is the only 300mm option… If sony or sigma comes with a new version i will switch because it is definitely not perfect. But it does the job.

[@Super01041994]

krijn what adapter are you using to mount that sigma on A9?

[@GOAP68]

A Canon 120-300 f/2.8 has been on my wish list for almost 2 decades. Bought both Sigma versions and found them lacking in focus speed and sharpness. Looking forward to testing the 100-300 against the 300 f/2.8 Mark II and 200-400 f/4. Besides the lack of built in TC, I'm expecting disappointment with the preset focus. I like they replaced the activation ring with a button. Had hoped for the dual presets introduced on the EF 400 Mark III. Glad to see a FroKnows review of the lens. Interesting how Canon supported several smaller KZbin channels, giving them advanced copies of the lens to post reviews the day the announcement was made. Found a couple new channels to add to my subscription list.

[@kennethlui2268]

Versatility is the key for this lens. That head ball shot from the soccer game is fantastic. Rain is annoying for photography but is also great opportunity for great shots.

[@19Pixel]

I tested this lens a few weeks ago and my own just arrived yesterday. It’s absolutely wonderful and I can’t wait to shoot football and basketball with it this weekend.

[@marif6598]

With a 2x tele, it is essentially a 200-600 f/5.6 lens. I wonder how it would compare to the Sony 200-600.

[@TT-dz8zf]

Wow….been waiting for your video on this lens! Thanks!

[@grumblewoof4721]

Thanks Jared for the comprehensive review. My view on very expensive lenses is that they must somehow pay for themselves. Much cheaper alternatives exist and the images produced by them can now be altered and corrected in post to get very good results. So, the very expensive lens must bring something exceptional to the image. The image should be that good that people are willing to pay for it. You have to take a lot if images to get a really good one (depends on the photographer skill and subject). In other words, it is your go to lens for everyday use in your chosen photography business, you are very successful, talented and make a good living from your photography. I would not buy this lens personally, but I might rent it once for a weekend.

[@Xirpzy]

Difference in iq is definitly there. Most customers wont care that it is better though. So its really up to the photographer. If you want the best, you have to pay. Nothing new there. If you have a business and buying the most expensive lenses puts you in dept, its your own fault really. There are cheaper options if you dont mind the loss in iq.

[@jameskeener7251]

One of your best. Great commentary. You prepared well and showed ideal examples. You moved quickly and covered all the bases. Literally. The pros and cons were spot on. This video is so good that it's worth hearing "horizontical" from time-to-time. Well done, sir.

[@TooGood79]

After getting my 24-105 2.8 here recently, I changed my order from my 400 2.8 the less expensive, yet more versatile 100-300 2.8. Thanks for the honest review Jared. This will allow me to shoot indoor and outdoor sports from 24-300mm at 2.8 on 2 bodies cant wait to get it before local baseball leagues start!

[@PaulKretz]

Well, between 100 and 300 for 10k$... I decided to go with EF 200mm f/2.8 L prime for less than 500$, about three times lighter and twice smaller. The only thing I miss there is IS. Which could still be compensated to some extent with IBIS. Sure, not so versatile, but damn it's fantastic value and delivers wonderful picture.

[@HilleCine]

I have this it's a sleeper lens

[@davidericksonmedia]

Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis, Softball, Endzone/Goal area for football/soccer, track and field,. This is gonna be a versatile sports lens!

[@TooGood79]

I think it’s a pretty cool lens. 70-200 2.8 is enough for me. If I’m going to go crazy, I might as well just double down and get the 1200mm f8 for wildlife for 20k

[@lumenspaul]

yep your crazy spending 20k on 1200mm that really is like a 600mm f4 with a 2x and nothing like a 600mm f4 without a 2 x 0r a 840mm 5.6 with out a 1.4

[@mrpanda9512]

maybe interesting for wedding photographers? those close ups and those more intimate shots i think it could maybe excel. just a thought tho

[@rastersplatter]

Thanks Fro! Great video, please keep them coming.

[@lightscameranettie]

Thanks, Jared, for this, and all your great reviews. Even when I know I'm not going to buy this kind of lens, it's still entertaining and educational to watch. Keep up the great work! (Also, thanks for your FroPacks - I have all three and love them!)

[@fotofx3d]

That soccer shot was definitely amazing. What I didn’t quite understand was when you said you wouldn’t have been able to get that same 100mm shot with the 70-200mm. Is that because you would have been standing much closer with the 70-200mm?

[@rnetphoto]

I don’t have canon or plan to ever switch to canon……yet here I am still watching this video.

[@bluecreature39]

Me too Jon, its raining hard outside so I'm watching a lens review that I could never use or even afford at the moment. It looks cool though.

[@MattisProbably]

Friend of mine ordered one and he is super pumped to get it!

[@meh-87]

Impressive collection of images for the first day with a lens. Enjoyed the video even though there's 0 chance I'm buying this.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

Finally! A lens worth investing my PowerBall winnings in! Now all I have to do is win PowerBall. Side rant: yes, I know you hate to crop. But the own-goal and header splash shots have so much dead space. A minor crop would make both of them real winners. It's not like the baseball photos where you have leading space in front of the pitcher or batter. Fast-moving action is hard to frame, and that's where cropping is almost de rigueur IMO.

[@acardena13]

Great review! I think this would do well in a short course racing scenario where a 70-200mm worked well in the past. I still prefer the 100-400mm for most of the short course racing that I shoot (because you don't want to get too close as there's flying rocks, parts, etc) and for the open desert racing (where I generally swap between that and a 18-135 lens on a different camera body).

[@MasonPollock]

I know this is just a photo focused channel but I think one of the video shooters should take this out for some video tests over all for possibly someone interested in shooting sports video or wildlife filmmaking. I love all your content but I feel it could be a good addition for length, ads and added value of your content.

[@westview9917]

I understand that the reason this lens cannot accept drop in filters is that the zoom mechanism is further back where the drop in filters would be. It helps with the keeping the lens more compact, but at the cost of versatility for filters.

[@alanm.4298]

The Canon RF 100-300 will be a great lens for a lot of things! Much more versatile than a 300mm f/2.8. Judging from the cost of the Nikon Z lenses with built-in 1.4X (400/2.8 and 600/4), those lenses are roughly $2000 more than the comparable Canon RF without a built in TC. So, yeah, it would be nice if the RF 100-300mm had a built-in 1.4X... But it would add size, weight and probably pushed the cost to around $11,500.

[@jessezee.official]

I shoot on the RP - and on it I've got a 1.6 crop (simulating APS-C) in my settings, so if you have this lens and enable that function on the RP (I'm not sure if other cameras have that) you end up with a 160-480mm lens.

[@chrisschindler7634]

Great review, and I think this is going to be a very popular lens.

[@matlynwood6225]

This is a great lens, but not for us Canadian photographers. I do love the baseball pictures, there are many different ways you can shoot. One question I never asked you was knowing your a big baseball fan, what did you think of of our shared star pitcher Roy Halliday? He was an amazing pitcher for our Toronto Blue Jays and your Philadelphia Phillies. He won Cy Young’s for both teams. I know he did well for the kids in Toronto with his charity, was he also a great person like that in Philly? It was just sad to loose him early.

[@arshotsphotography]

great damn review FRO as always and I'm pre-ordering mine ASAP!!!!

[@AndietheLab]

This is the only channel that makes me want to try Canon kit 😅 - amazing video

[@marclafleur6733]

Great video, confirms my choice to order one. Can’t wait to use it.

[@ZOB4]

I know it’s off the main topic, but the ThinkTank rain gear really is the best

[@K9malinois_dog_love]

The fact that that it doesn’t have the 1.4 x built to the lens it’s a win when it comes down to portability.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

I can't afford this for its current price. If you're like me, consider investing in a Nikon camera and get a 200-400mm f/4. The price ranges from US$1000 (gen 1) to US$2700 (gen 2). The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX is also worth a look.

[@JeffreyHauser]

Back in the day, Canon 7d with the 70-200mm f2.8 & a 1.4 teleconverter was a “good enough” kit to allow coverage of most high school sports. I do believe Canon should have made a 1.4 teleconverter to be used with their RF 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I moved to the Fuji X Mount system & currently use the Fujinon 200mm f2 lens with their included “matched” 1.4 teleconverter. In full frame equivalency terms a 300mm f2.8 or a 420mm f4.0 with the 1.4 teleconverter attached. You are also able to use the 1.25 in camera crop to zoom in more. Works for me.

[@shirakawamaseru]

My SIGMA [S] 120-300 f2.8 is still doing it's job as it should perfectly fine, so I'll continue using that one^^

[@kilohotel6750]

If I can find one before my trip to Alaska in February I would probably replace the 100-500 with it to pair up with my RF600 F4. Would be a great wildlife combo I think.

[@chesterjohnson4504]

A super review! I have the RF 100-500 for wildlife and a 70-200 f/4 for most other including rodeo. There is something about this 100-300 f/2.8 that has potential. I am not a pro shooter but gosh with the 100-300, my 15-24, 24-105 I would be set for anything. Placing a 1.4 tele on the 100-300 using the R5. Gosh not a bad combo!

[@RykNeethling7]

This would be the ultimate lens for Track and Field

[@djkevin314]

Pre-order .... Can't wait!

[@R8135003]

As with all sports its about giving the viewer a perspective that they can not get from the out field. Love that Canon has just introduced a 100mm - 300mm f2.8. This to me would be the perfect lens for shooting equestrian sports. I am talking , dressage, cross country jumping and show jumping. Luckily I am now camped in the Fuji product range as that lens is priced at £12500 UK. So it seems I might have dodged that particular bullet. The XF 100 - 400 is F5.6 at the long end which when outdoors is bright enough and gives enough out of focus background. As I rarely if ever print it is more than enough for my requirements. So, from 25 miles north of London, be lucky stay safe.

[@energieinfo21]

Maybe there will be an upgrade available - your arguments about 1.4x TC are very good: The long conical tube might be designed to be exchanged in favor of a switchable 1.4 TC element. Canon just has to solve the problem where to put the focus elements ... (not easy).

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

Dream lens for volleyball

[@jeffjrider]

Thank you Jared for this video! Of all the years watching and listing to your reviews this video sets the reason I will switch to RF and buy this 100-300mm f2.8 for High School, University and Pro sports that I shoot. I’m waiting on the R1 to see what we’ll get from Canon because I’m on the fence with switching to Sony with the fps and image pixels. If Canon puts out a 50 to below pixel camera this long in the game … I’m gone from Canon.

[@itaylorm]

Thanks the teleconverter analysis was very helpful

[@lawsonfrazier]

Supposedly they didn't include the converter built in because they are going to release a new teleconverter that swaps between none, 1.4 and 2.0 I hand hold the r3 with the EF 600 F4 III so don't think you need "big guns" to hand hold the 100-300 2.8. For me (I shoot wildlife not sports) and this just doesn't have the reach for me. And with the extenders what I've seen is with the 2x you get soft at 600 f.6 and you end up at 600 f8 to get really sharp which is too slow for the cost. I'm holding out for something that's fast and longer.

[@MarcMol]

Why did Canon not put add a built in 1.4 TC to this lens, sure it will be a be more expensive, but what's another $1.5 - 2K to those that will pay $10K for it already. A BIG oversight IMO.

[@jeffkernen1554]

Hey Fro, I was wondering why you didn't have a review of this thing as soon as it was announced. Then I realized, it didn't seem any influencers were given access to this lens ahead of time. This is the lens I've been waiting for since switching to Canon from Nikon. I shoot a variety of things with my 300mm 2.8 and often times would like to back off just a bit. Thank you for the review. Okay, now I actually have to watch it.

[@pawebaran3601]

It is great for sure, but i dunno, I would still choose RF 100-500

[@goldfries]

Thanks for the review, priced higher than car here but certainly a lovely lens.

[@illinialumni]

Why did you comment that the 100mm shot you got wouldn't have looked as good with the 70-200?? I've mentioned many times that I can't fathom the justification of 6k for the extra 100mm. And as I've said, I still think I prefer the extra 30mm of width as you can't crop out, and most cameras can crop a 200mm into a 300mm picture very well.

[@dankvitka5638]

Great review. Fantastic photos. I would love to see it used on a R7. Could be a great birding lens. Thx!

[@dietmarfinster3176]

I have the Sigma 120-300 2.8 on the R3 and that's already an incredible combination. I'm not sure if the extra cost is worth it. only with the native extender it gets better performer, and its faster!!

[@promanstyle9252]

I hope Sony makes GM 200-400 2.8, that would be a dream lens

[@bladerealm124]

Any updated thoughts on this lens after using it more? (if you've had a chance to use it more). The A9III announcement today was intriguing but I don't see Sony adding a lens like this anytime soon. I'm wondering if this lens is a game changer like I've heard many say.

[@alx.gza09]

Great review, i had a cuestion. Im a sports photgrapher here in Mexico and i use the R6 with a 300 mm 2.8 but i noticed that in your screen you can see the actual mm that you are working. Is that a new thing with the lens or the R3 has it integrate?

[@jillschindel2832]

The only thing i want any substantial reach for would be birds. Maybe one day Sigma will be allowed to make a 150-600 RF mount! Otherwise I will just save for the 100-500. This lens looks beautiful but at that price it isn't even close to a consideration for me. Fun to watch you review it, though!

[@Webpromotions]

When is fropack4 coming? The first 3 are awesome!

[@froknowsphoto]

Almost there. Soon.

[@mxilplict]

Your video has convinced me to go ahead and buy. This is the ultimate lens for dance and theatrical performance. Priced perfectly for its versatility and none of the omissions (e.g. drop in filters, builtin TC) matter for my use case. Probably will sell my 100-500.

[@jeffkernen1554]

I was thinking the same thing for my theatre and other on-stage work. A 300mm is a versatile lens, not just for sports. The 100-300mm will be even more versatile.

[@glichasasha750]

Basketball, volleyball, handball, indoor soccer, swimming, beach volleyball, hockey, bowling, boxing, darts, chess.

[@DevynFromCFXTV]

Images are too cool Jared!

[@ctfxcplane]

Having no drop in filter is a major deal breaker for me

[@marianofigueroa8458]

I'd love to see a comparison between an R7 with the 70-200 and an R6 with the 100-300. Great video, Jared :)

[@ForrestWest]

My ef300mm f2.8L lens and 1.4x teleconverter adapts to my R7 and my A7iv and only cost $1400. Bam!

[@jai1377]

Canon rf lenses just keep getting crazier

[@rolandrickphotography]

Honestly, I wished the Canon lens collar would also be click free, pls see 4:28. That click avoids any smooth movement when filming on a monopod and you have to adjust the hight by leaning towards right or left, trying to keep the camera as horizontally levelled as possible. The moment you must move over the click any smooth movement is gone. That lens is missing an internal Extender x 2. The Nikon Z lenses are far better as Canon’s. The only reason I switched from Nikon Z9 to Canon R3 was the bad AF performance of the Z9. The best lenses on the world are useless if the AF doesn’t lock on the subject but the background (Z issue only, my D850 and D6 deliver perfect results but can’t be used for filming). Besides: If you are mainly a movie maker, stick to the Z9 and it’s movie capabilities, far better as on the R3 or R5 which has no Apple ProRes RAW. Missing Nikon for the lenses, the NEF - CR3 has no details in the shadows - no such thing like PreCapture on the R3 yet (the only Canon camera having a stacked sensor but no RAW Burst/Pre-shooting as Canon calls it) and no 4K up to 120 fps on the R3 (only in silent SloMo mode at FHD, switching between CRM and MOV is a pain in the butt and split over 2 completely different menu sections).

[@marcmarsillon8273]

Hi. For soccer , you prefer to shoot with this lens or 400mm prime?

[@ericwilcox2442]

I shoot minor league baseball and find that my RF 400mm f/2.8 is just a bit too much (but I use it!!). I'm super-excited about the 100-300mm. Particularly, to use in pre-game shots. I doubt I'd need to carry a second body with a 24-70 or 70-200. With an R5, I will crop all day long if necessary. Now, I just need the funds to get it.

[@RFGfotografie]

For bird and aviation photography this lens is just to short, but with the 2x converter added it would quite long enough. Though I would rather look at the 1200mm then if I would have the money for that. (Would be some amazing kit though xD)

[@harryburnett7086]

Cropping at 24 mm still can get pretty awesome crops even blee up quit big , awesome shooting

[@LightPointSoftware]

Looks like an exceptional lens. What is your issue with teleconverters? Too much light and image quality loss?

[@aarong2374]

that and just annoying to use and remove it in the field. Would have love to have a TC switch on it.

[@LightPointSoftware]

@BahdBoris-hj8ss Scam

[@BOLANGTHANG]

Hi @jared can you please do a comparison between r7+70-200mm f2.8 vs r6/r6ii/r8+100-300mm f2.8 for sport? Pleasr

[@meibing4912]

Sad that Canon did not stick with the 300mm prime. Canon claims this lens is as sharp - but I will have to see that to believe it. Feel I'm wasting the zoom ability as I already have the largely overlaping 70-200mm f/2.8. Also worry about the bokeh which often suffers on zooms. For the price only perfection is worth it. We will see soon when its out on the market.

[@MusaonYT]

You can already get a 70-200 f2.8 for wayy cheaper. An extra 7-8k just for 200-300 f2.8, not worth it

[@RFGfotografie]

I am not a professional, but I do photograph news and events quite a lot. And sometimes I need to use my 100-400 for my 80D just to get something. It's good, even in dark. Though the coatinc is gone now so it kinda sucks nowadays. But if I would have this lens, with the 1.4 teleconverter (Which basically gives me the same reach). Then oh my I will get some EPIC shots. But like, I do earn some money with my news shots. But in my country they really do not pay fair prices. SO I need to take like 1000+ news/events to actually get enough money to pay this. Or maybe about 200 video's, they pay quite a lot better for that. (LIke 10 times as much as for a picture, but not always.) The only thing probably is, I work with 2 camera's always. And I would probably get a camera for this lens. And then one with the standaard zoom 28-70 2.8. And maybe even a 14mm or wider if possible. And if I need to have 2 camera's around my neck with this weight. I probably gonna cry a lot more of pain. The kit I got now my body can handle, but maybe this will be a bit to much.

[@dontaggart4249]

How did it work on Safari? I remember you packed it. ✅️

[@orion_cinema]

i'll have two, thank you

[@alankefauver6187]

As both a Canon and Oly shooter, I find it interesting that Canon copied the M.Zuiko 150-400 f/4.5 with the click stops on the collar and the 4 buttons on the ring. Also, the length and weight are about the same although the Oly is 95mm lens cap size. Of course the Oly has the built-in 1.25TC as well and on the M43 system gives you a FF equivalent range of 300-1000mm f/4.5 (5.6 with TC)

[@GoldenTeeTV]

Not sure when the M.Zuiko first came out but the 4 buttons on Canon's lens are nothing new. I'm looking at a EF 400 f/2.8L IS II USM released back in 2011 which sported them. The collar click would have been cool though. But as for the buttons used as Focus stops are nothing new for Canon.

[@brandonmcmullen1553]

Would be an amazing focal range for Basketball & Volleyball for sure. I shoot Sony and would love to have this in my kit. Sony did announce the development of a 300 prime however, and I'd be interested to get your thoughts on it along with a comparison to this lens. My guess is that the prime will of course lack the versatility of the zoom, but make up for it in size/weight and maybe even price.

[@keatchup]

Hey Jared what AF configuration are you using - can you share your settings?

[@bradleyrex2968]

I used the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for years and it was a great lens for baseball and other sports. When I purchased a 200-400 f4 with 1.4X I sold the sigma. This looks like a great lens, but is out of my price range for now...

[@MtRevDr]

Would be interesting to know how many in the field use such a zoom and how many use prime for the same event.

[@brantsarkela3189]

5:54 😂😂

[@dvidaurre]

Hi, I am looking for the LENs Hood for the 300mm 2.8 version I. Do you know where I can find one?

[@kennymcleish]

I would love to see a comparison of faster, expensive lenses vs slower, cheaper ones and making use of denoise and lens blur software. At what point does AI software take away the need for the extra 10k on glass?

[@avi5802]

Great, wish canon would make the 600 f4 TC though. I have canon gear and I'm looking to buy a 600 within a year or 2 and I find myself asking "Do I get the canon or do I buy the Nikon specifically for the 1 lens" because that built-in TC is just that much of a game changer

[@mcunner]

My sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is 2600 grams but I have the older version so much lighter than the newest version

[@kendallvz]

When I heard about this lens, my immediate thought was that it would be the perfect lens for indoor track and field in my opinion. The 2.8 is perfect for the low light conditions, and I have found my 70-200 to be just a hair too short for me to get the exact shots I was hoping for. This lens, if I can get to a point I can afford it, would convince me to switch to Canon. Actually, I want to switch to Canon anyway from Sony once I have the funds to do so, but as a majority wildlife photographer, the 200-600 is too good to pass up. If Canon would make that alternative (I know they have the 100-500), I would immediately consider switching.

[@weikin3899]

hi,is sony's color makes you switch to canon?

[@kendallvz]

@@weikin3899 Not at all. Any color differences I believe can simply be edited out in post-production. So while I've noticed the slight green tint, I don't think it matters in the end. I simply think the tech that Canon offers in its cameras is currently superior to that of Sony at the moment. Especially the autofocus. I haven't had the chance to test it myself, but all reviews seem to point that way.

[@chrislognshot]

Houston we have issue i do not have huge guns like jared. but on Z9 i can hand hold the sigma 120-300mm F/2.8. and rather hand hold do to fact does not feel right in the hands on monopod. have not tried my good or great tripod.

[@maryburgy7560]

were the photos at the end edited with the presets?

[@stubones]

A R3, this 100-300 and a 1.4 x TC would be all the sports gear I need..... Unfortunately I have about 1/5th the required money.....

[@PaulChoate-s4v]

Is there an EF 100-300 f2.8 or f4?

[@andrewcarmona]

5:52 lmao

[@michaelkaercher]

I think the price is not the issue here. 10K, 20K? Whenever a pro thinks he needs that kind of glass and can earn the money with his work, the price tag is not.really important. For me as a hobbyist, it is nonsense. I will not buy that kind of lens. Because I do not need it.

[@RuneVenes]

We buy a lot of thigns that we "dont need"... dont we? mhm...

[@michaelkaercher]

@@RuneVenes Sure. But 10.000$ for a piece of glass is hard to sell? Have fun with it.

[@Kingofgibraltar]

So no 112mm thread? Hmm. Never like exposing front element to the elements.