Canon’s BEST Lens… BUT What's The CATCH? RF 100-300 f/2.8 Review

[@JohnSwen-p6b]

This is a very impressive and flexible lens. Yes it is expensive. Hope to see Canon release the 200-500 mm f4 lens in the near future.

[@colintraveller]

i'd rather have a 150 - 600 ftom Canon ...

[@yankiefrankie]

I use this lens to shoot youth baseball and softball along with the 24-105 2.8. This is a dream combo on two R5 Mark 2s. I can go all the way from 24 to 300 at 2.8. I sold my 100 to 500 when i got this lens. I couldn't justify keeping both. This is really a sports lens and not a wildlife lens. If you think you will need to use the teleconverter most often you'd be better off with a different lens.

[@TooGood79]

That was my plan exactly this year. I’m trading in my 100-500 and my 70-200 MKi grabbing the 100-300. I rented it last year and loved it! The 2x extender made it better than my 100-500 for baseball too

[@yankiefrankie]

@TooGood79 I still haven't traded in my 70-200 2.8. Even though the 100-300 makes the 70-200 pretty much redundant the latter is so much smaller. If I'm indoors shooting some event for my kids I can't imagine pulling out the 100-300. The collapsible 70-200 fits so easily in my camera bag.

[@iang7007]

helpful makes good sense thanks :)

[@jan_wegener]

Totally agree! For that it’s perfect! I also agree about the constant use of TCs. Not something you wanna do too much

[@johnwinter6061]

Consider an APS-C body for more reach! Use the lenses you have and gain 1.6x. I'm anti-teleconverters too. The same lens on an APS-C body should give you better IQ than a 1.4 teleconverter. For the odd extra reach, it does not have to be high spec body either.

[@heidiwegener7614]

Always so good to watch not only because of the amazing knowledge you share but just as much because of the amazing pictures you share.

[@darrendiserens8378]

Excellent review Jan, always appreciate your honest no bias attitude and practical application.

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you!

[@robertfrowenfeld5866]

Great, unbiased review, as always. Considering that I would have to add a teleconverter to get beyond 300mm (plus the hefty price tag) convinces me to "suffer" by hanging onto my 100-500 and 200-800 lenses -- with no regrets.

[@FabianFoppNaturfotografie]

Since last October the R1 & RF100-300/2.8 has become my favorite combo for wildlife (if you can get reasonably close)

[@jan_wegener]

I can see why!

[@deanpratley125]

Jan, thank you for sharing your knowledge of photography. We are so great full you came back from your illness. Cheers!

[@jan_wegener]

Cheers! Glad to be back!

[@edp4708]

I’ve owned and used this lens for a year, almost exclusively shooting wildlife. I find it incredibly sharp, even wide open, outstanding IS and easily hand holdable. Attached to my R3, focusing is phenomenally fast and accurate with sufficient light. Focus accuracy suffers ever so slightly in low light with furry, low contrast subjects, but given enough light and a contrasty subject, it’s a focus accuracy beast. Image quality with the 1.4x TC is slightly less sharp, but acceptable and easily fixed in post. The focus speed and accuracy is not affected with the TC. Yes, it is an expensive piece of glass, but it is a game changer when shooting wildlife in relatively close quarters. No regrets investing nearly $10k.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, same as my experience. Quite the lens

[@stevenlui8105]

I use this lens shooting birds and wildlife in hides exclusively. As you mentioned, it works pretty well with 1.4x TC but not so much with 2x TC. It makes me rethinking of getting a 400mm f/2.8……

[@jan_wegener]

Touch choices. But as you say when you can use it bare or with 1.4 it’s hard to beat

[@stevenlui8105]

@ I was torn between RF100-300/2.8 and RF400/2.8. I know RF400/2.8 is a better lens in terms of image quality but wanted a zoom lens which offers bright aperture and flexibility as I’m going to shoot puffins in May/ June. I also thought it would be a good compliment to my RF800/5.6. After using it for a few times in hides, I regret a little not getting a RF400/2.8. Need to figure out how to smuggle one home now. 😅

[@MrDemon65]

i just love this Lens i own one ....Image Quality good at all range Background blur beautiful and like you say Fast and good autofocus and Image Stabilasion superb and it suprized me how good she works with TC i have both and they both give me super quality on this lens...My friend has a 2.0x Tc wich does not show good images on his RF400 f2.8 but if he use mine it gives better image quality so i think Canon has to be take a quality check on their TC´s as they seem to be either supersharp or a Soft

[@tim4259-x9b]

I'm not sure. I have several of the EF primes and zooms and they are so good, I'm not at all sure it's worth investing in this one for my case.

[@michaelwing9536]

Many thanks for the perfect sharing, Jan. So, that’s the reason why I expect 200-500 F4 so much and use internal APSC crop function instead of 1.4/2x teleconverter. I think this lens is more sports or indoors photography oriented, not dream lens for wildlife. 😊

[@AndiusTeijgeler]

It is on the wishlist, but at this price it will stay on the list!

[@jakecook716]

Hoping to see a review of the Canon rf 400 f2.8 on this channel eventually. Seems to be kinda the ultimate wildlife lens to photographers who aren't strictly birds. I would only ever get the 100-300 if I was in the position to go on safari in Africa with regularity

[@JES-q3h]

If you ever go on Safari you might just want to rent it for that specific trip. ;)

[@jan_wegener]

I can get one I suppose. Historically it has always been a focal length I found too short for the size. But could be interesting! Maybe I get converted!

[@tim4259-x9b]

@@jan_wegener the EF version is one of my all time favourites, I think you might get converted :)

[@jakecook716]

​@JES-q3h I've been on 3 safaris, and plan to go again this year. I'm more thinking someone who's doing more than a few safaris throughout the year. I don't like the idea of renting. My own photos I'd rather be from my own gear

[@jakecook716]

​@@jan_wegenerI guessed that but here we are talking about a 300mm lens, so I thought there may be a chance

[@DayDreamzUnlimited]

Jan, thank you for yet another great review! I understand that this may not be the ideal lens for those who more often than not find themselves short on the long end. I am looking forward to someone doing a field review with mammals in some national parks in India or Africa. The big cats are my preferred subjects. And I would love to travel with just one lens if I am told that I would not miss the 400 2.8, which I have not had the courage to acquire. Till that time, I shall hold on to my 100-500 and may be continue to miss out on more of the great golden and blue light shots!

[@jan_wegener]

If you can get close then the 300 will be amazing. If you're fine with the 400, then this would likely feel a tad short. Although it would be much easier and more stable to handhold

[@daemon1143]

There was a European wildlife photographer who's review I watched last year when deciding if I wanted this lens. His side by sides showed noticeable image degradation with both teleconverters, though much worse with the 2x, with results worse than the slow 100-500 L, which put me off considering the price of the lens, the price of Canon's very average teleconverters, and given that I never really need a 300mm focal length. I either want longer or shorter. I'm strangely glad your review didn't contradict his and he didn't just have a bad copy.

[@Windsurfingaddict]

For me the catch is the price, yes would be nice if I ever win the lottery 🥳

[@briansilcox5720]

Makes a clear case for the 400 f4 DO in RF to return

[@mvp_kryptonite]

An awesome lens, I had the pleasure of using it with an R3 for a couple of days at an air show and motorsport event. Simply outstanding! A bit clunky with the 2x in terms of weight, but the 1.4x was fine! Be good to see if they revive the 300/4 IS & the 400/5.6 with IS

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing

[@stubones]

If I could afford this lens, it would become my primary sports lens. f/2.8 for indoor is perfect and using the extender makes it great for field sports. I think Canon have "criminally" neglected the 1.4 x TC approach. This lens is light enough to have the addition of a built in TC, which would make so much sense.

[@jan_wegener]

The problem with the built in Tc is that it adds too much weight and size for the many people who would almost never use it

[@yankiefrankie]

@@stubones I for one am happy it does not have the built-in extender. It is just barely light enough as it is. I wouldn't have wanted the extra expense either. Extension equals more money and this lens was expensive enough for me.

[@Twobarpsi]

Great photos and review Jan!

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks!

[@codebunnies]

Nikon really missed the boat here putting out their 120-300mm f/2.8 ahead of Canon but for their old F mount right when they were pushing out the Z mount.

[@mogenshansen7210]

I have the RF 100-300/2.8 and primarily use it for sports photography. It is an amazing lens and very handholdable. I agree that with the 2x extender the images are somewhat soft, and the autofocus performance suffers. But using the 1.4x extender is much less of a compromis. For sports photography I'm hardly using the 70-200/2.8 anymore. The 100-500 is also used much less now, but is more flexible in some situation due to size and additional reach. The combo of RF 100-300/2.8 and RF 400/2.8 works very well for sports photography

[@jan_wegener]

Yes that’s the use case where it will easily beat any other lens on the market!

[@JES-q3h]

From the sound of it if you are working beyond 600mm at f8 on the 100-300mm you might just be better off getting the Canon RF 200-300mm? Or get the older 300mm f2.8 V2 as with the EF 2x TC III is really sharp at f5.6 even with my R7 crop sensor as long as the focus is on point. 😊 IMHO

[@fotofx3d]

Nice video Jan. Would love to see a video comparing the r7 with the 70-200mm. Yes, of course the depth of field will be about 4.5 equivalent but I just wonder how it would perform. Actually might have to wait for the r7ii to do it but I’d definitely be interested. I think an r7 with the new RF 70-200 USM Z could bring amazing value and give similar reach. That 100-300mm is just too expensive.

[@jan_wegener]

Biggest difference would be the way the backgrounds look I’d say

[@johnmatthews8338]

I shoot sports, primarily baseball and softball. I was originally shooting with a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 100-500mm, but a year ago I decided I wanted to upgrade. I rented the 100-300mm f2.8 and the 400mm f2.8 and used them both for a week. For me, the 400mm f2.8 was the no-brainer choice between the two -- the extra reach and the overall look of the images was just really special. A two-camera setup with the 70-200mm f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 gave me both the best image quality and greatest flexibility. For a cheaper (but still not cheap) option, I'd probably go with an APS-C camera like the R7 and the new 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens, as that gives you an equivalent 112-320mm focal length range, and as a bonus the new Z lens accepts teleconverters if needed and seems to perform very well with them.

[@jan_wegener]

It's interesting to hear how you found the 400mm f2.8 more useful for your style of shooting.

[@JaredRibic]

Definitely on my wish list. I'm going to rent it later this year.

[@Phoenix-Sports-Photography]

At over $15,000.00 for the lens and R1, no Thanks

[@JaredRibic]

@@Phoenix-Sports-Photography - I already have the R1, just need this lens.

[@Phoenix-Sports-Photography]

@ Please let me rephrase: @ $10k for the lens, NO THANKS.

[@JaredRibic]

@@Phoenix-Sports-Photography - True, the price is brutal. That's the *only* reason I don't have this lens yet. Maybe next year. Until then I'll rent it.

[@bjrn-einarnilsen687]

Great and informative video as always, mate. This is one of the lenses i have on my wish list, but i am not so sure anymore after seeing this video. In maybe 50% of the cases it's enough with 300mm here where i live, because you often can come very close to your subjects, but with some of the more difficult birds, 600mm is needed. And when having to stop down maybe two stops, make it very difficult for me to use because of the poor light conditions in the Atlantic Rainforest.. Wishing you and yours a great weekend. Cheers, Bjoern

[@jan_wegener]

It’s an incredible lens, but if you need the TC all the time then a prime may be better

[@noelchignell1048]

Definitely on my wishlist: I would use this to compliment my RF200-800 which is excellent in reasonable light and is sharp wide open. I think I would skip the 2x extender as my 200-800 can cover the long end wide open at f/8-9 and use the 100-300 with and without the 1.4x extender in the bush.

[@jan_wegener]

It’s an incredible lens for sure

[@lands3r]

i went to my local rainforest... dam bro you have to live on a special place :D

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, lots of beautiful places in Australia 😀

[@ryansanderson1010]

Have you had a chance to review the RF1200 yet? I was able to get one for equipment eval with Canon USA late last fall, and then it happened to come up for a great deal for a refurb on Black Friday, so I bought it. I've been quite happy with the lens, feel it does a better job than the RF600+2X, and it takes the TCs a bit better than I expected, particularly when used with the R1. Would be interested to see your review of it!

[@jan_wegener]

Never used it, but could be fun

[@thimoschreiber4275]

Would be very interesting to see how the Lens performs on the r7. With the 1.6x crop of the APSC it would become a 160-480mm f2.8 which would be great for Wildlife, dont you agree?

[@jan_wegener]

Yes! Especially if we can get a new version of that camera! But even with the current one it would do well

[@thimoschreiber4275]

@ totally agree. A R7 MK II could be very interesting if the fix its biggest Problems of Rolling Shutter and Small buffer. Maybe it gets the same buffer as the R5 MK II?

[@enxunw1282]

EF 300 II has 2 pieces of fluorite and RF 100-300 cut that down to 1. I'm sure Canon tried hard to compensate that with UD glass but the subtle difference could be what causes the 2x performance drop. Just my guess.

[@przybylskipawel]

BTW. I hope you already have the Sony 400-800mm f6.3-8 and that you are working on a review. I wonder whether this one would be optically better than 200-600mm with 1.4TC. Please check it if you can! :)

[@WernerBirdNature]

Hi Jan, I'd certainly buy it .. if the price were only 25% of the current European price 🙈 It would be nicely complementary with my longer zooms for the low light use cases and bird hides .. My wife just picked up the non-Z 70-200/2.8 which I'm sure will help her R7 a lot in the Costa Rica rainforest next month. I'd love the same equivalent focal range on my R5ii, but this awesome 100-300/2.8 is way out of reach for my wallet. When my wife makes me really jealous, I might be tempted to pick up the 70-200/2.8 Z when I'm in Japan on a business trip in April. There it would cost me about 1000 Eur less ! The 70-200 on the R5ii yields almost the same amount of pixels on the bird as the 100-300 on the R1 .. and I didn't hear you about 24mp in this video ;-)

[@TheWildlifeGallery388]

I was on the fence for this lens or the new 70-200 z - Ultimately, I settled on the new 70-200 Z in Black mainly because of price, I could purchase 3 of these for the price tag of the 1-300

[@mikebrownhill4662]

It looks like an amazing lens. I'd be very tempted to get one for when I don't want to take my 600mm f4 IF it performed well with the 2x extender. It would be ideal for a lighter, flexible wildlife setup. Seeing your results with the 2x has put me off that idea though. However - I may change my mind if the R7ii is going to be a big step up over the R7. If that camera eliminates all - or at least most - of the problems with the Mark 1, then this lens comes into play for me because it's 160-480 effective, and that would be a decent starting point for a travel wildlife rig. Hopefully, you could add a 1.4 extender to that without paying too heavy a price in image quality. So - I'm not going to buy it for my main R5ii setup, but it could be one to watch if the R7ii is what we hope it will be...

[@jan_wegener]

That would be a nice combo. This lens can definitely be a flexible and smaller 600 option, but the main difference is that we’d have to shoot 600/8 vs 600/4 which can be a challenge also for the BG

[@mikebrownhill4662]

@@jan_wegener That's what's putting me off using it on full frame. If I have to go to f8 to get 600mm then I may as well buy the 200-800mm. But if the R7ii plus 1.4x gets me there (and more) at f4 (although probably f6.3 to regain sharpness) without too much compromise on the crop sensor then it's got to be worth considering for a second, lighter rig! Expensive, though... Thanks for the video - I found it useful.

[@MattisProbably]

A friend of mine has this lens! He loves it! Well, loved. It caught a bad case of glass fungus 😅

[@jan_wegener]

Oh no!

[@MattisProbably]

@ I honestly have no damn clue how he managed to do that. Like, how do you get glass fungus in a 12.000€ lens that is weather sealed 6 months after you bought it? He also managed to fry the screen of his R3. Put a rain cover over it, got condensation inside it and then the screen died after flickering for a bit. But it's all good, he has an R1 now. And an R5 II...

[@jan_wegener]

@@MattisProbably sounds like he gets it wet a lot. If you don;t try it afterwards it can happen fast

[@Xirpzy]

One lens for the price of 4 100-500mm lenses ooof. I hope canon fills that gap with more options.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

I'm sure it's a fantastic lens for the right person. Just not long enough for me, even with a 2.0 TC. Plus, I've always felt that if you "always" have to use a TC, that lens just isn't long enough. If I were dreaming about new lenses, I'd be thinking > 200-800 with some pro upgrades. Instead, I think more about a Pro level APS-C body, to use with the 200-800 I already have 🙂 Your videos are always entertaining though, and your bird photography is the best ! Thank you 🙂👍

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for watching!

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Unrelated question: how do you set up the R5ii to record video while taking photos ? how can I do that ?

[@peterebel7899]

This lens targets the sport fields, no TC needed!

[@jan_wegener]

Yep

[@bsc5068]

I would absolutely buy that lens if it a) was lighter and b) didn’t need to be stopped down with a TC. I am very loyal to Canon, but quite envious right now of the Sony 300mm….

[@stubones]

It doesn't need to be stopped down. Jan isn't right on this at all. This lens is super sharp wide open with the 1.4 x TC. Go buy a EF 300mm f/2.8 if you want a prime.

[@yankiefrankie]

I think this lens is as light as it could be as a zoom. If it was a lighter 300 mm prime I wouldn't have purchased it. Sony went with the light 300 mm but many of their users envy Canon for having this lens. It really depends on your use case which one works best. I for one am a happy Canon went in this direction. Also I can confirm it works quite well with the 1.4 * converter. Not as sharp as the bare lens but not bad at all.

[@kilohotel6750]

I'm shooting the RF600 F4 and 100-500 now and have really considered trading the 100-500 in on the 100-300 but I'm still not sure the price is worth it. I've been thinking about it for a year and they are now in stock at most places so I've been getting more serious about the idea. I should probably do a CPS loan first.

[@jan_wegener]

The main concern for me would be pack ability when travelling, but otherwise the combo would be amazing. Or you could keep 100-500 when size matters

[@iang7007]

really glad you did this review and as always made a good job of it God bless you :) with a 1.4x would you use this over the 100-500 ... how would the background separation compare? seems like it would pair well with a 600 f4 and r1?

[@jan_wegener]

Yes that would be a fantastic pair! Whether is prefer the 100-500 or this lens would mainly come down to size. If I’m flying somewhere I’d probably have to take the 100-500. Other times when weight and size don’t matter as much the 100-300 would have an edge with performance overall. Even though sharpness would be a wash more or less

[@kevindiossi]

It’s a shame that with the 2.0X teleconverter, this lens does appear to be just a little softer than what is ideal for something with fine details like bird feathers - especially if cropped or enlarged. But, I bit the bullet last year to swap out my EF 300L f/2.8 II lens for this one for motorsports and it’s extremely sharp for this kind of work. I really enjoyed the images I got with this combination and was very pleased with its sharpness. Was it the most crispy weapon? Perhaps not 100-500 sharp, but still quite good with beautiful bokeh falloff. I was certainly a hater of this lens when it was released because my main complaint I would like to have seen remedied from the previous EF version was the weight - I dreamed of a tiny little RF 300. Unfortunately, Sony answered that want. But wow…the versatility of setting off for the day with a RF 24-105 f/2.8 and the RF 100-300 f/2.8 and both teleconverters covers you for nearly everything you can throw at it during a Motorsport race. (Save for the artistic ultra-wide or more extreme low light shots.) I still think primes are king for wildlife. If you treat this 100-300 as a prime zoom for subjects that fall within that field of view, it’s a superb lens.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing. Your confirm my feelings about who it’s for. As you say if it. Am replace other lenses and make your life much easier it’s perfect. It just doesn’t like to be used on the very long end with TCs all too much

[@lumenspaul]

The sony 300mm is the only lens i know that plays well the 2x across all brands ,its just physics i guess ,but fair play to canon for a nearly all in one lens ,but imagine if some one designs a lens with built in t/c options of 1.4 & 2.0 x and a bright large aperture zoom ,we would be at a point of one lens does it all .Still not sure why sony can get their ois to work as good as others their ibis is very good but probably not as useful on long telephotos ,where you become more reliant on ois ,although is this more a issue in video where as for stills i hear no complaints .

[@jan_wegener]

The big Canon primes take the extenders very well, too. On zooms it's always a bit hit and miss. I am not sure whether this is true or not, but I have read somewhere that Sony's IBIS is limited by how small their mount is compared to Nikon and Canon. So that may limit how much it can move? Canon used to be quite shaky too, but the latest releases have been rock solid. Interestingly Nikon seems to be very good for long lenses, but I have heard people complain about the IBIS on the shorter end.

[@AndrzejZalewskiYT]

It's much to pricey.. having already 70-200 2.8 which covers 50% range of 100-300 I just can't justify the price tag. I know, this might be great combo with 24-105, but on the other hand I'd like to see some cheaper and lightweight 300 2.8 prime.

[@stubones]

I understand your thinking, but this lens was never designed with the average wildlife or casual sports shooter in mind. It was designed for professional agency sports shooters and photojournalists. Sigma made a decent, but heavy 120-300mm f/2.8 over a decade ago and I think we are crying out for an affordable modern update from them to give us an option to buy this focal length. In the UK this lens is £11.5k, which is outrageously expensive.

[@AndrzejZalewskiYT]

@@stubones I totaly got that, but still, there is a room for lightweight 300 prime ;)

[@scherge]

I'd love to have a 100-300 but I'll probably never be able to afford one 😅 The loss in iq with tele converter is quite the bummer, though. A lense that costs more than 10.000€ should be next to perfect in all situations.

[@markusjais5203]

I shoot Nikon (mostly because of lenses like the 4/600TC) but the RF 2.8/100-300 (and the 4/10-20) are two lenses I wish Nikon had as well in a native Z-mount version. Or even better, a 2.8-4/100-400TC). I guess Nikon is working on some fast telephoto zooms because this is currently missing from their line-up. And Canon has some really cool patents for long zooms. I think Canon should have added a built-in 1.4 TC, it would not have added that much weight but would have made the lens even more flexible.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes if we could combine the two brands that would be cool. Having zooms definitely gives you that great flexibility

[@markusjais5203]

@@jan_wegener I agree. A combo of Nikon/Canon cameras and lenses would be a dream. The 2.8 zoom gives you nicer backgrounds than my 4.5-5.6/100-400 (not a bad lens but for a clean background in that range, I only have the 1.8/135 Plena, which is awesome but for wildlife, 135mm is normally too short, especially her in Germany). Let's see what the three big brands bring out this year. The rumored 400-800 from Sony could be cool. I think Nikon's PF tech might yield some niece possibilities like a relatively light 5.6/300-800. But not sure if we will ever see such a lens.

[@christophercarlimages9003]

The EF 300 f2.8 was one of the best lenses ever made. It had very little drop in IQ with the TCs and was lighter and $3500 less than what this zoom costs. Without the ability to use the TCs without a serious drop in IQ, this is something as a bird photographer that I would never use. Sad they didn't just release a lighter 300 f2.8 prime. But apparently their roadmap has cheap plastic slow primes or overly expensive zooms.

[@jasonjong4973]

The EF 300/2.8 ii is still my favorite lens, I don't think the zoom ability of the RF lens is worth double the price. I usually use it with the TCs when shooting wildlife, but the rare occasions where I've been able to shoot with it at 300mm (large animals or just gotten lucky) have been some of the most magical shots of my life. It's so sharp.

[@christophercarlimages9003]

@jasonjong4973 truly an outstanding lens. Sad they won't make an RF version

[@imagesbyrina]

I thought the one downside would be the price -- since it's so pricey (but worth it to me). HA HA! I have not had soft photos with either teleconverter actually -- even the 2x, which came as a surprise since i usually hate the 2x. I could go on and on about the benefits and strong points of this lens but i'll spare your comment section...🙃

[@jan_wegener]

I don't really see the price as such a big downside considering what it has to offer to the right people. Of course less is always better though :D

[@peterebel7899]

I would prefer it over the EF200-400 4.0 L I own! - more than 1kg less weight - due to less focus breathing same reach on the close end with one stop more light Both at the same time is quite something for shooting i.e. song birds!

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, I held the 200-400 the other day. Man that was heavy 😂

[@nunosilva5653]

Still i would not trade the ef 200-400 f4 for this one. Even with the weight costs it makes it much more valuable lens the the 100-300mm for wildlife. In built extender and the overall sharpness of that lens its still impressive to this date.

[@peterebel7899]

@ The strong side of the 200-400 is the sharpness, the pictures shot with it are really standing out. But: - Even with the internal extender my sample gives min focus distance 1.89m and max magnification of 0,23x which represents 285mm focal distance close up performance with the "official" 600mm. - The 100-300 with the 1.4 extender gives 1.85m, 0.22x, 273mm effective focal length at the short end while 420mm are indicated (one EV more light, slightly less sharpness) - The 100-500 gives more max magnification. Focussed to 0.22x the distance is 2.155m which represents 318mm focus distance (indicated 500mm). But there is 2.7 stops less light compared to the 100-300 and less sharpness (still good) If you are ok with 0.2X: - The RF 200-800 works with 3.3m distance which gives 458mm effective focal length with indicated 800mm f/9.0, sharpens lala. - The Sony 200--600 works with 2.4m, effective focal length 333mm, indicated 600mm f/6.3 If you are OK with 1.7x: - The RF400 works with MFD 2,5m, effective focal length 310mm, indicated 400mm f 2.8. Not too bad, but a lack of versatility due to a fixed focal length. In total the 100-300mm with the 1.4 extender is a strong performer for shooting small birds, reptiles and amphibians, bigger insects, .... Impressive! I own the 200-400, man is this heavy beyond practicability in this sujet. I would like to have the RF100-300. But for shooting elephants at the horizon without the need for carrying the 200-400 is the better option. Just we don't have elephants in Europe...

[@DanOhPhotography]

I felt same with Sony 300mm with 2x or 1.4x though I can't compare with Canon's

[@jan_wegener]

The copy that o had was pretty good with the TCs

[@mikex2805]

I can’t tell by watching the video but did cannon lend you the lens for purpose of review?

[@jan_wegener]

I got the lens, but not to do a review. That was a side effect of having the lens. There were no expectations or even discussions about this video

[@R8135003]

UK price 12.5k but it is a pro lens. Perfect lens for Equestrian sport. Not to long and not to short.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes for that it would be amazing And being able to zoom back would be incredibly helpful too

[@R8135003]

@ to overcome the price problem one could shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 on a APSC camera. The crop factor of 1.5 ish gives the same reach as the 100-300. You loose a little light, f4, but this is ideal for equestrian sport.

[@af-photography]

I can not figure out how you do that single point autofocus but then on back button you do face tracking

[@guidlines]

you assign 2 different buttons on the back. One for single point & one for tracking. It can be done on a number of the R series cameras.

[@af-photography]

@guidlines I'm using a R6 Mk II let's see if i can do it 😅

[@jan_wegener]

I made a video how to set that up on the R6 II

[@af-photography]

@@jan_wegener really? I'll try to find it then thanks!

[@jan_wegener]

@@af-photography R6 II The settings you need to know

[@TBGTOMPHOTO]

I have the RF 2x TC also, and I find it soft on the 100-500mm lens also. It's a very disappointing piece of glass.

[@jan_wegener]

it works great on the big primes. 100-500 gets tricky at F14

[@davepastern]

by all reputation, a great sports lens, but not good for birding. Would be good for safari wildlife though with the 1.4x TC. Very disappointing 2x TC performance, but not unsurprising imho. You just can't beat a good 600f4 prime. Probably cheaper than the 100-300 too.

[@danieldougan269]

I like that Canon is experimenting with unconventional zoom ranges and optical formulas. I just wish they would allow Sigma and Tamron to offer their lenses in RF mount for full frame. Most photographers can't afford these very expensive first-party lenses.

[@petercreagh8797]

The price is the catch.

[@jan_wegener]

Hehe

[@mikegrundy6405]

Always like seeing your reviews,, but I can answer your "What's the catch " without doing so..... That's easy,, the price. Effectively it's a "professionals only" lens. That one lens costs more than my entire (amateur) camera bag of kit which includes an R5i, an R6ii, RF100-500m L IS, RF 24-105 F4 L IS, RF 16mm F2.8, RF 800 F11, RF 100mm macro F2.8,,, all of which still doesn't add up to the price tag for that one lens. I'd like one,, of course,, but that will have to remain a unfulfilled fantasy.

[@keithmayoh3070]

Interesting video, Jan, but at these prices the R1 and the 100-300 are not attainable for me. It’s just camera porn really.

[@aprilcampbell1244]

Low weight and fantastic image quality with and without teleconverters is what sold me on the Sony. Canon's iteration is a swing and a miss, plus the price point is prohibitive. Too bad. I like Canon.

[@angelogarciajr5356]

Anyone have an extra 10k laying around for a lens?

[@jonasweiss5817]

100-400 f/4 would have been better.

[@michaelp9574]

12k€...Sorry too much for a 100-300mm Zoom....

[@timotejm]

Now we need canon to make telephoto lense in Sonys 200-600mm or Nikons 180-600 price range

[@noelchignell1048]

They do, the RF200-800 is only slightly more expensive than Sony's 200-600

[@timotejm]

@ o sorry completely forgot about 200-800 but still i fell like canon making 600mm zoom lens with the maximum aperture around f6 would be a nice addition to the rf line.

[@przybylskipawel]

It is not on my wish list. In my opinion if you need to put a TC on it, it is not the lens for you. This is a lens for specific scenario (bigger, tame animals) and in other usecases you would be much better off with different lens like xx-600mm f/x.x-6.3. But.. ups! Canon does not have one!