I have owned this lens for a week and it is PHENOMENAL. It is expensive, but it’s an investment that will hold its value. It really is an amazing piece of glass.
100 - 300 is the ultimate equestrian sports lens for full frame. Having shot 1000s of images I believe that it is the focal length that will give you the best chance of success. To that end the 70 - 200 attached to an APSC camera give a similar focal length. You loose a little dropping to around f4 but that depth of field give the best results anyways. Be lucky stay safe.
Couldn't agree more. Just bagged myself one. 200mm you often can't reach jumps the other side of the arena and the big primes are too heavy to carry around all day. I can't wait man!
You mention that Canon shooters have been asking for the ultimate zoom lens for years.. yet the 200-400 f/4 w/ 1.4 x lens was very popular with with sports shooters and still is... This lens is awesome too :)
I don’t understand the game rugby but the 100-300 was way to short to photograph the game. Looks like the guy next to you was using a 400 or 600. The lens would be great for indoor sports.
Rugby is "like" american football but without all the pads. The field is 100m across. This lens is ideal for anything from the halfway line playing towards where you are sitting on the deadball line. With the RF 400mm you are in a very tight spot when the players come in to the scoring zone( try line) Regularly the guys would use 400mm and a 70-200mm on two bodies to cover a game. I believe this replaces both options
I too was shocked at the $9500 USD price, but I can understand it. I bet if they had come out with an RF 300 f/2.8 it would be in the $7500-$8500 range, but this lens is so much more versatile. I'm also amazed at how little it weighs. I'm now seeing how much i might be able to get for my EF 400 2.8 so I can try to get this lens. I used to have an EF 300 2.8, and I can justify spending more for such a zoom.
and it wouldn't be nearly as good.... I do agree its overpriced though. 2/3rds the price would be fair, but at this point all L series RF glass is over priced, which is why the EF to EOS R adapter is in such high demand. Mine was just delivered today in preparation for the arrival of my R6 ii next week :) I'm not buying RF glass any time soon.
You mentioned how great it would be with the 1.4x and 2x tc why didn't you use it for the test shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer I would like to know how the AF performs especially with the 2x in low light and how good the the image quality. Canon is lacking a RF 200-600 and so if the 2x is going to live on this lens for the most part I really want to know how well it performs.
I like the versatility, but this comes at a high price point. I went with Fuji & the Fujinon 200mm f/2 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter. A 300mm & 420mm full frame equivalent. Still expensive- but less than the Canon zoom. Obviously, it is not as versatile.
Most versatile? For sure not...a 60-600 Sigma is far mor versatile. And the 100-300 is not very versatile at 300mm+ because the R3 is not good for crop.
It is brilliant, it is ultra sharp, it is light, it is everything you need, it is ******* £11,500. My Sigma 120-300 f2.8, which has been available for years was £1,200, last year, mint used. [The one I bought new 25 years ago was stolen] If you want to send me one so I can do a comparison feel free.
@@lqr824 I have not seen the Canon, but the Sigma is fast. Using the 5D4 IQ is great, even with the 2x, only I made the mistake of upgrading to an R5 and using it on a trip in Spain without checking, the results were rubbish. The firmware defocusses. It can do sharp, maybe 1 in 5, I made a videoua-cam.com/video/mhkHYnvk0L8/v-deo.html. I did wonder about getting a Sony A7R ii ad using an adapter, only on the 5D4 or 7D2 it produces good results
@@BruceLeroyUK luckily I would rather not know as I am no longer in a position to need the Canon, let alone afford it. It will be better, only as I do not have a revenue stream it is beyond me. It is like not buying the RF100-500 as I have the 100-400Lii, not that it stopped me getting the 200-800 so I have a decent RF zoom.
5:15 you're finally showing some images. Why didn't you put the focal length, shutter speed, aperture in the corner so we actually know what we're looking at? Do you not know how to do that automatically? Do you want me to teach you how to stop wasting people's time?
@@donniepirelli4668 Dude, 5.8 pounds is a LOT over time. I used to carry around a big EF 500mm mkii around everywhere, (7.2lbs), and developed tennis elbow and other joint pains. I actually quite prefer the 100-500 now. Half the weight at no real cost to sharpness, (actually the color rendering is a litter better with the zoom). I understand the attraction to these big wide aperture lenses, but the cost they can take on your body over time can be enormous. I will always take hand-holdability and compactness over a couples stops of light. And honestly, you will probably find that focus is a lot tougher the wider the lens can go. Just my opinion after doing this for over a decade.
Yes and no. My EF 400 2.8 weighs almost 12 pounds, and I used to have an EF 300 2.8 that was about 6 pounds. A 6 pound lens is still a lot, but its so much more manageable. I would probably use a monopod with this, but I was able to use my old 300 2.8 easy enough. I'd love to find out though!
OK, TWO minutes in and you have yet to say a single point of interest. Do you think people are taking time our of their busy days to watch you walk around in slow motion? Do you think we want to watch you try to think of something to say? BIG HINT: if you can't think of what to say, EDIT THAT PART OUT. Along with all the slow-mo of yourself walking.
@@mrwashur1991 My day had enough time to learn a bit about the 100-300/2.8. Unfortunately I wasted my time watching THIS video and didn't learn a thing.
4:45 "See what happens here?" you ask. NOTHING is happening. This is the worst video I've ever seen on any topic. It's like you are trying to win a bet when you bet someone you wouldn't actually show or say a single thing about the lens.
If you don’t like it then why do you keep commenting? You could’ve just saved your “precious time” just leaving. I bet you go to music shows you don’t like just to bitch and moan about how bad the band is.. go watch more tube doucher content and stfu
whats the function of the plate? to connect it to a tripod/gimbal/monopod head. what difference would a more expensive plate have made? I love the benro products and they do exactly what I need them to do.
That thing is just straightforward development for a very high price. You are looking at 12000 Euro. 300mm is nonsense for Portrait. Even 200mm. 600mm F5.6? Really? What about the Sigma and Tamron 150-600? They cost what? 10%-15% of that lens. It is all just nonsense and hype.
You really are talking out of your butt. The lens a 100-300 f/2.8. The fact it takes extenders well is beside the point. The Sigma doesn't come close to the image quality of this lens and doesn't come as a native RF mount. This lens replaces the 300mm f/2.8L IS lens.but its also a 100mm f/2.8 and everything else all the way to 300mm. Yes, its over priced, but pro sports shooters will be all over this, especially for indoor sports. The tamron is a total irrelevance and not aimed at high end pro sports shooters. You know that full well.
@@michaelkaercher While I do feel the lens is slightly overpriced (given a straight up 300mm 2.8 would be about 7500, and add on the price of a 70-200 which is basically both of these lenses combined and you'd get the 100-300 it's this price) the 120-300 2.8 is not nearly as sharp as this lens, and also has horrible focus.
@@kpopfanphotos You are absolutely right. 7.500$ for a 300mm ist overpriced as well. No offense but the camera manufacturers try to rip off the customer base currently. I am a Nikon shooter and the 300mm is about 6500. A realistic price would be around 4500$. Still too expensive for a non-pro like me but acceptable. A used 300mm for Nikon is about 800 to 2200. That is more my price range.
🤣😂🤣😂 $9500 USD 😂🤣😂🤣 I can come up with entire kits (body and lenses), bag, computer and software for editing (photo AND video) that will produce images as good and still have money left over for pizza and beer.
@@JDMism it has nothing to do with pinching pennies but using the same money for nearly identical results and getting more bang for your buck. Sigma makes a 120-300 EF DG f2.8 lens. For MFT there's the Olympus Pro 40-150mm f2.8. Either of these lenses mated to a respective high perf body will provide comparable results for half the total cost of just this lens. Not saying this lens is bad in any way just Canon doing a Canon which is why most folks I know walked away from them.
@@rjakiel73 The RF autofocus speed and accuracy just murders anything else I’ve tried. If you’re using the lens to earn money photographing events, it is absolutely worth it. I’m sure the Sigma picture quality is similar if it nails the focus, but I’ve never had a good experience with AF on third-party lenses. There’s a reason the sidelines of every major sports event are lined with giant white tubes on monopods, but Nikon is a great alternative if you don’t like Canon
I have owned this lens for a week and it is PHENOMENAL. It is expensive, but it’s an investment that will hold its value. It really is an amazing piece of glass.
100 - 300 is the ultimate equestrian sports lens for full frame.
Having shot 1000s of images I believe that it is the focal length that will give you the best chance of success.
To that end the 70 - 200 attached to an APSC camera give a similar focal length.
You loose a little dropping to around f4 but that depth of field give the best results anyways.
Be lucky stay safe.
Couldn't agree more. Just bagged myself one. 200mm you often can't reach jumps the other side of the arena and the big primes are too heavy to carry around all day. I can't wait man!
Looks like an incredible lens!
That thing is a beast.
Took the kit out to a baseball game a couple of days ago and boy could I have used this bad boy!
This is my dream lens. Sadly, I can’t see myself ever being able to afford it ☹️ I might rent it for some events though 😀
A great versatile lens and is easily hand hold-able.
You mention that Canon shooters have been asking for the ultimate zoom lens for years.. yet the 200-400 f/4 w/ 1.4 x lens was very popular with with sports shooters and still is... This lens is awesome too :)
I'm hoping to visit the Falkland Islands next year, I have to keep the weight of my kit down, but this lens will be the first one I pack.
Curious, what brand shirt are you wearing? Look very versatile for changing weather.
Honest review
want that lens AND I want that shirt ;-) !
Amazing lens, I want one. 🥰
This lens reminds me of the 400 F/4 DO IS II. Small but big punch.
0:48 well played sir 😁
Best part of the video.
I don’t understand the game rugby but the 100-300 was way to short to photograph the game. Looks like the guy next to you was using a 400 or 600. The lens would be great for indoor sports.
Rugby is "like" american football but without all the pads. The field is 100m across. This lens is ideal for anything from the halfway line playing towards where you are sitting on the deadball line. With the RF 400mm you are in a very tight spot when the players come in to the scoring zone( try line) Regularly the guys would use 400mm and a 70-200mm on two bodies to cover a game. I believe this replaces both options
@@guntherswart9464 His position looked like a 70-200mm area view for the entire game.....just seems very short
@@guntherswart9464 I suppose if you want a group shot.
The 200-400 f/4 1.4 x lens would be my go to for this and other field sports if I was just a 100-400 f/5.6 ii shooter....
Could I ask you something? I was wondering how to set the aperture, shutter speed, and AF value to take a picture like this.
Wow, insane!
Sooooo sick! 🎉🎉🎉
pleasa,where can i get this canon shirt,looks so cool
If it was half the price they'd sell 3 times as many
I too was shocked at the $9500 USD price, but I can understand it. I bet if they had come out with an RF 300 f/2.8 it would be in the $7500-$8500 range, but this lens is so much more versatile. I'm also amazed at how little it weighs. I'm now seeing how much i might be able to get for my EF 400 2.8 so I can try to get this lens. I used to have an EF 300 2.8, and I can justify spending more for such a zoom.
and it wouldn't be nearly as good.... I do agree its overpriced though. 2/3rds the price would be fair, but at this point all L series RF glass is over priced, which is why the EF to EOS R adapter is in such high demand. Mine was just delivered today in preparation for the arrival of my R6 ii next week :) I'm not buying RF glass any time soon.
@@stubonesone year later, still haven’t purchased any RF glass?
What lens hood did you have on the 70-200 ? Looking to swap the standard white one with a black one as well !
ES-83, same as Canon RF 50 1.2, i have tried that lens hood on my RF 70-200 2.8 and it work perfectly
No photos shown, no testing, no review. A bunch of empty talking.
You mentioned how great it would be with the 1.4x and 2x tc why didn't you use it for the test shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer I would like to know how the AF performs especially with the 2x in low light and how good the the image quality. Canon is lacking a RF 200-600 and so if the 2x is going to live on this lens for the most part I really want to know how well it performs.
That’s is going to be an extremely expensive 200-600mm f/5.6 setup 😱
I like the versatility, but this comes at a high price point. I went with Fuji & the Fujinon 200mm f/2 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter. A 300mm & 420mm full frame equivalent. Still expensive- but less than the Canon zoom. Obviously, it is not as versatile.
What if the 1.4x, 2.0x converters were built in the lens instead?
actually it has the 1x converter buildt in! lol.
Then it would be built into the lens..
You will get green/magenta shift like the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S or 600mm f/4 S
sick lens, heavy price tag
Did you have the ef 70-200 2.8 hood on your rf? 😂
sir?
Most versatile? For sure not...a 60-600 Sigma is far mor versatile. And the 100-300 is not very versatile at 300mm+ because the R3 is not good for crop.
Tbh ... No matter how much upselling your doing .
The cost of gear in Aussie is MORE EXPENSIVE than anywhere else .
UK: "Hold my beer”
It is brilliant, it is ultra sharp, it is light, it is everything you need, it is ******* £11,500. My Sigma 120-300 f2.8, which has been available for years was £1,200, last year, mint used. [The one I bought new 25 years ago was stolen] If you want to send me one so I can do a comparison feel free.
how does the autofocus compare?
@@lqr824 I have not seen the Canon, but the Sigma is fast. Using the 5D4 IQ is great, even with the 2x, only I made the mistake of upgrading to an R5 and using it on a trip in Spain without checking, the results were rubbish. The firmware defocusses. It can do sharp, maybe 1 in 5, I made a videoua-cam.com/video/mhkHYnvk0L8/v-deo.html. I did wonder about getting a Sony A7R ii ad using an adapter, only on the 5D4 or 7D2 it produces good results
Rent the Canon version for comparison with your Sigma.
@@BruceLeroyUK luckily I would rather not know as I am no longer in a position to need the Canon, let alone afford it. It will be better, only as I do not have a revenue stream it is beyond me. It is like not buying the RF100-500 as I have the 100-400Lii, not that it stopped me getting the 200-800 so I have a decent RF zoom.
mmmmmm...way to pricey
5:15 you're finally showing some images. Why didn't you put the focal length, shutter speed, aperture in the corner so we actually know what we're looking at? Do you not know how to do that automatically? Do you want me to teach you how to stop wasting people's time?
I think you should stop wasting yours and people’s time with your comment!
Meh...people forget that WEIGHT is a big part of the equation too...and this thing weighs a lot for what it is.
Does not weigh that much at all. 5.8lbs for a good tele is nothing. Get real… go to the gym and lift some weights.
@@donniepirelli4668 Dude, 5.8 pounds is a LOT over time. I used to carry around a big EF 500mm mkii around everywhere, (7.2lbs), and developed tennis elbow and other joint pains. I actually quite prefer the 100-500 now. Half the weight at no real cost to sharpness, (actually the color rendering is a litter better with the zoom). I understand the attraction to these big wide aperture lenses, but the cost they can take on your body over time can be enormous. I will always take hand-holdability and compactness over a couples stops of light. And honestly, you will probably find that focus is a lot tougher the wider the lens can go. Just my opinion after doing this for over a decade.
@@FraterABYA I’m well aware of heavy gear. I welcome it. 3 decades here.
@@donniepirelli4668 It'll catch up to you one day...
Yes and no. My EF 400 2.8 weighs almost 12 pounds, and I used to have an EF 300 2.8 that was about 6 pounds. A 6 pound lens is still a lot, but its so much more manageable. I would probably use a monopod with this, but I was able to use my old 300 2.8 easy enough. I'd love to find out though!
OK, TWO minutes in and you have yet to say a single point of interest. Do you think people are taking time our of their busy days to watch you walk around in slow motion? Do you think we want to watch you try to think of something to say? BIG HINT: if you can't think of what to say, EDIT THAT PART OUT. Along with all the slow-mo of yourself walking.
No one is making you watch this dude. If you’re watching UA-cam then your day isn’t that busy. Chill TF out.
@@mrwashur1991 My day had enough time to learn a bit about the 100-300/2.8. Unfortunately I wasted my time watching THIS video and didn't learn a thing.
@@lqr824 You're a bit slow then. and not smart enough to afford the lens anyway ffs
It would have been better at f2. Just saying.
4:45 "See what happens here?" you ask. NOTHING is happening. This is the worst video I've ever seen on any topic. It's like you are trying to win a bet when you bet someone you wouldn't actually show or say a single thing about the lens.
If you don’t like it then why do you keep commenting? You could’ve just saved your “precious time” just leaving. I bet you go to music shows you don’t like just to bitch and moan about how bad the band is.. go watch more tube doucher content and stfu
What a time-waster. A minute in and you have yet to say a single point of interest.
You've written a lot that's no interest, that's for sure.
$6000 camera and $9500 lens. With Benro plate. The plate from counterfeit factory.
Good lens a lot of times cost more than the body. Look into the cinema world…
@@donniepirelli4668 i mean only the plate.
@@MolotoMan gotcha
whats the function of the plate? to connect it to a tripod/gimbal/monopod head. what difference would a more expensive plate have made? I love the benro products and they do exactly what I need them to do.
That thing is just straightforward development for a very high price. You are looking at 12000 Euro. 300mm is nonsense for Portrait. Even 200mm. 600mm F5.6? Really? What about the Sigma and Tamron 150-600? They cost what? 10%-15% of that lens. It is all just nonsense and hype.
You really are talking out of your butt. The lens a 100-300 f/2.8. The fact it takes extenders well is beside the point. The Sigma doesn't come close to the image quality of this lens and doesn't come as a native RF mount. This lens replaces the 300mm f/2.8L IS lens.but its also a 100mm f/2.8 and everything else all the way to 300mm. Yes, its over priced, but pro sports shooters will be all over this, especially for indoor sports. The tamron is a total irrelevance and not aimed at high end pro sports shooters. You know that full well.
@@stubones Have fun getting ripped off. There is a dslr lens with 120 300 2.8 from Sigma for 2k$. 12k$ is rip off. Utter nonsense.
@@michaelkaercher While I do feel the lens is slightly overpriced (given a straight up 300mm 2.8 would be about 7500, and add on the price of a 70-200 which is basically both of these lenses combined and you'd get the 100-300 it's this price) the 120-300 2.8 is not nearly as sharp as this lens, and also has horrible focus.
@@kpopfanphotos You are absolutely right. 7.500$ for a 300mm ist overpriced as well. No offense but the camera manufacturers try to rip off the customer base currently. I am a Nikon shooter and the 300mm is about 6500. A realistic price would be around 4500$. Still too expensive for a non-pro like me but acceptable.
A used 300mm for Nikon is about 800 to 2200. That is more my price range.
If you want to play, you have to pay. The RF 100-300 f/2.8L is a phenomenal lens and nothing else can compare to it.
🤣😂🤣😂 $9500 USD 😂🤣😂🤣 I can come up with entire kits (body and lenses), bag, computer and software for editing (photo AND video) that will produce images as good and still have money left over for pizza and beer.
I suspect anyone buying this lens isn’t pinching pennies like that. But you do you
@@JDMism it has nothing to do with pinching pennies but using the same money for nearly identical results and getting more bang for your buck. Sigma makes a 120-300 EF DG f2.8 lens. For MFT there's the Olympus Pro 40-150mm f2.8. Either of these lenses mated to a respective high perf body will provide comparable results for half the total cost of just this lens. Not saying this lens is bad in any way just Canon doing a Canon which is why most folks I know walked away from them.
@@rjakiel73 The RF autofocus speed and accuracy just murders anything else I’ve tried. If you’re using the lens to earn money photographing events, it is absolutely worth it.
I’m sure the Sigma picture quality is similar if it nails the focus, but I’ve never had a good experience with AF on third-party lenses.
There’s a reason the sidelines of every major sports event are lined with giant white tubes on monopods, but Nikon is a great alternative if you don’t like Canon
After all, Pizza & Beer are important.😅👍
$9.5k in the States, in EU much much more expensive. $14k in Poland 😂😂😂😂