Canon's RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens promises to revolutionize telephoto photography with its unprecedented zoom range at a constant f/2.8 aperture. You're looking at a lens that could potentially replace multiple prime lenses in your kit, but the $9,500 price tag demands serious consideration.
Coming to you from Duade Paton, this comprehensive video puts the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens through extensive real-world testing over several days and more than 10,000 images. Paton makes it clear from the start that this isn't really a wildlife lens despite his testing focus. It's engineered for sports photography where that constant f/2.8 aperture shines in low-light conditions. The lens weighs a substantial 5.7 pounds, and when you add a camera body like the EOS R3, you're looking at nearly 9 pounds of handheld shooting weight. That's twice the weight of Canon's 100-500mm lens, which raises immediate questions about practicality for extended shooting sessions.
The video reveals some impressive features that set this lens apart from its predecessors. Paton highlights the preset/recall focus function as a boon for photographers who frequently lose focus to backgrounds. You can save a specific focus distance and instantly return to it with the press of a button. The autofocus performance is described as "blazingly fast" with dual Nano USM motors, and Paton managed a burst of 146 sharp images in succession. However, the lens becomes significantly more problematic when you start using teleconverters, particularly the 2x converter that extends the range to 200-600mm.
Key Specs
- Focal Length: 100-300mm
- Maximum Aperture: f/2.8
- Minimum Aperture: f/22
- Lens Mount: Canon RF
- Minimum Focus Distance: 5.9 feet / 1.8 meters
- Magnification: 0.06x to 0.16x
- Optical Design: 23 elements in 18 groups
- Image Stabilization: Yes
- Filter Size: 112mm
- Weight: 5.7 pounds / 2,590 grams
- Dimensions: 5 x 12.7 inches
Paton's testing reveals that while the lens performs exceptionally at its native focal lengths, the 2x teleconverter significantly compromises image quality when shot wide open at f/5.6. He found much better results stopping down to f/7.1 or f/8, but that defeats part of the purpose of having such an expensive, heavy lens. His comparison with the Sony 200-600mm shows the Sony delivering sharper results at 600mm, despite costing roughly one-fifth the price. For wildlife photographers specifically, Paton concludes he'd choose Canon's 100-500mm lens instead due to its lighter weight, lower cost, and sharp performance at f/7.1. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Paton.
I'm really not sure how Paton can say from the start this isn't a wildlife lens! After recently using the lens in Finland photographing wild brown bears I found the versatility of the zoom extremely useful. I certainly used the lens on a R5 as much as my 600f4. As wildlife photographers we aim to capture the animals we shoot in many different scenarios and this lens allows those options. I'm also lucky enough to own the 100-500 mm lens, which as Paton says is a fantastic lens at a great price, but shouldn't be compared to the 100-300, they are different beasts. For wildlife photography, where light can come at a premium, the f2.8 of the 100-300 was invaluable in the dark Finnish forests and I was able to get shots that the 100-500 would not have achieved, even with todays modern cameras with high iso performance. It is expensive, but if you are a serious wildlife photographer who has the available funds, it's a great lens that delivers astonishing results in the field and is a joy to use.
I believe when he says wildlife, he is referring mostly to small songbirds. Additionally he lives in Australia. In most (not all), of the situations occuring for him when photographing 'wildlife', the focal length would come up short :).
I agree with everything you are saying, but I think the bigger issue is that while 300mm is certainly long enough to do great work. (Go look at the work of Karolina Noree, for example, who shoots exclusively on 300mm) is that the fact that it is a 3x zoom which is much less necessary for wildlife, you won't often be shooting at 100mm. Imo the far better value is in a 300mm 2.8 prime, which costs much less money, has better image quality, and takes a 2x converter much better. The 100-300 2.8 is a sports lens, and that is where it thrives.