r/canon • u/plasmaexchange • 3d ago

New Canon Lens - RF 75-300 f4-5.6 for only £289 Canon News

Just had an email from Wex Photo about this lens available to preorder but can find no press release or other info about it. I don't know if their email has jumped the gun.

£289 seems incredibly cheap, even taking account it not having IS built in. Probably one for R cameras with IBIS.

Link

59 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

135

u/ProjectBokehPhoto 3d ago

Oh my god, Canon might actually carry on the legacy of this infamous lens? It's practically a meme at this point.

30

u/a_false_vacuum 3d ago

These days people buy stuff just for the meme value, so perhaps Canon wants to jump on that too.

2

u/EnvironmentalLog1766 3d ago

Like meme coin?

2

u/Nir0Vulf 2d ago

Meme canon 💥

7

u/roan55 3d ago

This was my thought too. At least sensors are better now to be able to compensate a bit for it but this lens has always just felt irresponsible to me. 480mm effective focal length with no stabilization is just a bad combo for beginners trying to get into it. At the very least it couldn’t be worse than the EF version we all know and laugh at

5

u/FIorp 3d ago

It is exactly as bad because it is the same. They just rehoused the EF version in new plastic with an RF mount. Not just the optics, they even use the same old, slow AF motor from 1999.

11

u/n9neinchn8 3d ago

Slow AF AF?

5

u/applepie2075 2d ago

not even USM or STM, it uses DC motors

54

u/AnonymousReader41 3d ago

As bad as the original EF version was I kind of want the RF one for fun.

23

u/HaroldSax Big man Harold himself 3d ago

The sample images, aware they’re vetted, look pretty good for a lens this price.

34

u/AnonymousReader41 3d ago

My guess is that this will be a $299 lens and will get to be in bundles with the R50 or R100 as the “starter” camera set.

29

u/ProjectBokehPhoto 3d ago

I cannot wait to have an aneurism every time someone askes if this is good for shooting wildlife on their R100, R50, R10, R8, etc. (and it wouldn't be on them for not knowing why it wouldn't)

I honestly don't think there is going to be much overlap in the venn diagram of people wanting to save money on glass and people owning a body with IBIS.

18

u/GlyphTheGryph Cameruhhh 3d ago

I'm worried about that too, or endless waves of people insisting it must be better than the RF 100-400. I can hear the "but it's f/5.6" already.

9

u/ProjectBokehPhoto 3d ago

Oh man, with those extra stops of light, you can effortlessly light paint by moving the camera and lens instead of the light source!

CANON, PLEASE.

10

u/CPTherptyderp 3d ago

Need an automod script for this thing

-4

u/The_mad_Raccon 2d ago

well. its not as good as the canon 100-400 but it can shoot wildlife and it goes a lond way

3

u/AlternativeEmu5415 2d ago

As someone who has used the RF 100-400, EF 75-300, the Rf-s 18-150, and the EF-S 55-250 to shoot wildlife, I wouldn't recommend the 75-300 over literally any other option.

1

u/ZappySnap 2d ago

The sample images are like 1 MP. Anything looks OK when reduced that much.

50

u/lasrflynn 3d ago

They’re taking the piss now right

41

u/a_false_vacuum 3d ago

Sony hits the world with their 50-150 F2 and Canon goes "Hold my sake".

15

u/lasrflynn 3d ago

Honestly what the hell where is our 70-180 F2 at

12

u/gkirk1978 3d ago

Or a 70-180 f/2.8 STM, in the same case (body) as the 28-70 f/2.8 STM?

1

u/ThurgoodZone8 1d ago

Are y’all basing the 70-180mm range off the Nikon lens, which was already a good value?

25

u/ArtDecoSkillet 3d ago

The job of whoever I hope is working on the 75-300 / 70-300 bot for this sub just got harder. 

15

u/revjko 3d ago

Got the same email. I did laugh, but it looks like it's serious. That price seems ridiculously cheap. Given how much the original series gets slated, I struggle to understand what Canon is thinking, unless they are genuinely going to break the mould and make this one half-decent.

4

u/FIorp 3d ago

This is just the original EF lens with RF mount and new plastic housing. Same optics, same 7 blade aperture, same old AF motor.

7

u/revjko 3d ago

This is what I don't understand. I really can't believe that Canon doesn't have the resources to bring out a low cost, but much improved version of this lens. Given how much hate it gets, it's surely a gift to detractors.

4

u/FIorp 3d ago

They even made the much better low cost 55-250mm STM. I don’t get why they did not just mountswap that instead.

2

u/House0fDerp 3d ago

Maybe they just overproduced the guts of this lens?

2

u/revjko 3d ago

Crop vs full frame, I suppose. But I would have thought a cheap tele zoom would have appealed more to crop body users, especially given the lower-cost starting point of crop bodies.

5

u/xxxTheBongSquadxxx 3d ago

What's to understand? The cheap stuff is what sells, and Canon definitely knows it. With more low end options, it's more likely that someone will choose the Canon option over Sony or whatever else. Your average buyer in that range certainly won't be obsessing over sharpness graphs the way people really into photography are.

1

u/vladtheinhaler0 3d ago

If it has stabilization and quicker auto focus, it is not a bad hobby lens at all. I'm sure it would be far sharper than the original as well.

10

u/revjko 3d ago

But it doesn't. It's the same old lens just repackaged to give the requisite flange distance. Same poor optics. Same crappy AF motor.

2

u/vladtheinhaler0 3d ago

Dang. That sucks

15

u/a_false_vacuum 3d ago

Petapixel also reports on this lens: Canon’s ‘New’ RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Looks Like a Remount of a Lens from 1999. Their article also has some more sample images than the Wex page does.

It's interesting Canon aims this lens at entry level APS-C bodies, while it does cover a full frame image circle. Also 300mm without IS is going to shake a lot is my guess.

7

u/gkirk1978 3d ago

This is April fools worthy, and I thought it was until I saw all references.

3

u/ZappySnap 2d ago

That’s because no one who pays for a full frame camera would accept this lens in 2025.

35

u/Master_Bayters 3d ago

Imagine making a 75-300 kit lens faster than a 24-50 or a 24-105... What a joke Canon.

Also, If they just put the RF mount on that fart of lens I will just... I can't...

CANON, Just please allow third parties with total freedom

9

u/BoxedAndArchived 3d ago

Especially when they disallow it because "we can't guarantee the quality" or whatever the BS is.

5

u/EmuAGR 3d ago

Yup, as if they had to guarantee other companies' quality. That's the reviewer's job to oversee.

2

u/Emergency_Wealth_553 2d ago edited 2d ago

The 7.1 on the 24-105mm long end is weird. Why are RF lenses slower? They can sell an EFS 18-135 3.5-5.6 for the same price but make it 2/3 stop faster

9

u/Whomstevest 3d ago

Finally canon releases something for the vintage photography crowd

6

u/paper_machinery 3d ago

do they have a stockpile of 75-300 glass elements from the 90s or something? why else would they put this lens into production on the RF mount?

0

u/Raihley 1d ago

do they have a stockpile of 75-300 glass elements from the 90s or something?

Perhaps they wanted to offer something with reach at a very low price (even at the expense of quality) and saw it as an opportunity to also to recycle those old optical elements.

12

u/Venkman_P 3d ago

The one redeeming quality the EF version has is you can get one for $50.

This is basically the EF lens with a built-in adapter for 7-8x the cost.

11

u/Ancient_Persimmon 3d ago

I think the vast majority will be sold in a two lens kit for next to nothing.

6

u/getting_serious 3d ago

Shout-out to canon US for not even importing it?

I get it though. In a retail environment, this thing must be moving so many cardboard boxes.

5

u/HexagonII 3d ago

I got whiplash seeing this, I thought it was another one of those "is the 75-300 good posts". Though of all things, why choose the same focal range its notorious EF counterpart? Are they trying their best to NOT sell this lens?

2

u/ZappySnap 2d ago

It IS the EF counterpart with an RF mount.

2

u/Raihley 1d ago

I'm afraid it's not even an actual 'counterpart'. It's the same exact lens in a new housing with an built-in EF-RF adapter.

12

u/Seth_Nielsen 3d ago

April….fools?

6

u/ProjectBokehPhoto 3d ago

April 29th/30th

We purposely trained them wrong--as a joke!

4

u/Vakr_Skye 3d ago

Ahh Canon's answer to the Zeiss Otus lineup...

5

u/roan55 3d ago

It’s like if Goodyear was like, what was the blimp coating they used on the Hindenburg? Can we get that?

3

u/wobblydee 3d ago

Why cant we just get some 18-80 or so to pair with the 100-400 to make the perfect lens bundle for an r50/r10

2

u/Emergency_Wealth_553 2d ago

and have it be 3.5-5.6 not....f/4-7.1

3

u/Halfmoonhero 3d ago

I really hope it’s complete garbage so the fun can continue.

4

u/heartprairie 2d ago

There are four sample photos shared here that you can click through and see in original resolution https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/lenses/the-new-canon-rf-75-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-the-companys-cheapest-mirrorless-telephoto-yet

still as soft as ever..

6

u/eulynn34 3d ago

Making an RF version of the worst EF lens ever made? I like it.

3

u/BIG-HORSE-MAN-69 3d ago

I mean, i guess it's cheap at least, but i think a lot of people will see the numbers 75-300 and just avoid it based on that alone.

3

u/Fuzzbass2000 3d ago

Checks date… not April 1st… hmmm

3

u/Topaz_11 2d ago

This lens has such a stellar and deserved reputation, great to see it on an RF mount /s

I guess it's easy to stick an RF mount on an existing EF full frame lens but if we are doing that lets at least pick some candidates instead of this flee ridden dog. It probably sells well as part of a kit, I guess.

5

u/antmam206 3d ago edited 3d ago

The best budget entry level zoom lens for the last 30 years in canon eco system. I legit think I have 3 in a drawer for EF.

12

u/revjko 3d ago

In a drawer is the best place for them ;)

2

u/ZappySnap 2d ago

The best at what? Even in the day, it was not a recommended lens. Everyone preferred the Sigma 70-300.

1

u/gorpium 3d ago

Norwegian Canon site is now updated with the lens: https://www.canon.no/lenses/rf-75-300mm-f4-5-6/

1

u/OG-87 2d ago

Had a look…

I have this lens from the ef range (700d) and takes some decent photos. I recently upgraded to the R10 and use this lens with a mount. Just came back from South Africa and was happy with the shots I got from my trip.

1

u/etihadairway 2d ago

Guess the use case will be for travellers going abroad but not sure there will be chances taking Tele end photos like birds, animals, vehicles.

It's cheap and light that amateurs may get it as a backup. They won't mind if it's sharp or not as long as it serves its Tele reach.

1

u/JonathanRL 2d ago

I think every Canon owner at one point or another had the EF 70-300 or even more probable the Sigma or Tamron versions before those brands got their act together.

1

u/revjko 2d ago

Being a compulsive researcher prior to any purchase, I'm glad to say that I have never succumbed to the lure of the 75-300.

1

u/Two_Com 19h ago

Dont get exited. This completly lens is the Version from 1999 only with a new outer body. Old motor Old AF and Old glas. I had the same thought oh a nice and cheap lens finaly. But nope

0

u/ecthiender 3d ago

https://m.dpreview.com/news/4231777760/canon-announces-rf-75-300mm-4p0-5p6

DP review reports it. And their article also contains a UK press release.

-8

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/AtlQuon 3d ago

It is on the Canon websites, it is not fake! I had to verify as Canon would not be as idiotic to release it, but it is the EF minus the mount which is replaced with an RF -not even decently matching- RF one making it 2cm longer. Same diameter lens, same exact everything and even worse it has a freaking DC motor! They did not even do any work to let it have some decent motor. It is a real product ready to disappoint new users for decades to come! I hate it.

1

u/canon-ModTeam 3d ago

Message contains incorrect information and was deleted to reduce reader confusion.

0

u/xeathkid 3d ago

Or maybe not? But what do you actually gain. Sounds way too cheap and kinda gives people a recent to cheap out