You have to pick the right tool/lens for the job.Yeah, good tip. Another issue with these long primes is if a subject comes closer. With a zoom it is no problem. With a prime you need to move, or have another camera with another lens, or change the lens. So both things considered I think they are not very comparable.
Compact... Now let's be honest, that word is misused when describing these lenses. Just look at them when they're ready to shoot. (Note: I'm not "targeting" you for the use of the word but just used it as an example. Everyone seems to think/say they're compact. - No, no they're not.)I wonder how the performance compares to the 100-300. One thing is for sure. While certainly compact it is still about double the size of the 100-300.
More on this. It seems Nikon released a similar design 500mm f/5.6 PF (similar as Canon's DO) lens in Fall 2018. It cost something like 3600 $. Got Editor's Choice at Lenstip, although a con was bad performance against bright light, which is odd for such an expensive lens, can it be because of the design or why is it?Okay, well I wasn't talking about M43 at all in this case, just the new Canon lenses either on R5 or R6, meaning 45MP vs 20MP. And I think these budget lenses won't do justice to the 45MP sensor.
Even Lenstip tests the FF lenses for big MP and APS-C cameras for resolution on the edges, and many times the edges are not good enough for big MP cameras, unless the lens is top notch and expensive.
Indeed, the PF elements reduce weight and offer same performance as heavier, thicker non PF elements, but their drawback as noticed in all the reviews is not so great performance against a heavily backlit scene. But I believe lot of people would rather have a tiny and light proper 500mm that they can carry everywhere than hauling a giant hunk of a glass that 500mm f4 is for slight improvement in back-lit shoot.More on this. It seems Nikon released a similar design 500mm f/5.6 PF (similar as Canon's DO) lens in Fall 2018. It cost something like 3600 $. Got Editor's Choice at Lenstip, although a con was bad performance against bright light, which is odd for such an expensive lens, can it be because of the design or why is it?
Well, even if Canon mirrorless FF customers become disappointed with their telezooms low light performance, they can at least fix the problem by switching to MFTIt's amusing that I thought it was unlikely that "FF and slow" would become a real thing and yet here it is.
I'm a little surprised you see it as doom & gloom, I haven't witnessed such on this topic. Personally I shoot my 75-300mm at 300mm & f/6.7-8.0 (FF f/14-16), and it is great for me.I'm a little surprised about all of the doom and gloom about the long lenses here. I shoot the 100-400 @f/6.3 all the time. The light gathered by these full frame lenses is actually a little better than that. Fixed aperture and fixed focal length should be relatively easy to make sharp. They might be perfect lenses for someone to do some backyard birding. So you have to shoot higher isos to get the SS up, no biggie, the bigger sensor offsets that with respect to noise. At 800mm you'll still get subject isolation. I'm not in the market for these lenses, but if I were a Canon shooter, I'd give them a closer look.