<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8) in Gear Guide</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596491#M4244</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Is this a legit post? If it is, if I had the dimes to purchase the&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens, I would already have it in my formerly stop bath stained hands. Like yesterday. I begged Canon to make that lens for years. Just like I wanted Canon to make a 150-600mm that they never did. But they are forgiven now since the&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens can to light.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is a fantastic lens perhaps the best zoom lens made period. But the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is even fantasticer. &lt;EM&gt;&amp;lt;-- is that a word?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:42:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ebiggs1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-05-22T15:42:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8)</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596466#M4236</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I currently have a awkward dilema, I have the opportunity to purchase the Canon RF 100-300 2.8, or save money and purchase the 70-200 Z. I am making a huge jump in telephoto lens, from having a RF-S 55-210.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am using a Canon R6mkII, and am constantly in concert and sport photography. I could use the distance of the 300, but I want to see which one is the smarter option in the long run.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(EDIT):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am currently using a Canon R6mk2, I used to have a Canon r100 (thats why I had a RF-S on a FF…)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Current lenses I own:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Canon RF 50mm 1.8 IS STM&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Canon RF 24-105 f2.8 IS USM&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 09:54:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596466#M4236</guid>
      <dc:creator>mithishan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-22T09:54:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8)</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596475#M4238</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You actually have the order backwards .&amp;nbsp; The RF 100-300 f2.8 is over $10k.&amp;nbsp; The RF 70-200 Z is about $3k.&amp;nbsp; If you have the opportunity and can afford the RF 100-300, you don't need to save for the less expensive lens.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I do not recommend using an RF-S lens on your full frame body.&amp;nbsp; No need to go into the reasons why.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Something tells me that you may have made a typo.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please review the model number of the lenses that you're considering.&amp;nbsp; RF 100-400, RF 100-500, etc.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 11:51:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596475#M4238</guid>
      <dc:creator>shadowsports</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-22T11:51:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8)</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596491#M4244</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is this a legit post? If it is, if I had the dimes to purchase the&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens, I would already have it in my formerly stop bath stained hands. Like yesterday. I begged Canon to make that lens for years. Just like I wanted Canon to make a 150-600mm that they never did. But they are forgiven now since the&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens can to light.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is a fantastic lens perhaps the best zoom lens made period. But the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is even fantasticer. &lt;EM&gt;&amp;lt;-- is that a word?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:42:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596491#M4244</guid>
      <dc:creator>ebiggs1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-22T15:42:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8)</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596510#M4248</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/3485"&gt;@ebiggs1&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is even fantasticer. &lt;EM&gt;&amp;lt;-- is that a word?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It is now Ernie and I plan on using it!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 18:22:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/Deciding-between-RF-70-200mm-2-8-Z-v-RF-100-300-2-8/m-p/596510#M4248</guid>
      <dc:creator>March411</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-22T18:22:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

