Deciding between RF 70-200mm (2.8 Z) v RF 100-300 (2.8)

[mithishan]

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.

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.

(EDIT):

I am currently using a Canon R6mk2, I used to have a Canon r100 (thats why I had a RF-S on a FF…)

Current lenses I own:

- Canon RF 50mm 1.8 IS STM

- Canon RF 24-105 f2.8 IS USM

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

You actually have the order backwards .  The RF 100-300 f2.8 is over $10k.  The RF 70-200 Z is about $3k.  If you have the opportunity and can afford the RF 100-300, you don't need to save for the less expensive lens.  

I do not recommend using an RF-S lens on your full frame body.  No need to go into the reasons why.  

Something tells me that you may have made a typo.

Please review the model number of the lenses that you're considering.  RF 100-400, RF 100-500, etc.

[ebiggs1]

Is this a legit post? If it is, if I had the dimes to purchase the 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 Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens can to light.

The 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. <-- is that a word?