RF 100-300 F2.8 or RF 70.200 F2.8Z with TC

[TheLaird]

Just back from safari and had excellent results with my RF 100-500 on my R3. However I used a EF 400 F2.8 for a couple of drives and really felt the difference of the F2.8 in terms of light. Not really the reach but the light and DOF.

I have done 5 safaris in the past few years so understand the travel issues with carry on luggage and not really wanting to go down prime route as that would limit what I can take vs focal length, so was thinking about a RF 100-300 F2.8. It is pricey for sure but I could probably justify that. However what about the RF 700-200Z F2.8 and TC. OK that goes to F4 with the TC but it is a 1/3 of 100-300 price.

Anybody got thoughts on this?

 

[Helidoc]

I have the RF100-300 2.8,With the 1.4 TC, it does drop to F/4, I shoot a lot of Aviation stuff with it.
I’ve been extremely impressed…I had the EF300 2.8, and honestly I do miss using it. Primes have their advantages.
I’m not sure what exactly your needs are, as I totally understand about the traveling. My son works for American Airlines, and I’ve encountered problems of no overhead room. That said, my son has told me that backpacks they will let me onboard without needing overhead space.
This is all said, as I searched for a bag to carry my 100-300 2.8, and slide under the seat…I have found the right bag…
RF70-200Z, with 1.4 TC, Maybe is the option, maybe you could rent to see.
I had to travel to an Airshow, but I own the 70-200 2.8 L, and I can’t attach a TC to it…I was lacking distance for sure..
But this year, because my search for the right bag, I’m going to be able to slide my 100-300 2.8 under the seat if necessary, because it will fit..
I got caught at the door of the plane, with my rolling camera bag, and they stopped me, and said no more overhead space, my roll on bag had to go to cargo bay.
I wasn’t happy, so I grabbed my lenses, and body, and carried them to my seat..praying that my flash units would be ok..
Seems like it’s getting worse traveling with gear, before when I traveled with gear to a workshop wasn’t even an issue, plenty of overhead.
Anyway didn’t mean to be long..

 

[Fordsabroad]

I am in exactly the same situation. I travel.from the UK to Africa on safari fairly frequently and weight and size are always a concern for carry on luggage. I am always over weight but so far have never been challenged. The 100-300 is considerably heavier and larger than the 70-200. I think the latter with extenders is the safest option.
I do occasionally travel with the EF 400DO ii f4 which is a a decent lens and not too heavy.
Another option, if you are not in a hurry. See what the new R7 mk 2 offers. It will be far cheaper and lighter than the lens and will give similar cover.

 

[CyberDyneSystems]

I always pack a 500mm f/4 for Africa. If cost were no object, I'd go RF 400mm f/2.8. My second body packs a 100-400mm.

Not really what you asked, but just to illustrate my point of view. Comparing the 70-200 to a lens costing 3x seems odd, But if cost is not a factor, then I'd 100% choose the one that's 300mm at the long end.