A new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is coming

[Del Paso]

I wouldn't call a lens with such a price a lens for hobbyist...

Why not?
Many hobbyists buy extremely expensive gear.
PS: don't tell my wife...

 

[neuroanatomist]

for me, the only thing that spoke in favor of trading in my EF mark ii for the RF was the size in the bag. However, I own the EF mark ii, it takes great photos. net, the cost to trade up isnt worth it and the new lens is a no-go on my 5DIV.

The RF version delivers better IQ than the EF version, in a smaller and lighter package. I might feel differently if I still used a DSLR, but when I switched from the 1D X to the R3 as my primary camera, swapping many of my lenses made sense.

This comparison was done by a friend on his R5 with his adapted EF MkII and my RF, these are 200mm f/2.8 and the top one of each pair is the EF MkII.

 

[David - Sydney]

Right there with ya, the RF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS was actually what pushed me over the edge to buying an EOS R5 and switching to mirrorless. It's life changing having a 70-200mm the size of a 24-70mm, and I couldn't possibly look back. Definitely makes my 100-400mm feel like a massive lens in comparison when I bring it along.

I totally get the sports argument, though I shoot plenty of sports for newspapers with the RF 70-200 and don't personally feel like it's ever gotten in my way. That said, I definitely get know what they're talking about, as the original EF 70-200 had a super short throw on the zoom ring which was nice.

+1 I bought the RF70-200/2.8 on special before I even had a R body (I had the R5 on advanced pre-order) just because of the size/weight. No dust pump.

I just wonder whether existing EF body/EF 70-200/2.8 users have ever tried the RF versions or whether it is just welded to their perceptions of weather sealing etc and previous extender zoom issues. They can already adapt their EF to a R body so I am not sure that is the reason. Eye-AF is more than enough to bring sports shooters to use R bodies.
I believe that the RF70-200/2.8 is slightly less sharp than EF70-200/2.8 but certainly sufficient for my use cases.

 

[David - Sydney]

Unlike the EF versions, the RF is small enough and light enough that I almost never use the tripod ring.

+1 The tripod ring for the lens sits at home.
The combination is light enough that I can use the tripod mounted to body if needed. Not ideal weight distribution but the ball head is more than up to it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Same here. Maybe I'll get some discounts on the Mk I

I am not convinced that this is a mark I vs II scenario. Surely Canon will keep both available but as @neuroanatomist mentions, there isn't precedence for 2 different concurrent L lenses besides DO as far as I know.

 

[David - Sydney]

I still prefer the EF L lens build quality and materials over the RF.

Well, the paint chips around the EF mount showed a flawed use of materials. It didn't affect image quality but looked awful. No issues with the new RF materials

 

[john1970]

It will be interesting to see what the new design offers. As others have previously mentioned I wonder if it will be built to be compatible with the upcoming 1.4/2.0 x switchable TC. If so, I could see this being an addition to the line up. For me personally, I really prefer the current compact 70-200 mm f2.8 lens.

 

[Bdbtoys]

I wonder how many people would own both. Compact for your R5... big one for your R3/R1.

If the new 70-200 can use the TC's (at any focal length)... it's an easy "both" for me. There are times I use the current as a walkabout lens due to its size. But there are times I wish I had a bit more, but not enough to grab the 100-500. I can use the 100-500 for shorter walkabouts, but once I put a TC on it, it becomes more of a stationary endeavor (walking around w/ barrel extended most of the way makes me uneasy). Given the TC's are small, having one lens that can do 70-200/2.8, 98-280/4 (w/1.4TC), or 140-400/5.6 (w/2.0TC) is very temping.

 

[Walrus]

Why not?
Many hobbyists buy extremely expensive gear.
PS: don't tell my wife...

Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the words I would say "Extremely rich" hobbyists buy "extremely expensive gear"
The average hobbyist, or just "hobbyist" in short, would likely prefer, and be able to afford, a middle range superzoom like the 100-400.
Probably in Italy we have a different perception of the word "hobbyist" then other countries

 

[scyrene]

I presume you mean OIS (lens IS). Given that the lens gets 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS, I don't see that it needs it. Of course, that means no stabilization on my R8, but using the 28-70/2 on my R8 is an ergonomic nightmare anyway. From a technical standpoint, I expect it was excluded for good reason – there's so much glass in that barrel as it is, adding IS would have been quite a challenge in an already large/heavy lens.

View attachment 211737

Two diaphragms??

 

[scyrene]

Maybe it'll be a 70-200 f/2

 

[UpstateNYPhotog]

So I've been a working pro for 33 years, plus some AP stringing in college. I've owned the non IS 70-200, the IS II and IS III. The optics of the version II and III EF lenses were leaps and bounds better than the non IS 70-200. Just bought an RF 70-200 about 10 days ago. I was a newspaper pj for 26 years. Now I mostly do events and portraits for higher ed. I traded for the weight. Sometimes I'm handholding for 6 hours a day. My chiropractor is now cancelling his upgrade plans for a new carbon fiber bike. I'm so happy with the weight loss. I find the stiffness of the zoom a bit of an issue, but I'm used to it after a few jobs. I did find out it can make a loudish clunk when you hit the end of the zoom extension. Not a good thing if you are trying to be quiet at piano recital. For all you nerds out there I had both lenses in hand for a couple of day before I sold the EF Mark III. The EF lens was not quite 70mm at the short end. I suspect it's more like 73 or 74mm. There was a noticeable gap switching from the long end of the 24-70 RF. The RF 70-200 is probably more like actually 70mm at the short end as it's almost an exact match for image size as the long end of the RF 24-70. But at the long end if the EF lens is 200mm, I suspect the RF is more like 193-194mm. Very few lenses are ever precisesly what they are billed as. I remember back in the day camera magazines used to measure that. Image quality is very similar. The EF lens might have slightly smoother falloff on the out of focus points, but unless you were shooting them side by side you'd never notice it. I might miss the loss of teleconverter compatibility, but I almost never used it as I still own a circa 1994 300 2.8, heavy, tack sharp, but I don't care so much about the weight as it's always on a monopod. The other big benefit of the small RF lens is if I do switch lenses to use something like a fast 135mm, or an 85, the RF70-200 is much easier to store in a fanny pack with the hood in place. Couldn't do that with the EF one, especially with an adapter on it. As others have said Canon needs to get it together with lens back caps only fitting one way and better mount alignment dots on the lenses. I just went through all my RF backcaps and put light colored masking tape with a black Sharpie mark on them so I can find the alignment in the dark. Also Canon makes only single alignment caps for the EOS M system, but a Sigma back cap for that system fits all three ways. I suspect that someone could make a killing making replacement EOS RF rear caps that fit three ways.

 

[PinholeR5]

I've had my RF 70-200 F2.8 for just under 2 years and this happened. I've had four EF versions since the 80-200 back in 1991 and never had this happen. They need to up their game and use higher grade materials. On that note, bring back the easy to see/feel raised red lens mount dot. My aging eyes can's see that recessed pink line, and my muscle memory is rooted in twisting EF lenses without hardly looking. Preferred the EF back caps too, since they didn't need to line up. But that's gone forever. Rant over...

View attachment 211736

Yep, the caps are annoying.

I also had some issues with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8. It bumped on the grass with the hood hitting the grass as the plastic stool I was using broke. it was attached to an R5 and hanging on my side on a shoulder strap. The "fall" to the grass was only ~50cm. The filter attachment ring on the lens cracked around the screws and shifted outwards. I was able to reposition it and it seemed to still be working. However, when I looked at the images later they seemed to be a bit softer. I sent it to Canon and they had to replace that as well as some internal elements/mechanics that had shifted.

I had the EF 70-200 f/2.8 III before the RF. I had plenty of bumps like that with the EF version and nothing ever happened. Of course, this is all anecdotal, but I do feel the RF version is much less robust.

I do enjoy the compactness of the RF version, but I would love to have the more robust internal zoom design of the EF version. The TC compatibility is also a big difference.

I can see both being useful.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I had the EF 70-200 f/2.8 III before the RF. I had plenty of bumps like that with the EF version and nothing ever happened. Of course, this is all anecdotal, but I do feel the RF version is much less robust.

Also anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in Uncle Rog and he’s handled and repaired many (!!) lenses. These are excerpts from the summary of LensRentals’ RF 70-200/2.8 teardown:

It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. … You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.

There are some of you who are going to scream about how you want metal lenses. OK, Boomer, go get you a metal lens and show us how strong you are. On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy.

This is going to hold up better than a metal lens, it’s probably sturdier, and it weighs far less.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

70-210 never existed with constant 2.8, it will be a 70-200 and I do not think there is any reason to discontinue the current one either.

Patent: Inner zoom RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200mm f/4

Canon News has uncovered a patent with optical formulas for an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. What's interesting about this patent is that both designs a

www.canonrumors.com

Well, there is an RF 85 f/1.2 and and RF 85 f/1.2 DS.
Having two different lenses with the same focal lengths and apertures would not be unprecedented.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Huh? IBIS on a lens?

Those birds will land just about anywhere

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I agree with you. The current extending lens is great for most hobbyists who appreciate the lighter, more compact size, but for the rough and tumble of journalistic professional use I can see the non extending design being much preferred.

I know professionals who could not be happier with the RF 70-200 f/2.8.
Just because people are in the same profession does not mean they have to be the same.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Well, there was also rumour about a new extender that can be switched to 1.4x or 2.0x but who knows if it is compatible

There is more than one patent but the one I saw would fit on most any lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am not convinced that this is a mark I vs II scenario. Surely Canon will keep both available but as @neuroanatomist mentions, there isn't precedence for 2 different concurrent L lenses besides DO as far as I know.

DS

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the words I would say "Extremely rich" hobbyists buy "extremely expensive gear"

There are professions that make a lot more money than photography so it does make sense.
I get shocked whenever I see a professional portrait photographer using Leica.