# Images and specifications for the upcoming RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & DM-E100



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 17, 2019)

> The specifications and images have leaked out for the soon-to-be-announced RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lenses and DM-E100 microphone.
> *Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Specifications:*
> 
> 17 elements in 13 groups
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 17, 2019)

wait... the 70-200 is not much bigger than the 85 1.2? damn I'm getting excited


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

The telescoping zoom makes me wish I'd kept my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, however, since I really don't need anything longer than a 135mm f/X.X I'll wait and see what comes out next year.

As far as the 85mm DS goes... I'm plenty happy with my current RF 85mm. I can't see any advantage in the sample photos I've seen. Not for me personally, anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

And the 85mm is heavier.


----------



## motofotog (Oct 17, 2019)

Those are lovely lens. 
I hope I get to buy 85mm one day... till then “Canon is *******”


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And the 85mm is heavier.


but damn it feels gangster to shoot with.


----------



## Canon1966 (Oct 17, 2019)

These look awesome if your going mirrorless. I have the EF versions...still great.


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 17, 2019)

70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?


----------



## IcyBergs (Oct 17, 2019)

The RF 70-200 weighs in at almost a full pound (420g) less than EF version. That alone has me chomping at the bit for a pro RF body.


----------



## Wardenmsp (Oct 17, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> 70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?


No, the 100-400 does too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> 70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?


No. Both 100-400's and the 70-300 L, along with the 35-350L and the 28-300L at least, I'm sure people can think of others.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The telescoping zoom makes me wish I'd kept my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, however, since I really don't need anything longer than a 135mm f/X.X I'll wait and see what comes out next year.
> 
> As far as the 85mm DS goes... I'm plenty happy with my current RF 85mm. I can't see any advantage in the sample photos I've seen. Not for me personally, anyway.


only like 1 photo has been released. dont even know if it is real or simulated.


----------



## amorse (Oct 17, 2019)

I've heard a lot about the concerns with the telescoping 70-200, but if I'm honest I am happy it telescopes to keep the pack size down so much. I'm sure there will be some risk with sucking particles of dust or water vapour into the lens, but I'd probably accept that for the packed size. I've never had an issue with my 24-105 or my 24-70 which both extend quite a bit. For those who have had issues, how frequent of an occurrence is it?


----------



## YnR (Oct 17, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> 70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?


No a few do it but most notably is the 100-400.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 17, 2019)

I'm currently trying to sell my 70-200 2.8L IS II. Hope I do before this drops, because for those who own R bodies, I think it'll make an impact! I think it weighing so little is a huge selling point even if the IQ is basically the same as the EF version III.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> only like 1 photo has been released. dont even know if it is real or simulated.


What I saw was two photos of the same girl. 1 with each lens. I don't know why Canon would simulate the difference in bokeh. They have the lenses. Look at the difference in the position of the left ear ring in relation to her head. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What I saw was two photos of the same girl. 1 with each lens. I don't know why Canon would simulate the difference in bokeh. They have the lenses. Look at the difference in the position of the left ear ring in relation to her head. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS


I might be alone but I’m not a fan of the bokeh on the DS lens. Maybe because it looks like the artificial bokeh on camera phones


----------



## navastronia (Oct 17, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> I might be alone but I’m not a fan of the bokeh on the DS lens. Maybe because it looks like the artificial bokeh on camera phones



I agree, I think it looks peculiar.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What I saw was two photos of the same girl. 1 with each lens. I don't know why Canon would simulate the difference in bokeh. They have the lenses. Look at the difference in the position of the left ear ring in relation to her head. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS


ok your right it might not be simulated and they are two different photos. I do find it strange they just put one photo out many months ago and thats all.


----------



## Nelu (Oct 17, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm currently trying to sell my 70-200 2.8L IS II. Hope I do before this drops, because for those who own R bodies, I think it'll make an impact! I think it weighing so little is a huge selling point even if the IQ is basically the same as the EF version III.


Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...


----------



## navastronia (Oct 17, 2019)

Nelu said:


> Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
> I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...



To tell you the truth, I bought it out of peer pressure and never liked the images it makes, especially past 135mm  I'm happier now with cheaper, lighter, faster primes on my EF bodies. However, if I can figure out how to make more income in the next couple of years, my dream setup is a 1D-level mirrorless, RF 35 1.2 (if we get one) and the RF 85 1.2. Those 3 together could run 10-12 grand including taxes, which, honestly, is no big deal. It's not like I need _both _kidneys.


----------



## Cochese (Oct 17, 2019)

YnR said:


> No a few do it but most notably is the 100-400.


And 70-300.


----------



## slclick (Oct 17, 2019)

Whoo, and I was thinking my Tammy 85 was heavy at 700g.


----------



## Danglin52 (Oct 17, 2019)

YnR said:


> No a few do it but most notably is the 100-400.



I think with modern lenses, dust is a non issue with lenses that extend. I have used my 100-400 II since it was released and have never had an issue with dust infiltrating the barrel. That includes many trips to wild areas and two 18 day trips to Africa. Maybe I am just lucky.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What I saw was two photos of the same girl. 1 with each lens. I don't know why Canon would simulate the difference in bokeh. They have the lenses. Look at the difference in the position of the left ear ring in relation to her head. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS



I'm going to wait on more reviews before deciding between the nonDS and DS versions. The lens is big and heavy. Yes, it can be used for many types of photographs, but it's really designed for portraiture, so I'd treat it as such. For that reason, I think the DS version is interesting. It softens the blur circles but makes them smaller, but it also tends to reduce the cat-eye effect toward the center of the frame. Sometimes I want the hard edge of the OOF highlights and sometimes I don't. I'd like to see how it affects the transition zone. It's too bad the effect can't be turned on/off, but I guess one can always go for the 85 DS to go along with the RF 50.


----------



## Danglin52 (Oct 17, 2019)

Nelu said:


> Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
> I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...



I actually sold my EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and replaced it with the 70-200 f4 L IS II. I am getting a little older and have been on a mission to cut some weight out of my wildlife kit. I am not ready to move to R until the R II or high mpx body is available, but I will give this lens a look. It is still heavier than the f4 II, but the weight reduction may put it back in my back when combined with an R body. I miss the f2.8 occasionally when the light is low, but have no regrets with the IQ of the f4 II. If only they would put my 1dx II and 200-400 on a diet!


----------



## navastronia (Oct 17, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> I think with modern lenses, dust is a non issue with lenses that extend. I have used my 100-400 II since it was released and have never had an issue with dust infiltrating the barrel. That includes many trips to wild areas and two 18 day trips to Africa. Maybe I am just lucky.



I hope your experience is typical! To me, the main thing I find bothersome is that extending lenses just don't feel as robust as non-extending lenses. They seem to always have a little wiggle that I find disconcerting. Does that ever bother you, or not at all?


----------



## shawn (Oct 17, 2019)

amorse said:


> I've heard a lot about the concerns with the telescoping 70-200, but if I'm honest I am happy it telescopes to keep the pack size down so much. I'm sure there will be some risk with sucking particles of dust or water vapour into the lens, but I'd probably accept that for the packed size. I've never had an issue with my 24-105 or my 24-70 which both extend quite a bit. For those who have had issues, how frequent of an occurrence is it?



Let's trust in Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.


----------



## shawn (Oct 17, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I hope your experience is typical! To me, the main thing I find bothersome is that extending lenses just don't feel as robust as non-extending lenses. They seem to always have a little wiggle that I find disconcerting. Does that ever bother you, or not at all?


I have the 28-70 RF and it is telescoping. It only has the smallest amount of wiggle when fully extended. You can't see it move but you can feel a faint click. I have no worries about it or the upcoming 70-200. I can only say I am excited for this new lens!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 17, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> 70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?



100-400


----------



## Jack Jian (Oct 17, 2019)

shawn said:


> Let's trust in *Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.*



One of the best and biggest system in the market for sports, wildlife and rough terrain photography/videography works and a brand that takes feedback only from field pros and you thought their engineering team may probably not thought of it? Like seriously? You think those engineering team is still in kindergarden? Forums always amazes me....LOL


----------



## navastronia (Oct 17, 2019)

Jack Jian said:


> One of the best and biggest system in the market for sports, wildlife and rough terrain photography/videography works and a brand that takes feedback only from field pros and you thought their engineering team may probably not thought of it? Like seriously? You think those engineering team is still in kindergarden? Forums always amazes me....LOL



That's exactly what he was saying. Not sure who or what you're arguing with


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Oct 18, 2019)

I am sure these are AMAZING lenses, but not exactly revolutionary. I would love a bold move from Canon in a longer zoom. If an unheard of before 28-70 f/2 is possible, then why not something crazy like 70-150 f/2?


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 18, 2019)

I went from using the 2.8 to the F4 IS as I found the 2.8 too heavy, this RF version is almost 400grams lighter than the EF mkiii and about 290g heavier than the F4 - Looks like I'll be going back to 2.8 (unless they bring out a lighter F4).


----------



## flip314 (Oct 18, 2019)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> I am sure these are AMAZING lenses, but not exactly revolutionary. I would love a bold move from Canon in a longer zoom. If an unheard of before 28-70 f/2 is possible, then why not something crazy like 70-150 f/2?



You may get your wish at some point, Canon already has patent applications for f2 portrait zooms









Patent: Full frame f/2 zoom, possibly for mirrorless?


A patent application showing an unusual f/2 zoom from Canon has appeared in Japan (Patent application: 2018-132675). It's possible that this zoom lens is rela



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Jack Jian (Oct 18, 2019)

navastronia said:


> That's exactly what he was saying. Not sure who or what you're arguing with


Okay, apologies.. maybe a misunderstanding from a language barrier, non-native English speaker here. LOL


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> I'm going to wait on more reviews before deciding between the nonDS and DS versions. The lens is big and heavy. Yes, it can be used for many types of photographs, but it's really designed for portraiture, so I'd treat it as such. For that reason, I think the DS version is interesting. It softens the blur circles but makes them smaller, but it also tends to reduce the cat-eye effect toward the center of the frame. Sometimes I want the hard edge of the OOF highlights and sometimes I don't. I'd like to see how it affects the transition zone. It's too bad the effect can't be turned on/off, but I guess one can always go for the 85 DS to go along with the RF 50.


You could always buy both.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 18, 2019)

Must have appalling focus breathing to only be 0.23x @ 0.7m, old lens does 0.25x @ 1.2m, this must be close to 100mm at mfd.

Only thing that's good is weight reduction. To see an 85 f/1.2 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 shows we've entered a parallel universe


----------



## dominic_siu (Oct 18, 2019)

RF70200 even lighter than my RF2870! I’m eager to see how compact it is


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> but damn it feels gangster to shoot with.


Yes it does. The 28-70 is a monster, even bigger than the 85.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> I might be alone but I’m not a fan of the bokeh on the DS lens. Maybe because it looks like the artificial bokeh on camera phones


I don't like it either. You are not alone.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

flip314 said:


> You may get your wish at some point, Canon already has patent applications for f2 portrait zooms
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for this. I completely missed the post. I hope it gets produced. This is a dream zoom for me. Happy, happy, happy!


----------



## Act444 (Oct 18, 2019)

Wow. Almost 400g lighter than the EF version. That's significant.



Nelu said:


> Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
> I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...



Having a pair of EF IIs, looking ahead I could possibly see letting one of them go in favor of the RF version. Not both though!


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2019)

The lenshood is actually white. Wow. Canon is a fashionista now


----------



## amorse (Oct 18, 2019)

shawn said:


> Let's trust in Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.


I have no doubt they've thought of it, but it's a concern I've heard raised many times though I've never experienced it. I was more curious if anyone had first hand experience with a telescoping lens actually being damaged due to drawing something into the lens barrel that didn't belong there, considering that I've never heard of an example where it actually happened.


----------



## shawn (Oct 18, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Must have appalling focus breathing to only be 0.23x @ 0.7m, old lens does 0.25x @ 1.2m, this must be close to 100mm at mfd.
> 
> Only thing that's good is weight reduction. To see an 85 f/1.2 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 shows we've entered a parallel universe



Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.


----------



## jdavidse (Oct 18, 2019)

Gonna have to buy this just for that new hood.


----------



## Tirmite (Oct 18, 2019)

Not that anyone should care what my opinion is, but here's my 2 cents: I don't like the way extending lenses look. Just seems cheap, like a less expensive design method or cheaper engineering. I like internal focusing/zooming designs, persoally. I like the compact size but had decided to keep my EF v.II and just use it with the adapter. BUT... now that CR posted the photo with the hood I'm changing my mind. First time I've seen that photo. So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood. It won't look like an inferior 3rd party lens after all (at least when the hood is attached). May seem trivial, but we're in the image business. Photography is about visuals. I don't want gear that looks like a Tamron or Tokina when I'm paying top dollar for Canon L lenses. Same reason I'll pay more for an Apple laptop because it not only engineered well, but it's got a durable metal case and a beautiful aesthetic as well.


----------



## Tirmite (Oct 18, 2019)

Are those photos sized proportionally? Not sure it is actually that size is it?


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 18, 2019)

Tirmite said:


> I don't like the way extending lenses look. Just seems cheap, like a less expensive design method or cheaper engineering.


Sorry but it goes the other way around.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 18, 2019)

shawn said:


> Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.



With it being an extending lens now they could have fixed that. Focus breathing tends to be worse in fixed length design.


----------



## exkeks (Oct 18, 2019)

Tirmite said:


> So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood.



No, the first EF 24-70L reached its full extension @ 24mm, while being fully retracted @70mm. According to the leaked images, the RF 70-200L does it the usual way (i.e. fully extended @ 200mm). Thus it would not make sense to hide the tube inside the lens hood, as the lens would have nearly no straylight protection @ 200mm then. Furthermore one can clearly see that the lens hood is going to be mounted on the extending tube and not on the lens body.


----------



## TheJanster (Oct 18, 2019)

Any news on an R-Extender? What about that switchable 1.4/2? With the 70-200 this would be a nice fit...


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2019)

I


CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't like it either. You are not alone.


yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though 
However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background 
I am personally would go for the DS. stopped down, it would act like a normal lens but a bit slower by 1.5 stops approx. That's what, T2.0?
I see an opportunity for Artistic souls here. buduar, nude, portraiture and studio.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Thanks for this. I completely missed the post. I hope it gets produced. This is a dream zoom for me. Happy, happy, happy!


If they do that. I would never use primes again for photos.


----------



## Stuart (Oct 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I
> 
> yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though
> However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background
> ...



Artistically I like the softer bokeh of the DS, I feel the harsh out of focus circles of the NonDS are almost celebrating the pure physics of how much Bokeh you can get, but in turn this them means the Bokeh is distracting. Throwing the background out of focus is usually to help the viewer focus on the subject. Bokeh wise i like the DS.
However i'm less of a fan of the light loss in this fast lens, and also the apparent deeper DOF effect this then gives. Its not a clear cut issue for me. I'd (hypothetically) not go for the DS as low light and shallow DOF would usually be preferable over potential for distracting Bokeh that i could post process away. 
As above - I want to see more image examples in different light scenarios.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2019)

I can use some deeper DOF in portraiture to keep ears and tip of the nose of my subjects in focus


----------



## lovelife (Oct 18, 2019)

Cons in my opinion:
- will be less weather resistant then the internal design as there is more regions needed to cover (traveling zoom barrel is a source of lens contamination)
- more stress on zooming mechanism when one bumps in the lens with zoom on 200mm with the hood attached (not much force needed to damage it as the lever length is so big)
- attaching and removing the hood especially at lower temperatures will again stress the zoom mechanism
Last two will cause a failure in the guides of the zoom barrel rather sooner than later.

The internal design is More robust and weather proof to me so I do not see reasons to sacrifice it for a smaller lens.
This lens is not bought by amateurs anyway so again why? To have less complaints about the weight? 

I could be totally wrong about the performance aspect of this design which is unknown for now and which does worth the longevity sacrifice - but does not calm my pessimism about the design anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 18, 2019)

With the new hood it looks like a baby version of one of the big whites. I am looking forward to it and it'll be permanently attached to a EOS R (Or some new EOS R with CF Express, I really want one card format). 70-200 is really handy to have at the ready when your main camera is sporting something huge and unwieldy when some small animal gets close.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 18, 2019)

shawn said:


> Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.



That is not possible and is not true. The calculated FL at mfd is 172mm for the mk II/III. For the new RF I've now calculated FL = 106mm. These were calculated with well known equations.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 18, 2019)

The 70-200 has a nice hood...which has just made me laugh. In the shop...and in a camera bag, with the hood reversed, this lens will be quite compact. However...in actual use...with the hood on...the lens will be as big and bulky as the EF version.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 18, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The 70-200 has a nice hood...which has just made me laugh. In the shop...and in a camera bag, with the hood reversed, this lens will be quite compact. However...in actual use...with the hood on...the lens will be as big and bulky as the EF version.



But it's the transport size and weight what actually matters, no? I don't care if my tiny EOS M transforms into an 1DX in my hand, as long as i can keep it in my pocket when i'm travelling.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 18, 2019)

The DS wasn’t for me either.. I thought it looked less pleasing and with less blur. And it will be a very tough secondhand sale if that should happen.

never thought I’d be even slightly interested in a 70-200 again


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The DS wasn’t for me either.. I thought it looked less pleasing and with less blur. And it will be a very tough secondhand sale if that should happen.
> 
> never thought I’d be even slightly interested in a 70-200 again


RF lenses are Viggo's krytonite... and mine too!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 18, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> RF lenses are Viggo's krytonite... and mine too!


Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.


----------



## neonlight (Oct 18, 2019)

But it's got a white lens hood!
Why couldn't they make a white one for the 100-400?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I
> 
> yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though
> However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background
> ...


I think I'll rent one and check it out when they are available. Unfortunately boudoir is not in my quiver at this time.


----------



## shawn (Oct 18, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> That is not possible and is not true. The calculated FL at mfd is 172mm for the mk II/III. For the new RF I've now calculated FL = 106mm. These were calculated with well known equations.


My info is from a discussion on Dpreview.com... cant validate its truthiness. However I have also read that it is entirely possible for a lens to focus breath longer than its infinity focal length. Im still not convinced either way!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.



Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS. That is enough for me. Now I really need a "pro" R body so that I can sell my 5D4 and some EF glass to recoup my RF expenditures.


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 18, 2019)

lovelife said:


> Last two will cause a failure in the guides of the zoom barrel rather sooner than later.


Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.

So nearly every zoom lens ever made.


----------



## peters (Oct 18, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> 70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?


No, for example the 100-400L extends =)


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 18, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Canon knocks it out of the ballpark again.
Crushing the competition.
Fast versatile 70-200 f2.8.
Smaller and easy to transport in your bag, no wasted materials.
Like using a carbine length vs a rifle length without giving up any of the power of the rifle.
Canon innovates and does listen.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2019)

I really like the look of the bokeh of the DS, much more so than the very traditional 'regular' 85. The loss of 1.5 stops seems excessive but when you are using 1.2 it isn't as bad as say a 2.8 or f4 aperture, that f1.2 is effectively a T2.0, still not bad.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 18, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Example of how great this is.
the lens is 37.74 oz vs the 52.21 oz Sony lens.
Huge savings and it is about 50mm shorter as well.
Canon is really making mirrorless smaller and lighter where Sony can not do this it appears.
Again Canon shows the way and leads the pack.
Sorry Sony trolls.


----------



## AlP (Oct 18, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS.



Although I generally agree, it also has slightly lower coma and much lower distortion. Might not be relevant for everybody, but at least for distortion the improvement is massive.
And, at least for me, 15 mm at f/2.8 with low coma makes my 15 mm Irix lens redundant, meaning that I can use one lens for all wide-angle requirements. Let's just hope that the zoom mechanism doesn't deteriorate too much over the years as otherwise the lens might change focal length when pointed upwards at 15 mm during long exposures...


----------



## shawn (Oct 18, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.
> 
> So nearly every zoom lens ever made.



I can appreciate that people are used to internally zooming 70-200's, as even the 3rd party ones are internal zooming, but I think this is actually a better solution for 90% of photographers. 

I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and while it is a great lens it is freaking heavy and I often choose not to bring it with me when I go on non job related trips because it's just not worth the energy it takes to lug it around.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

neonlight said:


> But it's got a white lens hood!
> Why couldn't they make a white one for the 100-400?


The actual extending shaft has barber pole stripes.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Example of how great this is.
> the lens is 37.74 oz vs the 52.21 oz Sony lens.
> Huge savings and it is about 50mm shorter as well.
> Canon is really making mirrorless smaller and lighter where Sony can not do this it appears.
> ...


Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.


----------



## Joules (Oct 18, 2019)

I recently got an old Nikon lens, a 70-210mm 4.0 - That thing zooms internally, but extends when focusing  So for those complaining, it could be worse: You could have the length of an internal zoom with the vulnerability of a extending design.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.


Surely it is. The added inertia is very useful to keep the subject framed while operating a camera with Sony ergonomics.


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 18, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Surely it is. The added inertia is very useful to keep the subject framed while operating a camera with Sony ergonomics.





CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.


Obviously weight is a key performance spec in holding paper down


----------



## Sparky (Oct 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> wait... the 70-200 is not much bigger than the 85 1.2? damn I'm getting excited


This short Adorama video shows the presenter holding the new 70-200. Just try to contain yourself, eh?  It looks like a great lens...!


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 18, 2019)

Sparky said:


> This short Adorama video shows the presenter holding the new 70-200. Just try to contain yourself, eh?  It looks like a great lens...!


Is it disconcerting to anyone else that there doesn’t seem to be working models reviewed?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> Is it disconcerting to anyone else that there doesn’t seem to be working models reviewed?


Nope.


----------



## Sparky (Oct 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> Is it disconcerting to anyone else that there doesn’t seem to be working models reviewed?


No not really, all the manufacturers put restrictions on the use of pre-production kit. I tested the RF 24-70 today and the test images look great, from a technical viewpoint! The colours are nice, it’s really sharp and focuses fast. I am buying it tomorrow and shooting a wedding with it in the afternoon.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 19, 2019)

OK, the size and weight of the RF 70-200/2.8 have certainly got my attention. Might be the first of the RF lenses which makes me seriously consider the R system (although I'm sure I'm still not going to like the price!). Looking forward to reviews and sample images to see how it performs.


----------



## SteB1 (Oct 19, 2019)

A minimum focus distance of 70cm for a magnification of only 0.23x suggests that there is going to be a lot of focus breathing on the RF 70-200mm f2.8. The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II/III achieve 0.21x at 120cm, a whole 50cm further away.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 19, 2019)

#Zoom.creep.drives.me.nuts

My EF 100-400 II L does it all the time. I hope RF 70-200 is a zoom creep free lens.please! )


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 19, 2019)

SteB1 said:


> A minimum focus distance of 70cm for a magnification of only 0.23x suggests that there is going to be a lot of focus breathing on the RF 70-200mm f2.8. The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II/III achieve 0.21x at 120cm, a whole 50cm further away.


By calculating the angle of view (from sensor), knowing the distance and size of subject, I get about 160mm focal length at MFD.
For L IS III that is ~250mm.


----------



## BillB (Oct 19, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> By calculating the angle of view (from sensor), knowing the distance and size of subject, I get about 160mm focal length at MFD.
> For L IS III that is ~250mm.


I don't think that the L IS III has an effective focal length of 250mm at mfd. should be less than 200.


----------



## Yasko (Oct 20, 2019)

The RF mount is a huge money making scheme . At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2019)

Yasko said:


> The RF mount is a huge money making scheme . At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
> Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
> I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.


Everything, absolutely everything, about business is about making money. Always has been. Always will be. FD mount was. EF mount was/is. RF mount is. So is Valentine's and Mother's day.

However... more consideration goes into making mama a card than buying one off the shelf.

Not everyone who buys into a camera system has a lot of money and takes on such a challenge lightly. Only the wealthy can do that.


----------



## Ale_F (Oct 20, 2019)

My practical 2c on weight and size:

EF 70-200 2.8III: 88.8 x 199mm x 1480g + 890g (5D4) = 2370g
EF 70-200 4.0II: 80 x 176mm x 780g + 765 (6D2) = 1545g
RF 70-200 2.8: 89.9 x 146mm x 1070g + 660g (R) = 1730g

12% heavier than a 6D+F4 and more compact with high aperture.


----------



## shawn (Oct 20, 2019)

Yasko said:


> The RF mount is a huge money making scheme . At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
> Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
> I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.



What is a smiley supposed to mean in the context of calling something a scheme? 

Canon is trying to offer a product that competes well in a saturated market. What do you want them to do, give it away for free?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

AlP said:


> Although I generally agree, it also has slightly lower coma and much lower distortion. Might not be relevant for everybody, but at least for distortion the improvement is massive.
> And, at least for me, 15 mm at f/2.8 with low coma makes my 15 mm Irix lens redundant, meaning that I can use one lens for all wide-angle requirements. Let's just hope that the zoom mechanism doesn't deteriorate too much over the years as otherwise the lens might change focal length when pointed upwards at 15 mm during long exposures...



That's a pretty easy fix: gaffer's tape or a "lens band" that is nothing more than one of those rubber wrist bracelets with a slogan on it that are so popular (and cheap). My EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS has had zoom creep for years. I use one of those wrist bands placed half on/half off the zoom ring and it doesn't budge due to gravity yet is still easy to twist with my fingers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

BillB said:


> I don't think that the L IS III has an effective focal length of 250mm at mfd. should be less than 200.



Most testers that measured it put the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II zoomed all the way to 200mm at around a 196mm FoV at MFD. When focused at infinity and zoomed all the way to 200mm, the measured FoV is actually about 189mm. So the FoV actually _narrows slightly _as the lens is focused closer. This is in direct contrast to the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, which _expands_ the FoV significantly as it is focused closer. Zoomed to 200mm the FoV when focused at infinity is about 195mm, but when focused at MFD, the AoV expands to a 140mm or so equivalent angle of view.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> That is not possible and is not true. The calculated FL at mfd is 172mm for the mk II/III. For the new RF I've now calculated FL = 106mm. These were calculated with well known equations.



Your equations are probably based on the premise of a single thin lens with no real thickness (which doesn't actually exist). Internal focusing compound lenses with the likes of 23 lens elements in 19 groups can vary greatly depending on which side of the back focal plane the moving element(s) are located. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and III actually _narrow_ the FoV as the lens is focused closer. Zoomed all the way to 200mm: at infinity the observed AoV is equivalent to 189mm, at MFD the observed AoV is equivalent to 196mm.


----------



## Xavitxaung (Oct 21, 2019)

Nice specs for a 70-200mm zoom range, the top is the weight and MFD.


----------



## JuanMa (Oct 21, 2019)

I seriously think that Canon is struggling with these lightweight lens designs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2019)

JuanMa said:


> I seriously think that Canon is struggling with these lightweight lens designs.


How?


----------



## JuanMa (Oct 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How?


The telescoping zoom design don't convince me too much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2019)

JuanMa said:


> The telescoping zoom design don't convince me too much.


The EF 70-300L and 100-400L II have the same design, as do the standard (24/28-xx) L zooms for RF and EF.


----------



## JuanMa (Oct 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF 70-300L and 100-400L II have the same design, as do the standard (24/28-xx) L zooms for RF and EF.


I’m certainly wrong on this, but I have always considered telescopic zooms as cheap compromises. Dust filtration and solidity are among my fears with that kind of lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 21, 2019)

JuanMa said:


> I’m certainly wrong on this, but I have always considered telescopic zooms as cheap compromises. Dust filtration and solidity are among my fears with that kind of lenses.


I don't see how it is much cheaper to manufacture, but the ease of storing in a bag seems to be a preference among many here. Personally, with a few "critical" lenses such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, I don't mind needing some extra space to accommodate a more dust and weather resistant design, but Canon has a different agenda from any individual photographer!


----------



## shawn (Oct 22, 2019)

JuanMa said:


> I’m certainly wrong on this, but I have always considered telescopic zooms as cheap compromises. Dust filtration and solidity are among my fears with that kind of lenses.


It means they can make a better lens for less money. How is that bad?


----------



## ehouli (Oct 22, 2019)

Oh well after seeing the telescopic zoom of the RF 70-200 2.8 L, well... I can see dust specs everywhere! that was my experience with the EF 100-400 mk II.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Oct 23, 2019)

Not all that worried about a few dust specs.

I am sure it has been posted but worth re-posting 









Removing a Fly from ‘Weather Sealed’ Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II


I've been doing lens stuff for a long time now. Long time. Trust me; it's hard to remain polite the 843,911th time some newbie goes into hysterics because there's dust in their lens. Telling them it doesn't matter a bit, and that all their other lenses have dust they just can't see ( because...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## navastronia (Oct 23, 2019)

Ramage said:


> Not all that worried about a few dust specs.
> 
> I am sure it has been posted but worth re-posting
> 
> ...



As long as they don't make it to the sensor . . .


----------



## Yasko (Oct 25, 2019)

shawn said:


> What is a smiley supposed to mean in the context of calling something a scheme?
> 
> Canon is trying to offer a product that competes well in a saturated market. What do you want them to do, give it away for free?



The smiley doesn‘t „mean“ so much at all.
New mount = new lenses = a lot of money made in this case. Nothing else I wanged to say.
It‘s not like I‘m stupid, of course business is about money, but I will keep my EF lenses for a good bit of time, and I have to give it to Canon, they even added functionality to the, via their adaptors. It‘s all fine, we‘re not doomes.

How did you come to the conclusion that I thought they should give it away for free?
It‘s just that I take it with a grain of salt. Especially the new design of the 70-200 I don‘t like very much. Besides the advantages over the older EF model, judging without Images, afaik there aren‘t any available and I am not a pixel peeper.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 17, 2019)

First samples of IQ on the 70-200 are up on TDP.









Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Unfortunately no apples-to-apples comparison with the EF version. 

But, against the RF 24-70 at 70mm 2.8:









Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





IMO, slight edge to the 70-200.

Against the RF 28-70 f2 at 70mm 2.8:









Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Closer but I'd say the 70-200 has slightly better corners.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 17, 2019)

Act444 said:


> First samples of IQ on the 70-200 are up on TDP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of which follows Uncle Roger's "Law of Zoom Relativity", even when they're not wide angle zooms.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2019)

ef 70-200 /2.8 II at the 70mm end is on par with RF 70-200 besides in the extreme corners where RF lens looks better.
at the tele end, RF lens wins in mid frame and corners.
however, at the 135mm, I favour the EF lens in corners and centre.
I am keen to see some bokeh samples of the RF lens at various FLs. really keen.


----------



## Dj 7th (Nov 21, 2019)

Hello all,


----------



## flip314 (Nov 21, 2019)

Dj 7th said:


> Hello all,



I'm jealous.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 21, 2019)

ehouli said:


> Oh well after seeing the telescopic zoom of the RF 70-200 2.8 L, well... I can see dust specs everywhere! that was my experience with the EF 100-400 mk II.



I bought one of the very first 100-400 II zooms, used it often in dusty and wet environments (Northern American deserts, Wales and Scotland), and don't have any dust or fungus issues...
I never stow it away wet, or without caps, but don't even use a filter. 
Sorry for you!


----------



## Act444 (Nov 22, 2019)

Dj 7th said:


> Hello all,



Cool, let us know what you think if/when time allows. Are you going to be using it with an R or an RP?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 16, 2019)

Dj 7th said:


> Hello all,



They've already got the coffee mug version out?


----------



## Tirmite (Jun 27, 2021)

Tirmite said:


> Not that anyone should care what my opinion is, but here's my 2 cents: I don't like the way extending lenses look. Just seems cheap, like a less expensive design method or cheaper engineering. I like internal focusing/zooming designs, persoally. I like the compact size but had decided to keep my EF v.II and just use it with the adapter. BUT... now that CR posted the photo with the hood I'm changing my mind. First time I've seen that photo. So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood. It won't look like an inferior 3rd party lens after all (at least when the hood is attached). May seem trivial, but we're in the image business. Photography is about visuals. I don't want gear that looks like a Tamron or Tokina when I'm paying top dollar for Canon L lenses. Same reason I'll pay more for an Apple laptop because it not only engineered well, but it's got a durable metal case and a beautiful aesthetic as well.


FOLLOW UP: Well, I bought it anyway. I don't care for the way it LOOKS as it extends when at any setting other than 70mm but the lens PERFORMS great. It's incredibly lightweight compared to the EF version, it's very sharp, and the trap door in the lens hood is handy in case a mouse crawls in your hood. Might also be handy for rotating a polarizer filter. : ) I assign ISO to the custom function ring so at events I can rapidly adjust exposure when panning from brightly lit stage areas to dark audience areas. Kind of pricey but worth every penny IMHO.


----------

