# The RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS



## Larsskv (Nov 22, 2019)

I am excited to report that I have received my RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS today. 

I love the size and weight of it. The EOS R and the RF 70-200 is shorter than the 5DIV with the 200 f2.8 LII attached. It balances nicely even without the battery grip.

The IS seems to be outstanding. The build appears to be top notch.

The AF is very fast, and it is very quiet.

With regards to image quality, I haven't been able to take any serious test pictures yet, but I did some hand held indoor test shots for checking the far corner performance, and it seems to do great at f 2.8 at all focal lengths.

For those of you who have read the pre review made by the digital picture, you may have noticed that Bryan complains about missing steel bearings for the tripod ring. I for one appreciate Canons decision on the construction of the tripod ring; the lens is designed with the priority of not using it. By that I mean that the lens has no physical elements (steel bearings) sticking out when the mount is of, making the lens look and feel much nicer when the tripod ring is detached. Those of you who use a 70-200 on a tripod will definitely agree with Bryan though...

After playing with I have little doubt that this lens is a slam dunk for Canon.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 24, 2019)

Thank you for letting us know about your first impressions. 

Please keep us updated wit hmore info and first sample shots.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 25, 2019)

This is not the time of year for outdoor photography where I live, but I got a few shots this weekend. Nothing exciting, but perhaps better than nothing:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2hQT2fr


__
https://flic.kr/p/2hQWwuw


__
https://flic.kr/p/2hQWwuS

In real world use, I find the lens to be sharp at all focal lengths, all the way to the corners. 

I did take some family portrait photos with it as well. I am not sharing those, but I can honestly say the ones I did take look really good, and I am spoiled with the RF 50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2. 

So far I have only praise for this lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> This is not the time of year for outdoor photography where I live, but I got a few shots this weekend.


It's all about taking the time to find an interesting subject. Even in autumn.



> Nothing exciting, but perhaps better than nothing:


At least the duck pic is really great. Good light, good colors, I can see, how the bokeh is behaving.
Good eye 



> I did take some family portrait photos with it as well. I am not sharing those,


Fully agree and understand. Same opinion here.



> but I can honestly say the ones I did take look really good, and I am spoiled with the RF 50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2.


That sounds really great. 

Thanks for sharing and have a lot of fun with that piece of glass.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 4, 2019)

I had a chance to look at the 70-200 the other day. It’s a highly interesting lens, even for me. But, is the IS suppose to be so slow to engage? I tried holding the camera very still before engaging also, but I had to wait 3-5 seconds before the viewfinder image was properly stabilized. The vertical IS engaged faster, so thought maybe the camera thought I was doing panning or something, but it was in mode 1. I’ve noticed this before if I’m moving a bit too much when engaging IS, but even standing very still it took forever...


----------



## ChrisAT (Dec 5, 2019)

Has anybody noticed frontfocus issues on the RF 70-200. Mine has frontfocus at 200m, F2,8 and distance near or less 1 meter.
The frontfocus is 5 mm approximately.

German and american forums have also lot of posts about this issue.
Also the new firmware 1.0.5 did not solve the issue.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2019)

ChrisAT said:


> Has anybody noticed frontfocus issues on the RF 70-200. Mine has frontfocus at 200m, F2,8 and distance near or less 1 meter.
> The frontfocus is 5 mm approximately.
> 
> German and american forums have also lot of posts about this issue.
> Also the new firmware 1.0.5 did not solve the issue.


Yeah, I also read about that. Seems like it’s a real issue since it’s already a lot of people experiencing it. It seems the issue and AF is incredibly consistent so the AF is at least very, very good. I’m sure it will be fixed with a lens firmware and the issue is gone.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 6, 2019)

I briefly handled an RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS in a shop today. I haven't really given it a proper test of course, but it seemed awesome to me. The lesser size (when retracted) and weight compared to the EF versions really did feel very substantial. It's almost enough to make me get over my dislike of EVFs and get an EOS R!  Maybe if/when the RF gear gets a bit cheaper it might just be the thing which gets me there yet.

PS if there is any front focus issue, like Viggo I assume Canon will get it sorted out before too long


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2019)

jd7 said:


> I briefly handled an RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS in a shop today. I haven't really given it a proper test of course, but it seemed awesome to me. The lesser size (when retracted) and weight compared to the EF versions really did feel very substantial. It's almost enough to make me get over my dislike of EVFs and get an EOS R!  Maybe if/when the RF gear gets a bit cheaper it might just be the thing which gets me there yet.
> 
> PS if there is any front focus issue, like Viggo I assume Canon will get it sorted out before too long


I felt the same way about it, 0.7m mfd, it’s small and lighter than my 85, seems like nicer bokeh than the EF’s, so I’m tempted .. I’m also tempted by the other 2/3 of the trinity ..


----------



## jdavidse (Dec 7, 2019)

ChrisAT said:


> Has anybody noticed frontfocus issues on the RF 70-200. Mine has frontfocus at 200m, F2,8 and distance near or less 1 meter.
> The frontfocus is 5 mm approximately.
> 
> German and american forums have also lot of posts about this issue.
> Also the new firmware 1.0.5 did not solve the issue.



Mine has the issue. I sent mine into Canon and am waiting to hear back. Not sure what my next move will be when it comes back the same- obviously if this issue is universal it needs a firmware fix. But do I hang onto the lens and hope for the best, or just send it back for a refund and buy it much later?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 7, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Mine has the issue. I sent mine into Canon and am waiting to hear back. Not sure what my next move will be when it comes back the same- obviously if this issue is universal it needs a firmware fix. But do I hang onto the lens and hope for the best, or just send it back for a refund and buy it much later?


Would greatly appreciate if you post here when you hear from Canon


----------



## Dockland (Dec 7, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, I also read about that. Seems like it’s a real issue since it’s already a lot of people experiencing it. It seems the issue and AF is incredibly consistent so the AF is at least very, very good. I’m sure it will be fixed with a lens firmware and the issue is gone.



I thought fornt- and back focus issues were eliminated with mirrorless? Is that just a myth?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 7, 2019)

Dockland said:


> I thought fornt- and back focus issues were eliminated with mirrorless? Is that just a myth?


Not really, it’s not an issue with the RF50 and RF85 and it wasn’t with any of my EF glass either. That’s why the concern with the 70-200 also, it’s something wrong.


----------



## Dockland (Dec 7, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Not really, it’s not an issue with the RF50 and RF85 and it wasn’t with any of my EF glass either. That’s why the concern with the 70-200 also, it’s something wrong.


Ah, ok, I thought it was "inpossible" due to no mirror, but if some lenses are faulty it's hopefully that.


----------



## Muggili (Dec 8, 2019)

ChrisAT said:


> Has anybody noticed frontfocus issues on the RF 70-200. Mine has frontfocus at 200m, F2,8 and distance near or less 1 meter.
> The frontfocus is 5 mm approximately.
> 
> German and american forums have also lot of posts about this issue.
> Also the new firmware 1.0.5 did not solve the issue.


 See too :

I noticed the front focus at f 2.8 200mm - 160mm , distance about 1 meter !
That's really, really obvious that something ist going wrong with the focus ( focus in the eyebrow not the eye..),

It's a real expensive lens and it was expected to be fantastic. I expect there will be lot's of reviews /youtube in the new weeks and I hope, they take care of this huge problem and Canon will react quickly with firmware updates. But...

hard to believe, that Canon didn't notice the front focus-problem yet.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 8, 2019)

Muggili said:


> See too :
> 
> I noticed the front focus at f 2.8 200mm - 160mm , distance about 1 meter !
> That's really, really obvious that something ist going wrong with the focus ( focus in the eyebrow not the eye..),
> ...


Have you sent a report to Canon? If no one does they don’t know it’s an issue.


----------



## Muggili (Dec 8, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Have you sent a report to Canon? If no one does they don’t know it’s an issue.


I started to make test photos and I will document my complain.
It seemed that several owners did this as well. ( fredmiranda forums , dp ,German DSLR forum )


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2019)

JUST SPOTTED the RF 70-200 IN THE WILD!

Ok, on TV. A photographer behind a witness named Goldman during the House Judiciary impeachment proceedings, about 11:25 am EDT. I noticed right away she was holding a very stubby white lens on a Canon body with a low profile bulge on top. Then she zoomed and the lens extended.

So, this shows not only is there confidence in the new lens, but in the EOS R. Yes, I grumbled about a single card slot, blah, blah, blah, but I bought it anyway!

So, for all the R naysayers, all I can say is, "Grow up, and nani-nani booboo."


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I had a chance to look at the 70-200 the other day. It’s a highly interesting lens, even for me. But, is the IS suppose to be so slow to engage? I tried holding the camera very still before engaging also, but I had to wait 3-5 seconds before the viewfinder image was properly stabilized. The vertical IS engaged faster, so thought maybe the camera thought I was doing panning or something, but it was in mode 1. I’ve noticed this before if I’m moving a bit too much when engaging IS, but even standing very still it took forever...


I tried my RF 70-200 just now. At first, I thought your suspicion could be correct, until I realized that the IS is engaged when I look through the EVF, and that I don’t need to click the shutter button to engage it. It became very obvious when comparing to the 200 f2.8 LII that I have, and when turning the IS off on the RF lens. So, no. I don’t think the IS is slow to stabilize.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 9, 2019)

Muggili said:


> See too :
> 
> I noticed the front focus at f 2.8 200mm - 160mm , distance about 1 meter !
> That's really, really obvious that something ist going wrong with the focus ( focus in the eyebrow not the eye..),
> ...



I took a few test shots with my RF 70-200 just now, all of them hand held, at close distances at 200mm. From what I can see, the focus isn’t all that consistent. Some where in perfect focus, others where slightly out of focus. I can’t rule out user error, but it seems that focus can be a bit hit and miss at close focus distance, and 200mm.

I haven’t had enough experience with the lens to tell if this will be an issue for me, or not.

Edit: I did a better test, sitting down supporting my hands. At 200mm and 0,7 meters, I get sharper focus when using MF and focus peaking. When using AF in the same scenario, it does seem to front focus a few mm. The sharpness difference though, isn't that significant. I am not sure I would ever notice it if I didn't look for it. The "out of focus" shot still shows much finer detail than I am able to see when using my own eyes, going as close as I can. I doubt that this will be a real world issue to me.


----------



## Muggili (Dec 10, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I took a few test shots with my RF 70-200 just now, all of them hand held, at close distances at 200mm. From what I can see, the focus isn’t all that consistent. Some where in perfect focus, others where slightly out of focus. I can’t rule out user error, but it seems that focus can be a bit hit and miss at close focus distance, and 200mm.
> 
> I haven’t had enough experience with the lens to tell if this will be an issue for me, or not.
> 
> Edit: I did a better test, sitting down supporting my hands. At 200mm and 0,7 meters, I get sharper focus when using MF and focus peaking. When using AF in the same scenario, it does seem to front focus a few mm. The sharpness difference though, isn't that significant. I am not sure I would ever notice it if I didn't look for it. The "out of focus" shot still shows much finer detail than I am able to see when using my own eyes, going as close as I can. I doubt that this will be a real world issue to me.


I tried to do a test 1meter distance, tripod. And I used a sort of "scale".
I am really really enthusiastic with the Canon r , my RF 35 and the RF 24-70mm are superb. 

But to be honest, there rest some doubts about the RF 70-200mm lens and I will be sure if this huge amount of money will be worth it, or better to send the lens back...


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 10, 2019)

Muggili said:


> I tried to do a test 1meter distance, tripod. And I used a sort of "scale".
> I am really really enthusiastic with the Canon r , my RF 35 and the RF 24-70mm are superb.
> 
> But to be honest, there rest some doubts about the RF 70-200mm lens and I will be sure if this huge amount of money will be worth it, or better to send the lens back...



Since the focus peaking in the camera can accurately show best focus, I would be surprised if this AF issue can’t be solved with a firmware update. 

In any instance, I have very rarely need to shoot at 200mm at closer distances than a meter, and if I do, and focus is critical, I can most often rely on focus peaking. 

This issue is annoying, of course, but it shouldn’t be a deal breaker to most of us.


----------



## Memdroid (Dec 10, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Since the focus peaking in the camera can accurately show best focus, I would be surprised if this AF issue can’t be solved with a firmware update.
> 
> In any instance, I have very rarely need to shoot at 200mm at closer distances than a meter, and if I do, and focus is critical, I can most often rely on focus peaking.
> 
> This issue is annoying, of course, but it shouldn’t be a deal breaker to most of us.



While true, it should not be acceptable on a brand new $3000 lens. I'll jump on this as soon as the FW update is available.


----------



## jdavidse (Dec 11, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Would greatly appreciate if you post here when you hear from Canon



Canon has had my lens in the shop for 4 business days. They called me today to explain that they cannot reproduce the problem and the lens tests out perfectly fine. She confirmed that they tested it at 2.8 and at all focal lengths and at MFD. I am very skeptical. However that is their verdict so they have shipped it back to me and it arrives tomorrow.

I will run the tests again tomorrow when I get it. I fully expect the problem to still be there.

I didn't follow the drama too closely on the 600mm III, but I've read that after 7 months they finally released a firmware update, after telling everyone during that time that the lens was within spec. It's funny because I do believe this is the first time I've jumped on being an early adopter.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Canon has had my lens in the shop for 4 business days. They called me today to explain that they cannot reproduce the problem and the lens tests out perfectly fine. She confirmed that they tested it at 2.8 and at all focal lengths and at MFD. I am very skeptical. However that is their verdict so they have shipped it back to me and it arrives tomorrow.
> 
> I will run the tests again tomorrow when I get it. I fully expect the problem to still be there.
> 
> I didn't follow the drama too closely on the 600mm III, but I've read that after 7 months they finally released a firmware update, after telling everyone during that time that the lens was within spec. It's funny because I do believe this is the first time I've jumped on being an early adopter.


Thanks for the update! So sorry they’re not going to do anything, sadly that’s not the only case of exactly that happening... I was a VERY early adopter when the 1d3 came out, they denied it all forever also. Finally they had a lot of firmware and hardware fixes, but only helped slightly..


----------



## jdavidse (Dec 11, 2019)

Just got the lens back and ran some tests. Lens has the same issue. Details over at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63408625

I have a bad feeling about the outlook here.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 12, 2019)

You made it to PetaPixel also, it’s getting out there, so they’ll have to address it sooner or later.

https://petapixel.com/2019/12/11/us...s-with-the-brand-new-canon-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8/


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 12, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Thank goodness I have the ef version II and my 5D IV. For now. I'm sure the issue will be addressed, but until then, I wouldn't buy one, and if I had one still in a return-policy period, I'd send it in and wait for the refresh. If enough people follow suit, it has more effect on Canon than PetaPixel!
> 
> Untill all is worked out, I just have to get by with the ef version on my old-school dSLR. Here's an example, minimum focus distance, AF point on her lips. ISO 200, f/2.8, 1/250th, 88mm. Last month.
> 
> ...



A nice picture! However, and other than that, I think it is time for some perspective. Your EF 70-200 has a mfd of 1,2 meters. The RF version has a barely real world noticeable issue at 200mm at 0,7 meters, that fades away and is more or less gone at 1,0 meters, so the RF version actually does at least as good as the EF version when shooting at the same parameters. 

And I would like to add that I found no issue at all at mfd and 135mm with the RF lens. 

This “issue” shouldn’t be a show stopper for the most of us.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> A nice picture! However, and other than that, I think it is time for some perspective. Your EF 70-200 has a mfd of 1,2 meters. The RF version has a barely real world noticeable issue at 200mm at 0,7 meters, that fades away and is more or less gone at 1,0 meters, so the RF version actually does at least as good as the EF version when shooting at the same parameters.
> 
> And I would like to add that I found no issue at all at mfd and 135mm with the RF lens.
> 
> This “issue” shouldn’t be a show stopper for the most of us.


Maybe Canon overstated the MFD specs for the entire focal-length range? But tried to make it work anyway?


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 13, 2019)

just thinking. the dual focusing group - first time ever utilised in this lens by Canon... could this be the source of the issue? would a forum member with optical engineering background be available to comment?


----------



## SaP34US (Dec 13, 2019)

The camera don't have the right firmware to completely communicate with lens yet.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Dec 14, 2019)

News on the issue here:





__





Firmware update coming to address Canon RF 70-200 focus issues at MFD


Canon has acknowledged focusing issues with the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at its minimum focusing distance and is preparing a firmware update to address the issue, it looks like Canon will get this update out as soon as possible. Canon News was the first to aggregate the issues some...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 14, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I felt the same way about it, 0.7m mfd, it’s small and lighter than my 85, seems like nicer bokeh than the EF’s, so I’m tempted .. I’m also tempted by the other 2/3 of the trinity ..



I compared the RF 70-200 with the RF 85 today, taking a few hand held portraits of my daughter. As far as portraits go, that 85 is so damn good that I will have a hard time choosing the 70-200 over it, unless I know I will need the flexibility the zoom provides. If I needed to prioritize, I would save my money for the RF 24 mm f 1.x that I expect next year.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I compared the RF 70-200 with the RF 85 today, taking a few hand held portraits of my daughter. As far as portraits go, that 85 is so damn good that I will have a hard time choosing the 70-200 over it, unless I know I will need the flexibility the zoom provides. If I needed to prioritize, I would save my money for the RF 24 mm f 1.x that I expect next year.


Haha, oh yes, I wouldn’t trade my 85 for the 70-200, or anything else really. But, AF I suspect the 70-200 is much faster and better, and that is always good.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

Does ANYONE leave the tripod ring on this lens that's such a handy hand-held shooter. 6" long and under a kilo.

I'd suggest they knock $50 off the price and charge $100 for the ring.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 11, 2020)

Ouch.. what happens when you need a tripod mounted lens for a longer exposure? O-o...


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Ouch.. what happens when you need a tripod mounted lens for a longer exposure? O-o...


 
Same as with any one-kilo lens like the 85 or a mid range zoom. You use the camera’s tripod mount screw.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 12, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Same as with any one-kilo lens like the 85 or a mid range zoom. You use the camera’s tripod mount screw.


At 200mm extended it would apply quite a bit of a torque to the mount resulting in a poor balance on tripod. 
From that perspective, I suggest that Tripod mount is nice to have feature when on tripod.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 12, 2020)

Too bad no reviewers report this easily measured data. In reality, the 200 extension does not shift the center of mass alarmingly.

Using a highly calibrated "balancing across a finger" test, the lens has a center of mass 3.0" forward of the flange when fully retracted and 4.0" forward when fully extended. 1.0" (within a 1/16th) shift. No biggie. The torque applied to the mount is about 0.50-0.67 foot pounds.


----------



## Flyingskiguy (Jan 17, 2020)

Here's me skiing with the R + RF 70-200. Phenomenal lens - it's size and weight let me bring it out skiing when before I would have only taken a 24-105. It's been getting covered in snow, ice, and sweat for weeks now on a photo/ski trip in interior B.C. Functioning flawlessly in temps well into the -20s F. Very, very happy.


----------

