# Here’s the upcoming Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM zooming in and out



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 10, 2019)

> A lot of people were still holding out hope that the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM would have an internal zoom like its EF brother. Sometimes hope overpowers common sense.
> In the above video at the 45-second mark (the video has been removed, below is a gif from the video), you can see the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with an external zoom.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## CollegePhotographerClay (Oct 10, 2019)

I personally am very okay with the lens zooming externally as long as I can fit a real 70-200 2.8 in a small bag. The ergonomics of this lens look amazing.


----------



## LDS (Oct 10, 2019)

Unless Canon had invented some special stretchable material, it was expected.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2019)

that material called DO in Canons talk 
On another note : the second ring... is that a manual focusing or control ring?


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 10, 2019)

is there no control ring on the 70-200?


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 10, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> is there no control ring on the 70-200?


 From old photos of prototypes the control ring sits between tripod collar and lens mount.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> that material called DO in Canons talk
> On another note : the second ring... is that a manual focusing or control ring?


I wonder if its switchable, since many will never use manual focus and real estate is limited.


----------



## honestlo (Oct 10, 2019)

at 0:45 sec, min focusing distance, 0.7m, WOW !!


----------



## edoorn (Oct 10, 2019)

CollegePhotographerClay said:


> I personally am very okay with the lens zooming externally as long as I can fit a real 70-200 2.8 in a small bag. The ergonomics of this lens look amazing.



yeah thinking the same.... would allow for a nice compact bag to take to jobs


----------



## vjlex (Oct 10, 2019)

Not yet sure how to feel about this. I wonder what the advantages over the EF Mark III will be.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 10, 2019)

For me personally, the smaller dimensions when in its most compact mode is quite a good one. Also, I suspect improved focus due to the better communication the RF mount makes possible. IQ of the current 70-200 is already quite good; no complaints here. 

My current EF is a II from 2010 and pretty beaten up, so a new one would not be a bad idea at all, but I do want to pair it with something better than the R.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 10, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Not yet sure how to feel about this. I wonder what the advantages over the EF Mark III will be.


Mfd of 0.7m is definitely one! Portability another.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2019)

Like I said in the other thread, it extends quite a bit, which is not surprising. Looks to be (at least) as long as the EF version when fully extended. 

That said, its more compact profile once retracted could make a significant difference when transporting it. There have been times where I’ve decided against the EF 70-200 at certain events just because of its size. This might be one RF lens actually worth getting once in the system...

Now for IQ...(and the official announcement, of course)


----------



## Oceventphotos (Oct 10, 2019)

So excited for the lens. Can finally fit 3 lenses in my bag, and I won’t have to take off the 70-200 everytime I need to store it.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2019)

Another thing I notice - the amount of zoom twisting needed to get from 70 to 200 on the RF version seems significantly longer than on the EF version...one of the latter’s strengths in my opinion. Not sure how I feel about that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

Just be careful with it on the beach.


----------



## slclick (Oct 10, 2019)

If you like the ergonomics of the 70-300L you would like this as well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

Fussing aside, we finally can have an f/2.8 all IS trinity from Canon, from 15mm to 200mm...Woooooo hoooooo!


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 10, 2019)

I'm so excited for this lens, I have 50 and 85 primes and really love the R (my personal favorite camera I've owned) I figure after the 70-200 ill get the 15-35 for landscapes. Any suggestions after that? I mostly do low light concert/sports and portraits.


----------



## colorblinded (Oct 10, 2019)

I've held off on upgrading my OG 70-200 2.8L non-IS this long that I'm waiting to see if mirrorless is in my future at this point. I have no problem with my 5D Mark IV but I'd consider the transition to also give me the opportunity to start updating some of my older/well worn lenses that are limiting some of my options. I would love to have all three of these lenses, but I am not going to like the price I expect.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 10, 2019)

I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?

It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.



Portraits wide open, same distance to subject, not only have more subject/background separation and creamier bokeh, but a more appealing luminosity to skin tones. At least comparing the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to the older ef 70-200mm f/4 IS. This makes it worth using the 2.8 for portraiture, though for family traveling I'd never bring it.

And for me, personally, even with great sensor performance these days, I'm always looking to lower my ISO, all other exposure factors considered.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 10, 2019)

Anyone who speaks ill on this lens extending should probably throw out their 24-70s. it's really not that big of a difference, and this makes the 70-200 no different to carry than a 24-70. It's long overdue that someone made this lens more compact, and I'm happy to see Canon jumped on this. 

Really changes the game on the logistics of carrying a 70-200--if you have a Think Tank roller, the lens will now fit vertically like the 24-70 instead of horizontally, where it normally takes up the space of 3 lenses. Same thing goes for the beltpacks--it will be infinitely easier to fit a small lens like this into a belt pack and etc. 

I'll be more interested to see if this lens got the engineering plastic treatment to save weight, or if it's still magnesium alloy like the EF version. Again, not a problem to me either way as this is how the 24-70 is built and that lens has never caused a problem whether it's been through heavy smoke from a house fire, sand flying in the wind, or torrential rain.


----------



## Cochese (Oct 10, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.



I've never once considered F/4 to be as good as F/2.8.Slightly sharper on occassion. But also a lot dimmer. YMMV when it comes to the 2.8 lens though. Every lens has it's sweet spot insofar as distance is concerned.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 10, 2019)

This fits nicely in a small bag. Only thing I now need, is not so mall a bag full of money.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

Berowne said:


> This fits nicely in a small bag. Only thing I now need, is not so mall a bag full of money.


Small bag, large bills!


----------



## flip314 (Oct 10, 2019)

LDS said:


> Unless Canon had invented some special stretchable material, it was expected.



There are a lot of people on these forums that could never be convinced that it extended... I wonder if they will believe it now.


----------



## MintChocs (Oct 10, 2019)

I hope this doesn’t mean it’s going to suck in loads of dust. Not that I can afford this lens.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 10, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Just be careful with it on the beach.





MintChocs said:


> I hope this doesn’t mean it’s going to suck in loads of dust. Not that I can afford this lens.



Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...

But somehow it's the end of the world if the 70-200 extends?


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 10, 2019)

F1.2 prime and F2 zoom lenses will be exciting. Others are just lenses.


----------



## msatter (Oct 10, 2019)

Watching the vid I have the feeling that he is flipping the finger to us.


----------



## Famateur (Oct 10, 2019)

It'll be awhile before I'm in the market for any of these lenses, but...it'll be nice to have F2.8 and IS for all three. The compact size of the 70-200 is especially appealing.

Two niggles when comparing to my 70-200 F4 L IS, though:


The zoom and focus rings are in reverse order. I rarely use manual focus and quite appreciate having the zoom right up next to the body, the natural resting place of my support hand. Seems awkward to have it on the objective end of the lens, though I've never tried it. Any input from those who have? Is it as awkward as it looks?


The throw of the zoom ring seems to require quite a lot of travel for the full range. With my 70-200 F4, it's very short (can use my finger without twisting my hand), and it's butter smooth.
Still, it's neat to see these new RF lenses as they are developed. By the time I've got an R body (waiting to see what the next year brings), there'll be quite a few to choose from...


----------



## s69tuladhar (Oct 10, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...
> 
> But somehow it's the end of the world if the 70-200 extends?



Of all the five Canon L lenses I own, my 24-70 is the only lens that extends, and it's the only lens which has dust inside the lens. That's why I too am wary of extending zoom lenses. Or maybe because I live in a very dusty city - Kathmandu.


----------



## Famateur (Oct 10, 2019)

honestlo said:


> at 0:45 sec, min focusing distance, 0.7m, WOW !!



Good catch! (You've got some seriously sharp eyes!)


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 10, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.


guess that extra stop of light doesnt matter.....


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 10, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Like I said in the other thread, it extends quite a bit, which is not surprising. Looks to be (at least) as long as the EF version when fully extended.
> 
> That said, its more compact profile once retracted could make a significant difference when transporting it. There have been times where I’ve decided against the EF 70-200 at certain events just because of its size. This might be one RF lens actually worth getting once in the system...
> 
> Now for IQ...(and the official announcement, of course)


It's funny how things can be so relative. As a wildlife photographer I take my 70-200 because it is SMALL and it can reduce my bag size. Only when it will suffice with an acceptable level of compromise though.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 10, 2019)

A slow news day, eh? 

A lot like the 100-400 II, only shorter. Good deal for portability.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 10, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> guess that extra stop of light doesnt matter.....



Not to mention a little more bokeh.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...
> 
> But somehow it's the end of the world if the 70-200 extends?



I complained about it after diving into the sand to get a ground level shot of a box tortoise scrambling down a dune. It's just that the 24-70mm, in both its iterations, has had the exposed zoom barrel for decades now. The 70-200mm has been a rugged, dust and weather resistant go-to Little Big White for years. Now not quite as much. But Canon will find out if customers like the trade off.


----------



## Treyarnon (Oct 10, 2019)

We are calling this new 70-200 and 'extending' lens. Perhaps in reality, its really a 'collapsible' lens! And I can see for some the pack-able advantage of the lens when collapsed down is going to be a massive boom. Finally, people will be able to pack both the 100-400 and 70-200 into a reasonably sized bag!

But for me, I'll probably go for the EF mk3 version, unless this new lens is otherworldly sharp. I prefer the rugged build and smooth controls of a non-extending lens. And I don't have a 100-400...




H. Jones said:


> Anyone who speaks ill on this lens extending should probably throw out their 24-70s. it's really not that big of a difference, and this makes the 70-200 no different to carry than a 24-70. It's long overdue that someone made this lens more compact, and I'm happy to see Canon jumped on this.


Lets see how this new lens feels in the hand. My concern about the 70-200 is that it's going to be a lot of glass to shift, and shift a long way.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 10, 2019)

Well to be honest, I did drop a 24-70 in Botswana fine sand. Result: wrecked AF motor. And my 100-400 has a lot of dust behind the front element. So maybe this design is more prone to problems. Curious to see how this will play out.


----------



## psolberg (Oct 10, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Sometimes hope overpowers common sense.


LOL good one. But hope? more like delusional fans. Like the ones that thought canon would not make a new mount for mirrorless


----------



## deleteme (Oct 10, 2019)

I have had extending zooms sided by side with my 70-200 2.8 L IS since 2003. Dust intrusion has never been an issue on any lens I have owned ever.
I shoot daily with the 24-70 and the 24-105 yet they are as clean as my 70-200.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 10, 2019)

I dont see the incentive to buy any lenses that are already similarly available on the EF mount until a new body comes out. This is pretty much investing into a new system minus a few accessories. We need to be sure the future is bright before we start dropping tens of $1000s on lenses again. I like the R because it is convenient but I need to feel like the R system is a necessity.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 10, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> I dont see the incentive to buy any lenses that are already similarly available on the EF mount until a new body comes out. This is pretty much investing into a new system minus a few accessories. We need to be sure the future is bright before we start dropping tens of $1000s on lenses again. I like the R because it is convenient but I need to feel like the R system is a necessity.



Whenever that happens you can buy ONLY the body. You don't need to factor the cost of RF lenses in at all. Every single EF and EF-S lens you already own will work fine on it. There's nothing that says you have to spend thousands of dollars on lenses even if you buy an EOS-R body.


----------



## slclick (Oct 10, 2019)

Cochese said:


> I've never once considered F/4 to be as good as F/2.8.Slightly sharper on occassion. But also a lot dimmer. YMMV when it comes to the 2.8 lens though. Every lens has it's sweet spot insofar as distance is concerned.


I've never considered them to be better or worse than another yet different tools for different scenes and bags. You can gather more light with one and save money and weight with the other and that's just for starters.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 11, 2019)

Canon's RF 70-200mm lens looks a great option, for people wanting a f/2.8 lens in a compact design. Time will tell how well it handles harsh environments (moisture, dust, etc) - as indeed externally zooming lenses do by default let in more dust than the internally zooming versions. In that respect, the 70-200mm EF lenses are very well sealed. I have used a number of them over the years.

I currently own a number of L lenses, including the 70-300mm L - which is one of my favourite lenses. One of the main reasons being that I love its size and compactness, while still having great image quality and a very versatile / useful zoom range for much of my photography. I have used it extensively since I bought it (within the first month it became available) - and my lens has a small amount of dust inside it, but all the dust particles are small (and few) - so this is in no way impacts image quality (with different light scenarios). 

The placement of the RF zoom ring and 'other ring' (which I believe might be a control ring, which can be 'switchable' between focus or other functions) - is similar to my 70-300mm L. I have no problem with the placement of that - in fact I find my 70-300mm L very ergonomic on both my 7D and 80D, as well as on FF bodies I have used it with. I also find I am adjustable to use the 70-200mm L lenses which have the zoom and focus rings in the other sequence (zoom closer to the body). 

So, in summary, yes I'm looking forward to reading more news, hearing both professional reviews as well as 'real world purchaser/user reviews' of the up coming Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 

_Now if Canon could just come out with a FF mirrorless body that will tempt me (and my wallet) ... Yes, I have used the Canon EOS R extensively (borrowed from friends, used on photography outings, in store, etc), and while it has a lot going for it, the EOS R has a number of limitations (fps, etc) and also misses a number of features that prevent me being brought over to the RF mount just yet.... However I'm sure that a future and improved RF mount camera body will..... _

It's a great time to be a photographer! 

Paul


----------



## vjlex (Oct 11, 2019)

Now if only they would offer it in black... what a handsome trinity that would be.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 11, 2019)

pj1974 said:


> The placement of the RF zoom ring and 'other ring' (which I believe might be a control ring, which can be 'switchable' between focus or other functions) - is similar to my 70-300mm L. I have no problem with the placement of that - in fact I find my 70-300mm L very ergonomic on both my 7D and 80D, as well as on FF bodies I have used it with. I also find I am adjustable to use the 70-200mm L lenses which have the zoom and focus rings in the other sequence (zoom closer to the body).



The prototypes had a (white) control ring right near the mount


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Now if only they would offer it in black... what a handsome trinity that would be.


What, and have them melt like chocolate pretzels in the sun?


----------



## f119a (Oct 11, 2019)

The video has died as they made it private.


----------



## DrahtPhotography (Oct 11, 2019)

CollegePhotographerClay said:


> I personally am very okay with the lens zooming externally as long as I can fit a real 70-200 2.8 in a small bag. The ergonomics of this lens look amazing.


I actually came here to say that too. If it takes up less space in my bag, I'm very happy to see it expand and retract.


----------



## jhpeterson (Oct 11, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Another thing I notice - the amount of zoom twisting needed to get from 70 to 200 on the RF version seems significantly longer than on the EF version...one of the latter’s strengths in my opinion. Not sure how I feel about that.


Looks rather awkward from what I see. Hopefully I'll never need to go from infinity to MFD anytime soon.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

The mythical RF 70-135mm f/2L will internal zoom.

Personally, I loved that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM did not extend. Uber cool.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 11, 2019)

Dust does not matter at all.


----------



## IsaacImage (Oct 11, 2019)

WOW, what a beauty!
Can't wait to fit it in my bag.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 11, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Whenever that happens you can buy ONLY the body. You don't need to factor the cost of RF lenses in at all. Every single EF and EF-S lens you already own will work fine on it. There's nothing that says you have to spend thousands of dollars on lenses even if you buy an EOS-R body.


My whole statement was about buying these lenses if you already have a version of them or access to the cheaper EF versions. Also I dont know how many bought into the R system as their first ILC.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 11, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> My whole statement was about buying these lenses if you already have a version of them or access to the cheaper EF versions. Also I dont know how many bought into the R system as their first ILC.



Well I misunderstood you then, I thought you were saying it wasn't worth buying the body because then you'd have to buy the lenses too.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 11, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Mfd of 0.7m is definitely one! Portability another.


If I had the money...(just bought the 24-105)


----------



## harrylarsen (Oct 11, 2019)

It´s a Hoover.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> What, and have them melt like chocolate pretzels in the sun?


Not my experience with Sigma Tele zooms. Lens get warm but thats about it. Far from melting.


----------



## riker (Oct 11, 2019)

I feel similar to many before me, not a fan of extending lens BUT the small size is a real advantage.
I got one real concern tho. GRAVITY. I love my 100-400 but gravity just extends it every time I let t go on my shoulder, or just turn the body down to check a photo I just took. It is hugely annoying. Using the locking ring every time is just not possible to do especially when working. It's a serious minus for ergonomics.
I see that lock switch on the 70-200 and worry. I already know it's going to behave the same way (((


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 11, 2019)

Treyarnon said:


> We are calling this new 70-200 and 'extending' lens. Perhaps in reality, its really a 'collapsible' lens! [..]



I think 'collapsible' is reserved for lenses which can't be used in their small state, like some of the EF-M zoom lenses. The RF can be used in all states, it just extends while zooming.


----------



## bbb34 (Oct 11, 2019)

The animated GIF only shows the lens zooming in. Can it actually zoom out?


----------



## Joaquim (Oct 11, 2019)

LDS said:


> Unless Canon had invented some special stretchable material, it was expected.


Or if they decide to make this a Red ringed DO lens.


----------



## Joaquim (Oct 11, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Portraits wide open, same distance to subject, not only have more subject/background separation and creamier bokeh, but a more appealing luminosity to skin tones. At least comparing the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to the older ef 70-200mm f/4 IS. This makes it worth using the 2.8 for portraiture, though for family traveling I'd never bring it.
> 
> And for me, personally, even with great sensor performance these days, I'm always looking to lower my ISO, all other exposure factors considered.


I second the opinion about ISO. Just came back from a kid's bday event (a challenge in itself with 2-6 year olds..hhehe the munchkins made me work for my images..bless them) I was more focused on reducing ISO and balancing my flash output at high speed sync when they were jumping and running around. For me, reliable auto focus and low noise are the biggest needs at events, irrespective of the sensor capacity in low light. Especially since I shoot crop sensor to keep the weight down.


----------



## Joaquim (Oct 11, 2019)

Ok so if we're being realistic, I've seen prime lenses with more dust inside them than a zoom lens that extends.

You either take care of your gear while still taking them out to play OR you don't.

Like a fool I once ended up buying a used 85 1.8 that has a ton of specks inside and I usually don't make such I'll informed purchases. Having said that, while the OCD inside me gets annoyed looking at the specks (need to factor a budget for professional lens cleaning, that I'm not entirely sure is needed for fear of screwing up the AF etc.), I haven't seen any issues in my images yet. (To be honest haven't clicked much with it since its like a 135 mm on crop)

But yes, zoom internal/external or prime, we gotta use them with care while still not babying them.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 11, 2019)

Are we holding our breaths to see how well this lens handles focus breathing ?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2019)

Joaquim said:


> I second the opinion about ISO. Just came back from a kid's bday event (a challenge in itself with 2-6 year olds..hhehe the munchkins made me work for my images..bless them) I was more focused on reducing ISO and balancing my flash output at high speed sync when they were jumping and running around. For me, reliable auto focus and low noise are the biggest needs at events, irrespective of the sensor capacity in low light. Especially since I shoot crop sensor to keep the weight down.



Right! And some folks who think ISO is not an issue seem to be focused on the lower range. I agree--going from ISO 320 to ISO 640 these days doesn't make a serious difference in IQ on a full-frame.

But if we're already in low light and bumping up against ISO 2500, needing that extra stop to hand-hold or freeze moderate subject movement, thus going to ISO 5000, now we approaching some significant degradation of sharpness and color. (Ok, they can be corrected to an extent in post-processing, but it sure is nice to get as many things right in-camera as possible. All these little things that _ could be _ corrected start adding up!)


----------



## mpmark (Oct 11, 2019)

looks like a 100-400 II design, must of taken from that.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 11, 2019)

analoggrotto said:


> Are we holding our breaths to see how well this lens handles focus breathing ?



I'm sure it will be similar if not the same as the 100-400 II. Why does that matter anyway? I have no issues with my 100-400 II after 4 years now. And yes there is a bit of dust in it, but who cares? it means nothing.

Unless you're one of those that losses their mind when they see a dust spot inside the lens.


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 11, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.


You're obviously not a sports photographer, where lowlight at indoor sports is a constant problem. ISO 6400 vs 12800 is quite the difference, 1D series or not. Also, the isolation.


----------



## WOODS (Oct 11, 2019)

Is the zoom rotation the opposite to traditional Canon lenses? I’m personally not a fan of the Nikon and Tamron direction of rotation... I think the only exception was the 24-70 2.8L mkI, the opposite hand to my mkII.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.


Shocking statement.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Shocking statement.


I trust that was a bit of a provocative post by wockawocka. Likely just to steer some conversations and get people to post


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2019)

mpmark said:


> I'm sure it will be similar if not the same as the 100-400 II. Why does that matter anyway? I have no issues with my 100-400 II after 4 years now. And yes there is a bit of dust in it, but who cares? it means nothing.
> 
> Unless you're one of those that losses their mind when they see a dust spot inside the lens.


I don't think focus breathing and dust have anything to do with each other. However, dust can be a problem when it turns out to be mold spores. In some places, lens fungus can be a real concern.








Canon EF 100-400 L lens fungus attack


note – this is a Mk 1 version of the Canon EF 100-400 L A working photographer uses their lenses all the time and probably never runs into this. I was into bird photography for a while, about…



www.richardmudhar.com


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 12, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> that material called DO in Canons talk
> On another note : the second ring... is that a manual focusing or control ring?


Yes, that's actually a bit of a disappointment, looks like a step back wards...along with the huge amount of rotation on the zoom ring.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't think focus breathing and dust have anything to do with each other. However, dust can be a problem when it turns out to be mold spores. In some places, lens fungus can be a real concern.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the main causes of lens fungus is darkness. Putting a lens away for 6 months plus in a lens case is really unhealthy for lens optics. Leaving them out with the caps off for a few days at a time allows microscopic fungus to be killed off by UV rays.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 12, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Mfd of 0.7m is definitely one! Portability another.


Short MFD's are only useful if the Min Magnification stays the same. But unfortunately lens focal breathing usually dictates that the MM stays the same. 
Portability is good positive for this lens, although it's likely to be equally as heavy as the current EF version.
I personally don't like the huge rotation on the zoom ring and the narrow and fiddly focus ring. I would prefer a less tactile zoom ring and really accurate feeling focus ring.

It kind of reminds me of the unloved (unjustly) Ef 70-300 LIS. 

For photographers transitioning to pure mirrorless, it's a great opportunity. For dual system photograpers...there's not a lot here to justify the selling of their mkII/mkIII EF variant and purchase of this new lens. For dual system users...there's still a lot of mileage in having a lens that works on both systems. Especially if they are both as sharp as each other and turn in similar results.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 12, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4? ... Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.



Most pro bodies have several AF points that only work with lenses that are f/2.8 or wide, e.g. the 5Dmk3 has a column of 5 at the center.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 12, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...



I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM. Doesn't extend, but had a dust particle settle behind the front element.

The sky did not fall, and the world did not come to an end.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> One of the main causes of lens fungus is darkness. Putting a lens away for 6 months plus in a lens case is really unhealthy for lens optics. Leaving them out with the caps off for a few days at a time allows microscopic fungus to be killed off by UV rays.


Very true. I keep all my old Takumars and Mamiya/Sekors out. I've always kept my Canon's in Pelican cases, but since moving to humid North-East Texas I have considered a dry box with U.V. light built in. Proper lens storage is inexpensive. Just getting them outside and using them helps a great deal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Sometimes hope overpowers common sense.


Yeah. When I pointed out the zoom lock switch, someone replied that maybe it was to lock the internal zoom elements. I _hope_ they were being facetious.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 12, 2019)

Canon's 2.8 trilogy will likely be the best of their kind on the market. I'll welcome the smaller size of this 70-200 if I come back to Canon bodies. But I would prefer the 15-35 in f/4 for the smaller size, because at the ultra wide end I don't really need the f/2.8


----------



## MadScotsman (Oct 12, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM. Doesn't extended, but had a dust particle settle behind the front element.
> 
> The sky did not fall, and the world did not come to an end.



The outrage culture just kills me. Driven by social media need to have SOMETHING to say. It’s not interesting to just say nice things.

The lens, arguably on track to be one of Canon’s best, already setting off the crybullies because it extends. Jeezus.

In a few weeks, Canon is going release a Pro mirrorless body. It will have IBIS, dual slots, full 4K, and other features that the entirety of the internet whined for.

And anyone who thinks the crybabies won’t find some other feature to set about spitting out their pacifiers and caterwauling about and proclaiming the product USELESS doesn’t understand the interwebs.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 13, 2019)

mpmark said:


> I'm sure it will be similar if not the same as the 100-400 II. Why does that matter anyway? I have no issues with my 100-400 II after 4 years now. And yes there is a bit of dust in it, but who cares? it means nothing.
> 
> Unless you're one of those that losses their mind when they see a dust spot inside the lens.



That's a lot of questions.

Actually, I just wanted to make a pun. I almost always shoot primes and zoom, constantly switching lenses has left my camera dusty inside and the lenses arent too great either, I'd rather worry about taking a good picture and having fun. For all of my post processing, I've not seen much if any effect of the dust.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 13, 2019)

Maybe we should wait til we get the lens before we declare Canon a failure. 

The RF 24-105 extends and I have had zero issues with dust (I live in a very dusty desert) and I have seen no lens creep when held vertically unlike the EF 24-105 that drooped like a trombone when shooting downwards. As for IQ, it does seem that Canon has been working to establish world class IQ cred and this lens cannot afford to fail in this regard. As far as I can see there is zero upside to Canon making a mediocre lens. Particularly one that will be a bulwark in the lineup of RF lenses that is Canon's future.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.



No matter how high you can bump the ISO, you'll always be able to shoot another stop faster Tv with an f/2.8 lens than with an f/4 lens.

For a lot of the sports venues I shoot at, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, or even between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800... or the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 (which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than "hardly any noticeable difference" when shooting sports).


----------



## edoorn (Oct 13, 2019)

Same for the events I shoot


----------



## navastronia (Oct 13, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> In a few weeks, Canon is going release a Pro mirrorless body. It will have IBIS, dual slots, full 4K, and other features that the entirety of the internet whined for.



Do tell!


----------



## vjlex (Oct 13, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> In a few weeks, Canon is going release a Pro mirrorless body. It will have IBIS, dual slots, full 4K, and other features that the entirety of the internet whined for.



Know something we don't?? Please say you do!


----------



## MadScotsman (Oct 13, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Know something we don't?? Please say you do!



Do you not follow CanonRumors?

IBIS patents rumored. Rumors of Pro R versions with dual slots have been swirling for months. Rolling out video updates through firmware as we speak.

You don’t have to be Fellini to figure out that the near future holds a pro R body they will almost certainly carry a “pro” feature set.

The R was NEVER marketed as a Pro body. Nor was it priced as one. Those that dissed it for lack of “Pro” features were, frankly, misguided dumbasses.

There have been about a million posts here on CR and everywhere else rumoring a Pro R body. Likely with ibis. Likely with dual slots. Likely with better video. Likely before the Olympics next year.

Y’all act like you don’t follow the Canon rumor mill.

My point was that no matter how great it turns out to be, the Northrop and BroKnows youtube types will HAVE to find something to bitch about. 

Or be proclaimed irrelevant.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> No matter how high you can bump the ISO, you'll always be able to shoot another stop faster Tv with an f/2.8 lens than with an f/4 lens.
> 
> For a lot of the sports venues I shoot at, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, or even between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800... or the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 (which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than "hardly any noticeable difference" when shooting sports).



This post, 100%!

A couple years ago I shot this poorly lit show at night. Very dark. ISO 10,000 needed at f2.8 to freeze action. An f4 lens would have been pretty much unusable here.

In the right circumstances, it can make all the difference in the world.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2019)

Act444 said:


> This post, 100%!
> 
> A couple years ago I shot this poorly lit show at night. Very dark. ISO 10,000 needed at f2.8 to freeze action. An f4 lens would have been pretty much unusable here.
> 
> In the right circumstances, it can make all the difference in the world.


Sometimes people say there is no need for fast glass. Well, if there wasn't, then no fast glass would be made.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 13, 2019)

flip314 said:


> There are a lot of people on these forums that could never be convinced that it extended... I wonder if they will believe it now.



Which was stupid since we've seen a "Lock" switch on every photo of the lens from the beginning.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

jhpeterson said:


> Looks rather awkward from what I see. Hopefully I'll never need to go from infinity to MFD anytime soon.



I think you mean from 70mm to 200mm. That's the zoom ring, not the focus ring.


MadScotsman said:


> Do you not follow CanonRumors?
> 
> IBIS patents rumored. Rumors of Pro R versions with dual slots have been swirling for months. Rolling out video updates through firmware as we speak.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone (other than Sony trolls) is denying that kind of camera is on the way. I think the part of your original comment that folks are taking exception to is _"... in just a few weeks... "_


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 13, 2019)

An f4 L IS version just like that but painted black would be nice.


----------



## Buck (Oct 13, 2019)

Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 13, 2019)

Buck said:


> Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.


Sounds oddly sexual. Anything bigger than 6 inches isnt allowed.....


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 13, 2019)

I hope everyone crying about an extending lens cried when they saw the 24-70 II


----------



## Viggo (Oct 13, 2019)

I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Buck said:


> Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.



Some of those venues base it on the fullest extension of the lens, not the most compact. Of course, if they don't know about the zoom lock...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.



I'm not crazy about the bokeh from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, either. I do find it an extremely useful lens for many shooting situations, though. But if I can get by with a 135mm prime instead of a 70-200mm zoom, it's the EF 135mm f/2 every time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Sounds oddly sexual. Anything bigger than 6 inches isnt allowed.....



It's about not blocking the view of the ticket purchaser in the seat next to or behind yours.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm not crazy about the bokeh from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, either. I do find it an extremely useful lens for many shooting situations, though. But if I can get by with a 135mm prime instead of a 70-200mm zoom, it's the EF 135mm f/2 every time.


I disliked the bokeh of the MkII so much I kept the MkI, but then I am primarily a portrait type shooter than a sports/action shooter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> I hope everyone crying about an extending lens cried when they saw the 24-70 II


Have there been four prior models of the 24-70/2.8 that were fixed zoom lenses?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 13, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> The outrage culture just kills me. Driven by social media need to have SOMETHING to say. It’s not interesting to just say nice things.
> 
> The lens, arguably on track to be one of Canon’s best, already setting off the crybullies because it extends. Jeezus.
> 
> ...



When using a lens built for action in a dusty or misty situation, having a truly weather-sealed lens is just one less thing to worry about. 

As mentioned by others, Canon's 70-200mm lenses have historically been internal-zooming, so coming to a gear forum that has been discussing Canon gear for years to comment, question, or even grumble about a huge change in design does not seem, to me, to be participating in "outrage culture...to have SOMETHING to say."

On the other hand, scolding people who are discussing a big change that doesn't bother _you_ in the least, does seem to be a perfect example of trying to shut down any type of disagreement with _your_ point of view.

It would be just as annoying to hear somebody say, "Oh, why are all these so-called photographers fussing and whining about fitting all their lenses in their satchels--instead of focusing on performance like I do."


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 14, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I wonder if its switchable, since many will never use manual focus and real estate is limited.


It is a vital part f my three lens landscape kit and manual focus is often used.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 14, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?
> 
> It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.


I bought my 70-200 2.8 when I used an EOS 3. Still have and love the lens and I agree, just bump up the ISO. The downside is the weight and bulk, especially when using for landscape. If it were not so damned sharp (could be better at 180-200mm) I would buy an f4.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2019)

Buck said:


> Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.



One option to get around this restriction in the meantime is the EF 200mm 2.8 II. Lacks IS, but is <6 in, and better yet, is BLACK! Much lighter as well. Of course you also lose the zoom flexibility...but if reach is mostly what is needed...

I used it once for this very purpose (on a 5D3) and despite it being an older lens, thought it held up quite well on the 22MP sensor. Most importantly, I couldn't tell a noticeable difference in IQ between this lens and the 70-200 at 200...
_________

ETA: As far as venues go, it has been my experience that some venues may ask for the lens to be extended because they "want to know how far it zooms". I've been asked this a couple of times when I had a prime lens attached and I had to tell them it doesn't zoom. They realize this when I turn the focus ring. (I was allowed through in both cases.) So, one may still run into issues with the RF version of the 70-200 since it does extend out a bit.


----------



## iheartcanon (Oct 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Just be careful with it on the beach.


Good point!


----------



## Pepe (Oct 16, 2019)

Se sabe si esta lente podra equipar multiplicadores x1,4 y x2


----------



## Pepe (Oct 16, 2019)

UNAlguien sabe si esta lente sera compatible con nuevos multiplicadores tipo x 1,4 y x2


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2019)

Pepe said:


> UNAlguien sabe si esta lente sera compatible con nuevos multiplicadores tipo x 1,4 y x2


No. Todavía no hay multiplicadores para el montaje RF. Quizás en el futuro.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.


Viggo, surely there will be an RF 70-135mm f/2L coming to match the 28-70.


----------



## padam (Oct 17, 2019)

*Canon* *RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM





*

Lens construction: 17 elements in 13 groups
Minimum focusing distance: 0.7m
Maximum shooting magnification: 0.23 times
Number of diaphragm blades: 9
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: φ89.9mm × 146mm
Weight: 1070g (excluding tripod seat)
Camera shake correction effect: 5 steps
Collection of official pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZsGlLOUTjeQHWIE11tmZxPpMf_k53kOU


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 17, 2019)

padam said:


> *Canon* *RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1.070g = 2,36 pounds. Seems un-be-lie-va-ble!


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 17, 2019)

Every time I read about a RF 70-200 2.8 or a RF 70-400 or whatever white lens, I wonder where are the RF 1.4 and 2.0 extenders.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 17, 2019)

padam said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



I'm still holding out hope that it's an internal zoom non-extending design.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 17, 2019)

0,7m mfd and 1070g , it got interesting , hmm...


----------

