# Roger did it again: RF 70-200 Teardown



## Berowne (Dec 9, 2019)

The Not Very Long Awaited Teardown of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS


----------



## Click (Dec 9, 2019)

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Dec 9, 2019)

Echo the "thanks for sharing" comment.

And, wow! I'm sure I can't be alone in thinking the mechanical engineering contained in that thing is a work of art all of itself? Just so much thought and effort seems to go into these. Kudos to the Canon design engineers behind this lens.

Stoical.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 9, 2019)

Thanks for sharing! It looks impressing, now if they can fix the focusing it might be my next lens.


----------



## mangobutter (Dec 9, 2019)

Superb job, Canon. I want.. but at $2699 i'd rather have a 50 1.2 or 85 1.2. but if i did pro portraits all day, i'd def get this.

What Canon really needs though is a pancake. A 50mm F2 pancake would be sublime. cheap and simple. no IS. if possible, smaller than the 40 2.8 pancake. If the new flange distance can allow this.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 9, 2019)

mangobutter said:


> What Canon really needs though is a pancake. A 50mm F2 pancake would be sublime. cheap and simple. no IS. if possible, smaller than the 40 2.8 pancake. If the new flange distance can allow this.



Seconded. anywhere from 40-60mm for me, makes no difference - would just want something super flat.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 9, 2019)

Roger, you da man!

we are lucky to have someone out there with your ability to repair and investigate gear, and even luckier that you have the ability to write it up so well.

Thanks for a great article!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 10, 2019)

Thanks to you for sharing! 

Thanks to Roger for doing!


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 18, 2019)

mangobutter said:


> What Canon really needs though is a pancake. A 50mm F2 pancake would be sublime. cheap and simple. no IS. if possible, smaller than the 40 2.8 pancake. If the new flange distance can allow this.



I love the way the 70(-200) handles like a "normal" (heavy, fat) lens and not a horse's leg telephoto.

Agree on the pancake, and the 40 on an adapter or the 50 1.8 RF might be compact enough.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 18, 2019)

"The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all."
Note that internet hearsay has more adherents than a respected expert with first hand experience.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 18, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> "The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all."
> Note that internet hearsay has more adherents than a respected expert with first hand experience.



it’s not hearsay when I can hear the testimony of the person with actual factual experience. And it’s more credible when it’s the testimony of unbiased professionals with years of experience servicing hundreds of lenses used by thousands of different people.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 19, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> it’s not hearsay when I can hear the testimony of the person with actual factual experience. And it’s more credible when it’s the testimony of unbiased professionals with years of experience servicing hundreds of lenses used by thousands of different people.


I am quoting the actual comment of Roger's. My point is that the reflex comment of internet punters is "It extends=deal breaker" or "It extends=non-pro lens". Never mind the many pro lenses that do exactly that.
I have been shooting for 40+ years as a working pro and the many lenses I have used all get minor amounts of dust but none more than others. And none to the extent that impairs IQ except the dust on the front or rear element that is independent of the lens design.

The comments denigrating extending lenses seem to come from every corner irrespective of the experience of the commenter. Thus I call it hearsay or better yet dogma.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 19, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I am quoting the actual comment of Roger's. My point is that the reflex comment of internet punters is "It extends=deal breaker" or "It extends=non-pro lens". Never mind the many pro lenses that do exactly that.
> Roger actually KNOWS. Most commenters do not.
> I have been shooting for 40+ years as a working pro and the many lenses I have used all get minor amounts of dust but none more than others. And none to the extent that impairs IQ except the dust on the front or rear element that is independent of the lens design.
> 
> The comments denigrating extending lenses seem to come from every corner irrespective of the experience of the commenter. Thus I call it hearsay or better yet dogma.


----------

