# Patent: Canon RF 200mm f/2L IS USM and other Big White Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2021)

> It’s no secret that Canon is going to announce a slew of RF mount super-telephoto lenses later in 2021. Which ones will come first remains a mystery, but I’m quite happy to report that Canon has finally patented an RF 200mm f/2L IS USM optical formula, a lens I would be over the moon about when it gets officially announced.
> I haven’t yet seen an...



Continue reading...


----------



## fiendstudios (Mar 12, 2021)

I owned the previous version, the EF 200/2L IS. Sold it since I did not use it that often. Haven't had any regrets yet


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2021)

I have my 200 and 800. Wish I never bought either. Most of the Philippine-based bird watchers I met through photography with these lens are trash.

"Environmentalists" would only steal your photos for their "fundraising" and "awareness campaigns". Paying you in crediting you as the photographer without any sort of compensation. 

Other times when I am unlucky they edit out my watermark and present it as works of their own.

The really loonie ones will impose their "ethics" on you that you never signed up for. I never joined you happy lil club because I know its reputation years prior.

They'll never speak up that the real reason the habitat is in decline because they're silent with how prolific they are in baby making.

If I instead used the money of those 2 lenses to buy mining shares in PSE:NIKL at ₱1.51/share in Dec 2010 and sold ₱8.97/share in Jan 2015 I'd have made ₱5.3m and avoided people looking for a handout.

Now if I used all the money I spent on camera gear + birding trips on PSE:NIKL at the above buying and selling price I would have made ₱70m.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 12, 2021)

fiendstudios said:


> I owned the previous version, the EF 200/2L IS. Sold it since I did not use it that often. Haven't had any regrets yet


Tue, I use it very, very, rarely that I cannot justify the price. Still, it is my dream lens. Cannot afford it. I rent it once or twice a year for very special occasions. It would be nice to have the RF version available for rent in my city someday.


----------



## chasingrealness (Mar 12, 2021)

I respect the hustle.


----------



## neurorx (Mar 12, 2021)

Still hoping for the 135 1.4L


----------



## unfocused (Mar 12, 2021)

fiendstudios said:


> I owned the previous version, the EF 200/2L IS. Sold it since I did not use it that often. Haven't had any regrets yet


I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. ...


Same here. 
But it seems with R/RF system Canon sees the chance to dig for really big nuggets. 
As long as their market research gives them a go...


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2021)

dolina said:


> ...
> "Environmentalists" would only steal your photos for their "fundraising" and "awareness campaigns". Paying you in crediting you as the photographer without any sort of compensation.
> ...


Surely unterstand your anger. And people should ask in first and pay in second for copyrights if not given for free.
But a little bit OT, isn't it?


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Mar 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.


Photographers buying this particular glass can replace multiple lens by using teleconverters 1.4X or 2X, saving them space and $$$. 

200f2 x 1.4 = 280 f2.8
200f2 x 1.4 = 400 f4

So

If this RF is really sharp, then it’s like having two extra lens for the price of one, covering multiple genre in one. This setup will probably be lighter than having the real RF 300f2.8 or RF 400f4 DO with a tiny drop in IQ and AF performance.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> 200f2 x 1.4 = 280 f2.8
> 200f2 x *1.4* *2* = 400 f4


Slight correction needed  

But still a quite big, heavy and "extreme" lens for its FL, isn't it?


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 12, 2021)

No doubt this can be an extremely useful lens, but also a status seeker lens?


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Surely unterstand your anger. And people should ask in first and pay in second for copyrights if not given for free.
> But a little bit OT, isn't it?


I'd do what smart people would do. Ignore. 

I think of this as a public service for those on the fence for a purchase.

Internet squatters will steal your work. So is it really worth posting it online or even a buy?

I wish someone pointed it out to me in my 20s so I wouldnt waste my time and money with a bunch of social justice warriors who are going after "evil corp" "fighting the good fight" when the real culprit of habitat destruction and flora/fauna extinction are their next door neighbors producing demand by having more than 2 kids.

Think breeding like rabbits of 6 or more offspring.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 12, 2021)

The comments on this thread are interesting. I have heard nothing but good things about the EF version of this lens. People glowing about its performance for things as diverse as portrait, sports, and wildlife with and without extenders. 
For me, I’m sure the price will be too high, but I’m not really the buyer they are targeting. Sounds like a great lens though.


----------



## slclick (Mar 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.


Same, even with all the fanfare it never had the lure of the relatively inexpensive 135 or even the cost effective very good 2.8 200L, which is very underrated. Like others said, just too much in so many ways.


----------



## melgross (Mar 12, 2021)

dolina said:


> I have my 200 and 800. Wish I never bought it. Most of the Philippine-based bird watchers I met through photography with these lens are trash.
> 
> "Environmentalists" would only steal your photos for their "fundraising" and "awareness campaigns". Paying you in crediting you as the photographer without any sort of compensation.
> 
> ...


You’re a horrible person.


----------



## YEUP (Mar 12, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Surely unterstand your anger. And people should ask in first and pay in second for copyrights if not given for free.
> But a little bit OT, isn't it?


Honestly not really that over the top. I have cerebral palsy and I have had other "birders" nearly knock me down while trying to capture images of a bird in a rare location.

If people are willing to shove a handicapped person to get a photograph of a bird then they certainly will steal a photograph.

Which is exactly why I pretty much gave up on any organized "birding". The rudeness is astounding.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 12, 2021)

Hopefully, someday, I can get one. In the meantime, I’ll distract myself by breeding like a rabbit. Shooting blanks, but still free and fun.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2021)

YEUP said:


> Honestly not really that over the top. I have cerebral palsy and I have had other "birders" nearly knock me down while trying to capture images of a bird in a rare location.
> 
> If people are willing to shove a handicapped person to get a photograph of a bird then they certainly will steal a photograph.
> 
> Which is exactly why I pretty much gave up on any organized "birding". The rudeness is astounding.


You’re *NOT* a horrible person.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hopefully, someday, I can get one. In the meantime, I’ll distract myself by breeding like a rabbit. Shooting blanks, but still free and fun.


I really wish that was the case for almost everyone. Especially those who are in their 60s and approaching half a dozen kids from more than 1 partner!


----------



## Berowne (Mar 12, 2021)

FYI 

Antinatalism


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2021)

Berowne said:


> FYI
> 
> Antinatalism



Regardless of income bracket I believe strongly everyone has a right to have at least 1 kid.

Any succeeding children should have parents be responsible enough to be able to provide for their most basic of physiological needs of food, water, shelter, sleep, healthcare and clothes.

This is most especially true for households making less than $8,000/year or much less less than $5,000/year. The later of which was the price of the EF 200 when I bought one.

If any parent can barely manage to do that for that sole child then dont have any further.

They'll end up asking hand outs from their siblings, relatives, friends and neighbors. This problem only multiply as they multiply.

If anyone can afford it and send their kids to college then go for it but if the folks can barely feed themselves then stop at 1.

Going back to the lens I look forward to the RF equivalent. It will produce exceptional photos.

Looking back it's more a rental than an actual purchase.

In my past... it's a purchase I'd gladly skip


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 12, 2021)

I'd say it will be a fantastic lens. A great portrait lens. Unfortunately the price will go with it.
I wonder can they make it lighter.
Not sure I'll ever purchase it. I'm happy enough with the excellent 70-200mm.


----------



## chasingrealness (Mar 12, 2021)

neurorx said:


> Still hoping for the 135 1.4L


Same!!


----------



## chasingrealness (Mar 12, 2021)

dolina said:


> Regardless of income bracket I believe strongly everyone has a right to have at least 1 kid.
> 
> Any succeeding children should have parents be responsible enough to be able to provide for their most basic of physiological needs of food, water, shelter, sleep, healthcare and clothes.
> 
> ...


You see a lot through this lens .


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 12, 2021)

dolina said:


> I'd do what smart people would do. Ignore.
> 
> I think of this as a public service for those on the fence for a purchase.
> 
> ...



Kind of balances out over here. We had five kids because so many aren’t having any. 

Don’t worry. We finally figured out what caused it and we put a stop to that.

But we’ve fed them, clothed them, saved for their college. They all get great marks at school, play musical instruments (orchestra, band, piano). The oldest is pre-med in college. I think in the end they’ll be net producers.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Mar 12, 2021)

The EF 200 f/2 is a mega lens, so it is said as I've never had the pleasure, and should really have warranted a Mark II upgrade. An RF 200 f/2 IS USM should be a fantastic bit of glass but doubt I will ever own one.

A lens for the lucky few


----------



## SteveC (Mar 12, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Kind of balances out over here. We had five kids because so many aren’t having any.
> 
> Don’t worry. We finally figured out what caused it and we put a stop to that.
> 
> But we’ve fed them, clothed them, saved for there college. They all get great marks at school, play musical instruments (orchestra, band, piano). The oldest is pre-med in college. I think in the end they’ll be net producers.



A kid is a mouth to feed, but also a pair of hands (and a brain) that can produce.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.


I disagree with too little depth of field, I sometimes do portraits and lifestyle shoots with the person at a distance and smaller in the frame (like walking along a shoreline or in a downtown environment) and at a distance it really helps to have a very shallow depth of field for separation.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 12, 2021)

dolina said:


> I'd do what smart people would do. Ignore.
> 
> I think of this as a public service for those on the fence for a purchase.
> 
> ...


I just read something two days about how the birth rate is declining and it’s a concern because we have the largest and still growing elderly population and not enough younger earners contributing to the social security. This is in the United States not sure about worldwide. Personally I think Thanos had the right idea.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.



It's a remarkable portrait and safari lens. It produces images that no other lens can.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 12, 2021)

Theoretically, especially for large lenses, I think Canon could take three routes at RF-ing their EF big white lenses:

1) Minor optical tweak to correct for flange distance and new plastic composite casing to modernize the body with RF aesthetics, as well as AF algorithm and/or motor tweak. Cheap.

2) Re-use the existing optical packaging and simply extend the body a bit and re-work the af algorithms and/or motors. Cheapest.

3) The most expensive, a complete redesign from the ground up. Really expensive.

I think Canon will go with option 1. It seems the research, design, and engineering is done and all they'll need to do is tweak the optics a tad as well as AF. Probably more so for older lenses such as, say, the 400mm f/5.6. I think extending such a large lens the size of an adapter doesn't really affect the size of a huge lens.

I think Canon can also go full #3 for less expensive lenses such as the 70-200 F4 RF to which it looks like it's a completely new from the ground up design.

Take a look at the RF 50mm 1.8... they went full #1 on it and essentially repackaged the EF version but corrected a few elements for projection. Minimal investment. Maximum recovery!

So maybe depending on the lens, a combination.

Or I could just be totally off base and Canon will redesign everything from the ground up which would cost a TON of money, however I'd bet my money on Canon recouping those costs if they did make that investment,


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 13, 2021)

The first 2 lenses have a wide-open entrance pupil of 97 and 101 mm. I wonder if there will be a DO front element in any of them? If they can get the price and weight down I would be very interested in one, particularly the 300mm one.

Does anybody care to guess what the price & weight might be for them?


----------



## TM (Mar 13, 2021)

Yes!! This is a must-have for me. I love my EF 200mm f2.0 II and use it all the time with my R5. Hopefully the RF version will be a bit smaller.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2021)

YEUP said:


> Honestly not really that over the top. I have cerebral palsy and I have had other "birders" nearly knock me down while trying to capture images of a bird in a rare location.
> 
> If people are willing to shove a handicapped person to get a photograph of a bird then they certainly will steal a photograph.
> 
> Which is exactly why I pretty much gave up on any organized "birding". The rudeness is astounding.


People suck, basically.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Mar 13, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> People suck, basically.


One of my acquaintances put it very nicely: "people" is a four-letter word.


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> One of my acquaintances put it very nicely: "people" is a four-letter word.



Bird is the word! A 4 letter word!


----------



## rbr (Mar 13, 2021)

I have had the EF 800 f5.6 L since it came out. I was using the 1D Mark3 at the time and it still works better than ever on my R5. I have no plans to sell it. It wouldn't be worth the price to me for a few pounds. When the weight of the tripod, head and camera are added on, any 800 5.6 will be heavy. The problem with making money with the 800mm in particular is that the markets that use bird photos just isn't what it was during the 00's when the lens was released. There are far fewer paying publications. There are too many people out there giving away photos, and many are excellent photographers. Conservation organizations are cash strapped as it is and have many people eagerly giving them their photos. The good organizations at least ask. I rarely do any bird photography with it anymore, but older photos sell just as well as newer ones. Just yesterday I sold a photo taken in 2009 with the 800L + 1.x on the 1D Mark3 to a well paying national magazine, and a cover shot for a small scientific publication taken in 2005 using a 600f4 (version I) with the 2x on a 1D Mark2. Using newer cameras or lenses wouldn't have made any visible difference for those uses. I'm grateful that I own the EF 800mm f5.6 and that Canon still services it, but at this point I couldn't afford to buy a new one from the income it would generate. The older EF big whites are still very fine lenses and are more than capable of producing photos for publications and beautiful prints at a fraction of the price of the latest and greatest. Now if Canon came out with something like Nikon's 500 f5.6 I would definitely be interested.


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I just read something two days about how the birth rate is declining and it’s a concern because we have the largest and still growing elderly population and not enough younger earners contributing to the social security. This is in the United States not sure about worldwide. Personally I think Thanos had the right idea.



Rich nations generally have a lower birth rate. That's one contributing factor to why they're rich.

The reverse is true with poor nations.

Prior to vaccines, public sanitation, hand washing, disinfection, refrigeration and modern agriculture and other life saving practices the world population could not breach 1 billion globally.

During those times it was extremely difficult to cause any man-made extinction and climate change was unheard of.

From 1804 to today we are approaching 7.9 billion and all the climate is changing and mass extinction is occurring.

More people are living to adulthood and living longer than any time prior to today.



rbr said:


> I have had the EF 800 f5.6 L since it came out. I was using the 1D Mark3 at the time and it still works better than ever on my R5. I have no plans to sell it. It wouldn't be worth the price to me for a few pounds. When the weight of the tripod, head and camera are added on, any 800 5.6 will be heavy. The problem with making money with the 800mm in particular is that the markets that use bird photos just isn't what it was during the 00's when the lens was released. There are far fewer paying publications. There are too many people out there giving away photos, and many are excellent photographers. Conservation organizations are cash strapped as it is and have many people eagerly giving them their photos. The good organizations at least ask. I rarely do any bird photography with it anymore, but older photos sell just as well as newer ones. Just yesterday I sold a photo taken in 2009 with the 800L + 1.x on the 1D Mark3 to a well paying national magazine, and a cover shot for a small scientific publication taken in 2005 using a 600f4 (version I) with the 2x on a 1D Mark2. Using newer cameras or lenses wouldn't have made any visible difference for those uses. I'm grateful that I own the EF 800mm f5.6 and that Canon still services it, but at this point I couldn't afford to buy a new one from the income it would generate. The older EF big whites are still very fine lenses and are more than capable of producing photos for publications and beautiful prints at a fraction of the price of the latest and greatest. Now if Canon came out with something like Nikon's 500 f5.6 I would definitely be interested.


Photography in general in most cases are high risk and low pay. This is especially true for weddings/events during the past 52 weeks.

When I started in my 20s I never expected to make money from bird photos but I also did not expect the personalities that would leech off me and become unwanted distractions.

If a DeLorean were provided I would opt to go back into time and make sure I never bought any birding gear so I would never met any of these bad eggs. I'd even willingly have all my wisdom teeth pulled out in one sessions without anesthetic rather than take up any sort of birding.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 13, 2021)

dolina said:


> During those times it was extremely difficult to cause any man-made extinction and climate change was unheard of.



Tell that to the Auks, the Do-do’s, prehistoric mega-fauna, the ice age, and the medieval warming period.


----------



## dilbert (Mar 13, 2021)

dolina said:


> I wish someone pointed it out to me in my 20s so I wouldnt waste my time and money with a bunch of social justice warriors who are going after "evil corp" "fighting the good fight" when the real culprit of habitat destruction and flora/fauna extinction are their next door neighbors producing demand by having more than 2 kids.
> 
> Think breeding like rabbits of 6 or more offspring.



This is the uncomfortable truth. Watch David Attenborough's witness statement - he talks about this too.

The best way to save the planet is for humans to stop multiplying. What did Agent Smith call humans in "The Matrix"? "Like a virus."


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> This is the uncomfortable truth. Watch David Attenborough's witness statement - he talks about this too.
> 
> The best way to save the planet is for humans to stop multiplying. What did Agent Smith call humans in "The Matrix"? "Like a virus."


David's my idol. His face should up in the dictionary & encyclopedia as "Fig. A" for environmentalist.

All others are mere virtue signaling posers trying to one up each other for social status among their peer group.

The worst type of "environmentalists" are those who use their causes to extract corporate social responsibility (CSR) money to fund their "studies" and "bird counting" trips. Nevermind if its a dirty energy or from underwater mining. "I got my funding for my vacation!"



FamilyGuy said:


> Tell that to the Auks, the Do-do’s, prehistoric mega-fauna, the ice age, and the medieval warming period.


I agree with you.

They all did happen.

The difference between the last 200 years and the 10,000 years prior are the degrees or frequencies of those world changing events.

It will only get worse as more people are born and critical habitats converted to farmland to feed more people and grow plants for textile to make clothing, cut down trees for building homes to cover these newly born person's physiological basic needs.

That's a lot of "green" people are shams. Those who actually walk the walk would shun using mass market laundry detergent and modern laundry machines as these really screw up the environment.


----------



## sanj (Mar 13, 2021)

Amazing. So much hate for such a great lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 13, 2021)

YEUP said:


> Honestly not really that over the top.


Just to avoid missunderstanding:
OT = „Off Topic“ and not „over the top“


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 13, 2021)

I will not bicker. I will not bicker. I will not bicker. 

If I had the cash and the right golden-light locations, YES!


----------



## john1970 (Mar 13, 2021)

I have never owned a 200 mm f2; I guess for me the 70-200 mm f2.8, which is no slouch, is good enough for my needs. I am definitely looking forward to the later half of 2021 when Canon releases more lenses. For my needs (nature photography) I would be most interested in a 500 mm f4, but only time will tell when it gets release.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 13, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't get this lens. Too heavy, too short, too little depth of field, too big, and too expensive. I'm sure others love it, but I can't see any situation where I would want this lens.


Ultimate street foto lens. If you shoot a lot in urban settings it helps a lot to be able to block out distracting backgrounds action, colors etc. Used it very successfully for that.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 13, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Photographers buying this particular glass can replace multiple lens by using teleconverters 1.4X or 2X, saving them space and $$$.
> 
> 200f2 x 1.4 = 280 f2.8
> 200f2 x 1.4 = 400 f4
> ...


Could be a thing, but there's also a lot to be said for having a great 400mm option with the 300mm f/2.8 lens. Also, bokeh and speed may suffer with the 1.4x. Time will tell.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 13, 2021)

Sad to see that the RF 300mm is longer than the current model.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 13, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> The first 2 lenses have a wide-open entrance pupil of 97 and 101 mm. I wonder if there will be a DO front element in any of them? If they can get the price and weight down I would be very interested in one, particularly the 300mm one.
> 
> Does anybody care to guess what the price & weight might be for them?


Maybe - at the cost of making it longer - the reduced entrance of the 300mm lens will allow Canon to make the lens lighter?


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Could be a thing, but there's also a lot to be said for having a great 400mm option with the 300mm f/2.8 lens. Also, bokeh and speed may suffer with the 1.4x. Time will tell.


The EF 200 f/2 is reportedly a great long portrait lens but the EF 135 f/2 is extremely good as well. I own a EF 300 f/2.8 which, with TCs and FF and crop bodies, gives me a lot of options. If I was exclusively FF, I'd own the 400 f/2.8 as well. Furthermore, given how good the EF big whites are and how little the mount adapters add to size and weight, I don't see any reason to introduce RF big whites at all.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 13, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I will not bicker. I will not bicker. I will not bicker.
> 
> If I had the cash and the right golden-light locations, YES!


Me too!


----------



## Tom W (Mar 13, 2021)

A 600/4 RF 'might' have my name on it, unless Canon comes out with a nice fast super tele zoom instead. 

Of course, I realize that the lens I really want is both too heavy and too expensive. But I still want it!


----------



## Fischer (Mar 13, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> The EF 200 f/2 is reportedly a great long portrait lens but the EF 135 f/2 is extremely good as well. I own a EF 300 f/2.8 which, with TCs and FF and crop bodies, gives me a lot of options. If I was exclusively FF, I'd own the 400 f/2.8 as well. Furthermore, given how good the EF big whites are and how little the mount adapters add to size and weight, I don't see any reason to introduce RF big whites at all.


If you think the 135L f/2.0 and the 200L f/2.0 compare, you are mistaken (I have used all three regularly). Its a lot closer to the 300mm f/2.8. As for myself I have already sold my big whites and am buying RF-lenses as they become available because they can AF faster at full fps, update the viewfinder faster and do not need an adapter, and also have the quick control ring in a usable position and - hopefully - are a little lighter. YMMV.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 13, 2021)

I couldn’t be happier, but my wallet has already started weeping... “you already owned and sold off two EF 200 f2.0, will you never learn?” The answer is no, no I won’t .


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 14, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Ultimate street foto lens. If you shoot a lot in urban settings it helps a lot to be able to block out distracting backgrounds action, colors etc. Used it very successfully for that.


I’d like to see the shots, personally I’ve not seen any street photography with any kind of connection or engagement shot with a long lens and I know a guy who used to swear by his 500 f4 for ‘street’ photography.


----------



## COBRASoft (Mar 14, 2021)

Somehow i wish canon remakes the 200/2.8 little black l lens into rf. The old ef version is very light and very good.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 14, 2021)

COBRASoft said:


> Somehow i wish canon remakes the 200/2.8 little black l lens into rf. The old ef version is very light and very good.


It is hard to justify the need for the 2.8, given the existence of many 70-200mm out there. I own one and I like it very much, but still, I grab it only when I know for certain I am going to use it the whole day long. Even when you think about its weight, the 135 F2 finds more use in my eyes. The focal length is more practical and if I need more reach I just grab an extender with me. 
I bought the 200 f2.8 because I hated the white color at one point. As soon as I started recording videos on a tripod, the zoom totally eliminated it from my bag. I never sold mine only for the sake of interviews using double cameras. I couldn't justify buying another zoom to have two on tripods. I simply like the look of 200mm 2.8 in my formal video interviews.
I doubt there is a high need to put a priority on having it in RF version. Those RF 70-200mm take away a vast majority of client needs at that focal length, not to mention the existence of the still very good EF version.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d like to see the shots, personally I’ve not seen any street photography with any kind of connection or engagement shot with a long lens and I know a guy who used to swear by his 500 f4 for ‘street’ photography.


When shooting parades, I use mainly my 100-400mm II at 300-400mm ends. I don't know if I would take a 500mm F4, because I don't own it, and it is quite big, but the zoom is very practical and, indeed 400mm compresses and isolates the subject quite a bit compared to a 70-200mm 2.8. I have never taken the 200 F2 though and I would be interested too. The lack of zoom might be very limiting for parades.
See my Canada day parades at https://www.flickr.com/photos/besisika if that is what you are looking for.


----------



## dolina (Mar 14, 2021)

Going back to topic I expect the RF replacement to come out years later within the next 5 years.

There are other higher volume L lenses that have yet to receive an RF update.

I believe that to the extent that I think consumer USM and STM lenses will be out before this.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 15, 2021)

eh......I love my 70-200 from an IQ standpoint, but the problem is I just can't find many use-cases for it. When you get near the 200 end you always end up wishing you had more. A 300 would be better as a safari lense (maybe paired with a 600 for further away things)...


----------



## Fischer (Mar 15, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> eh......I love my 70-200 from an IQ standpoint, but the problem is I just can't find many use-cases for it. When you get near the 200 end you always end up wishing you had more. A 300 would be better as a safari lense (maybe paired with a 600 for further away things)...


300mm f/2.8 is the perfect Safari lens because you can go to an excellent 380mm with the 1.4x and a very good 600mm with the 2x when needed while still having something quite handy and easy to move with. 400mm f/2.8 is a super lens, but it gets a lot less use unless you are into birding, and increasingly strict on-board baggage flight restrictions is making it a pain to transport (forget ever seeing your lenses again if you ever put a super tele lens into the hold...).


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2021)

Fischer said:


> 300mm f/2.8 is the perfect Safari lens because you can go to an excellent 380mm with the 1.4x and a very good 600mm with the 2x when needed while still having something quite handy and easy to move with. 400mm f/2.8 is a super lens, but it gets a lot less use unless you are into birding, and increasingly strict on-board baggage flight restrictions is making it a pain to transport (forget ever seeing your lenses again if you ever put a super tele lens into the hold...).


Yeh you have a typo there. A 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 makes a 420 f4

Oh and as for the expensive equipment in the hold none sense, how do you think people move video production equipment? People like National Geographic, tv companies etc etc, they fly it in the hold.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh and as for the expensive equipment in the hold none sense, how do you think people move video production equipment? People like National Geographic, tv companies etc etc, they fly it in the hold.


Not when they go on a Safari to Africa for sure...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Not when they go on a Safari to Africa for sure...


When you pack the amount of stuff they do they can't possibly take even the most important parts of the production equipment into the cabin, that is just a fact. Expensive gear can and does travel in holds all the time, that no one person wants to put their personal camera body or lens in a checked bag is very understandable, but that does not mean it can't and isn't done safely very regularly.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> When you pack the amount of stuff they do they can't possibly take even the most important parts of the production equipment into the cabin, that is just a fact. Expensive gear can and does travel in holds all the time, that no one person wants to put their personal camera body or lens in a checked bag is very understandable, but that does not mean it can't and isn't done safely very regularly.


I actually travel with pro camera teams - and they do not put their bread and butter into the hold when travelling to third world countries - ever. Just imagine the cost of standing there at the airport with zero gear and 5 people not able to do anything but turn back with the next flight. Not happening. If they can't have their own gear at hand (certain TV productions) they hire locally.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Mar 15, 2021)

@Fischer You made me smile... I'm glad I'm not the only one that hit's Reply/Quote instead of Edit.


----------



## analoggrotto (Mar 16, 2021)

Guess I'll be selling my 200mm F2.0 then.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 16, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I actually travel with pro camera teams - and they do not put their bread and butter into the hold when travelling to third world countries - ever. Just imagine the cost of standing there at the airport with zero gear and 5 people not able to do anything but turn back with the next flight. Not happening. If they can't have their own gear at hand (certain TV productions) they hire locally.


Or charter a flight.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 17, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Or charter a flight.


Not on today's budgets. Sadly.


----------



## degos (Mar 18, 2021)

Are those dimensions without lens hood? I assume so. Which makes that RF 600mm F4 about 18mm *longer* than the EF II.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 18, 2021)

degos said:


> Are those dimensions without lens hood? I assume so. Which makes that RF 600mm F4 about 18mm *longer* than the EF II.


Same as the 300mm. It does make them slimmer though - so maybe a little weight saving to compensate.


----------

