Too good to be true!
This is a lens I will order as soon as it is officially announced.
But it needs a "little" companion, the TS-E 14mm.

I'd buy a 24-70/2 in a heartbeat, especially if it comes in close to the size/weight of the 24-70/2.8.

Canon Rumors said:

There's another one that fits in there that causes my skin to burn if I type it out.

Click to expand...

No love for the RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM? Lol.

I was hoping for an announcement like this....I still have my EF 24-70 2.8ii, wouldn't mind upgrading.

scyrene said:

Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

Click to expand...

I just took a look at the macros I shot with the RF 100mm f/2,8 last Sunday.
40% at f/2,8...

neuroanatomist said:

Technically, you’re correct – one is a prime and the other is a zoom, and those are different classes of lenses. But optically, the RF 100-300/2.8 is just as good as the excellent 300/2.8 II at 300mm, and infinitely better from 100-299mm.

The price you pay for the added capability of a zoom lens is an extra 5 cm of length and an extra 200 g of weight (and higher cost, of course). Personally, I was initially hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was not thrilled about the extra 5 cm of the zoom lens. After using it, the additional flexibility of a zoom lens is more than worth it. 35% of my shots with the lens are at 300mm, and 50% of my shots with it are shorter than 250mm.

The zoom is a little bulkier than the prime, but gives up nothing optically. One camera with the 100-300/2.8 is also a lot more convenient than one camera with a 300/2.8 and a second camera with a 70-200/2.8.

Click to expand...

Sony has knocked a huge amount of weight off the 300/2.8. Their prime weighs 1 kg/ 35 oz less than the Canon zoom coming it at 1.74 kg with hood etc. Canon could do the same. That I would buy.

scyrene said:

Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

Click to expand...

PS I agree that new lenses have changed the landscape somewhat. The RF 100-400 is a great near-macro alternative for insects, although the narrow maximum aperture means less dreamy OOF areas.

Peter Ebel said:

BTW: The real replacement of the EF180mm Macro is the 70-200 Z with 2x TC: Max magnification 0.66x, effective focal length 173mm (whereas the 180 offers 140mm @ 0.66x mag. . It is f/3.5 vs f/5.6 in these shooting conditions - but who shoots f/3.5 in the wild with a digital sensor at magnification 0.66x???

Click to expand...

Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

neuroanatomist said:

Why the switch? My guess would be to address the issue of the MH-100 putting the center of mass to the side instead of over the monopod, but to me it looks like that side gimbal wouldn’t shift it back enough unless used with a low profile foot (I’ve seen some that are too low to be used comfortably as a handle). I use the RRS replacement foot on my EF 600/4 II.

My solution is to use the MH-100 on top of the RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head. With a few degrees of tilt on that, the monopod gimbal is level while the monopod itself is tilted off the vertical axis. That puts the center of mass over the monopod foot on the ground, meaning I just need to balance the rig instead of supporting the weight of the off-center rig to keep it from tipping over.

Click to expand...

Yes, the center of mass being off to the side with the Wimberley MH-100 does create an extra balancing issue. The ProMediaGear tomahawk only partially corrects the issue, but it helps. I hadn't thought of using an extra monopod head to center it. Thanks; I'll give it a try.

noname said:

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

Click to expand...

What's the fuzz with built in TCs?
Let's go into details:
The EF200-400 with the 1.4 engaged offered 280-560 5.6 @ infinity (you never shoot at infinity!) I used it for years: Stellar IQ, bad for birds, bad for smaller objects like butterflies, dragonflies: by far too heavy and a lack of shooting distance and magnification at the short end, the effective focal length at minimum distance is just 287mm (metadata lie and tell you 560mm). Magnification 0.21x
The RF100-300 with the added 2x converter offers 200-600 5.6 @ infinity (again: you never shoot at infinity!): Still superb IQ, great for birds, great for butterflies and dragonflies: handhold ablility, focusses down to the ground just infront of your shoes, the effective focal length at minimum distance is 338mm (metadata lie and tell you 600mm). Magnification 0.31x. What a difference in weight @ versatility! (even not thinking about the options to shoot without TC or the 1.4x version)

Friends: The future is zoom! I am so happy with the practical use, I sold the EF 600 4.0 version 2 which gave stellar performance as well but wasn't used too much due to a lack of handhold ability and versatility. Let us not forget: The 100-300 + engaged hood + TC fits in a pack where the v600 without hood and TC does not fit. A lens not being ready to shoot never gives you the intended success (as long as you are not sitting in a photo blind ...)

BTW: The real replacement of the EF180mm Macro is the 70-200 Z with 2x TC: Max magnification 0.66x, effective focal length 173mm (whereas the 180 offers 140mm @ 0.66x mag. . It is f/3.5 vs f/5.6 in these shooting conditions - but who shoots f/3.5 in the wild with a digital sensor at magnification 0.66x??? Don't let us talk about versatility, the zoom is one leg of the 2.8 trinity. And this lens is stellar for closeup work in the wild - all just as a windfall profit of up to date technology!

Friends: Do not stick to legacy experience: My 180 is gone, my 200-400 is gone, my 600 is gone. I am happy!
I am ready for a ultra light 500mm prime (no built in TC) or a 200-600 zoom giving the option to extend to 1000mm/1200mm focal length if "needed" and hot air does not destroy any expected IQ.

All shots with 100-300+2x, none would exist with the previous equipment

cruso said:

its not in the same Class as the 300 F2.8 it was one hell of a lens

Click to expand...

Technically, you’re correct – one is a prime and the other is a zoom, and those are different classes of lenses. But optically, the RF 100-300/2.8 is just as good as the excellent 300/2.8 II at 300mm, and infinitely better from 100-299mm.

The price you pay for the added capability of a zoom lens is an extra 5 cm of length and an extra 200 g of weight (and higher cost, of course). Personally, I was initially hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was not thrilled about the extra 5 cm of the zoom lens. After using it, the additional flexibility of a zoom lens is more than worth it. 35% of my shots with the lens are at 300mm, and 50% of my shots with it are shorter than 250mm.

The zoom is a little bulkier than the prime, but gives up nothing optically. One camera with the 100-300/2.8 is also a lot more convenient than one camera with a 300/2.8 and a second camera with a 70-200/2.8.

AlanF said:

I had the EF 300mm f2.8 II. It is one hell of a lens. And, the RF 100-300mm F2.8 is pretty much in the same class. If it was lighter and cheaper I might have bought one. It shows how much zoom technology has improved.

View attachment 230043

Click to expand...

Yes I also had one its a shame they discontinued it is now a none serviceable and the 100-300 is really pricey

cruso said:

its not in the same Class as the 300 F2.8 it was one hell of a lens

Click to expand...

I had the EF 300mm f2.8 II. It is one hell of a lens. And, the RF 100-300mm F2.8 is pretty much in the same class. If it was lighter and cheaper I might have bought one. It shows how much zoom technology has improved.

neuroanatomist said:

Why the switch? My guess would be to address the issue of the MH-100 putting the center of mass to the side instead of over the monopod, but to me it looks like that side gimbal wouldn’t shift it back enough unless used with a low profile foot (I’ve seen some that are too low to be used comfortably as a handle). I use the RRS replacement foot on my EF 600/4 II.

My solution is to use the MH-100 on top of the RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head. With a few degrees of tilt on that, the monopod gimbal is level while the monopod itself is tilted off the vertical axis. That puts the center of mass over the monopod foot on the ground, meaning I just need to balance the rig instead of supporting the weight of the off-center rig to keep it from tipping over.

Click to expand...

scyrene said:

They replaced it with a zoom.

Click to expand...

its not in the same Class as the 300 F2.8 it was one hell of a lens

John D P said:

I have a RRS monopod for heavy loads and a lighter 3 legged thing monopod. I have used the Wimberley mh-100 monopod head, but have switched to the ProMediaGear tomahawk.

Click to expand...

Why the switch? My guess would be to address the issue of the MH-100 putting the center of mass to the side instead of over the monopod, but to me it looks like that side gimbal wouldn’t shift it back enough unless used with a low profile foot (I’ve seen some that are too low to be used comfortably as a handle). I use the RRS replacement foot on my EF 600/4 II.

My solution is to use the MH-100 on top of the RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head. With a few degrees of tilt on that, the monopod gimbal is level while the monopod itself is tilted off the vertical axis. That puts the center of mass over the monopod foot on the ground, meaning I just need to balance the rig instead of supporting the weight of the off-center rig to keep it from tipping over.

cruso said:

What about a 300 Prime as they dont have a new one as the old one is a bit long in the tooth ? and it was a cracking lens They have replaced the 400 and the 600 already but not the 300 in the RF ?

Click to expand...

They replaced it with a zoom.

noname said:

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

Click to expand...

The recently deceased 200-500 resuscitated?

I don’t have much experience using large telephoto optics. But the thing that as suprised me the mose about zoom lenses is that they are step-less. Other than for video I have never used the step-less feature of zooms. I treat them like multiple primes that are a lot faster to change.

It must surley be easier to make lenses like the Leica tri elmar 28-35-50. The only potential issue I see with stepped zooms and built in TC lenses are that they might loose the tracking ability when changing focal length.

AlanF said:

Let's face it, if they made a zoom that was the same optical quality, f-number, weight and cost as a prime, you would be crazy not to choose the zoom. The question is how much of a compromise in those factors matters to you personally you have to make to switch the balance of choice.

Click to expand...

If the zoom is only slightly worse in each aspect I'd still choose it over a prime at least for birding

However a really good prime with 2 builtin extenders would be the best of both worlds especially if the minimum focus distance is shorter than the current primes e.g:

• A 200mm f/1.4 with 1.4x & 2x for 280mm f/2 & 400mm f/2.8 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8
• A 300mm f/2 with 1.4x & 2x for 420mm f/2.8 & 600mm f/4 could be similar size and weight to current 600mm f/4
• A 400mm f/2.8 with 1.4x & 2x for 560mm f/4 & 800mm f/5.6 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8

but obviously a bit more expensive than current super tele primes

I doubt Canon will make my dreams come true though and I'd settle for a 300-600mm f/5.6 with 1.4x builtin and a similar quality as the current RF 100-300 f/2.8 and of course it would be 10-20% more expensive I expect. (A 200-600mm f/4-5.6 w. 1.4x would be even nicer)
This is much more likely to be made and I would be content with this paired with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z

Czardoom said:

Well, I guess we can all be a bit misleading. The OM 150-400 has a built in 1.25x TC, which you conveniently ignored.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself! People most often do not deliberately mislead, especially here, but unfortunately deliberate misleading is the curse of the age. I didn't conveniently ignore the built-in TC. You can add an external TC to Canon lenses, and it's the the number of pixels in the image of a duck we were discussing, not whether a built-in is more convenient, a topic currently being debated in another thread. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on whether to to choose MFT or FF or APS-C because that is purely a personal choice as they are all compromises in different ways, and I do listen to you. It's just the facts behind that choice are open to discussion.

Let's face it, if they made a zoom that was the same optical quality, f-number, weight and cost as a prime, you would be crazy not to choose the zoom. The question is how much of a compromise in those factors matters to you personally you have to make to switch the balance of choice.

Not sure what a 500/5.6 would give me more than my RF100-500 but I guess Canon would have done his homework and made a decent business case around it