Latest activity

mswoody6.4 · Mar 17, 2026

a 20-70 mm f2.8 would be nice but what about a 20-70 mm or 20-75 f2.0 would be nicer

@amir_photography · Mar 17, 2026

In my opinion this could be a great lens paired with the 14 f1.4 vcm lens as well, since I find myself not always using the range of 16-20 on my 15-30...

josephandrews222 · Mar 17, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I also don't use the widest aperture of my 28-70mm f/2 that often, so there's that...

Really?

neuroanatomist · Mar 17, 2026

Salamander said:
I understand this is an old thread…if the OP is around I’m curious how far away you were when you took these pictures.

Still here, lol. Both were shot with the 24 MP EOS R3. The football kickoff was shot from the stands, around 50 m / 160' away from the kicker, and the image is cropped to ~6 MP. The violinists were shot from my seat in the auditorium, probably about 18 m / 60' away from the front subject, and cropped to ~8 MP.

Ozarker · Mar 17, 2026

"However, with it starting at 18mm on Canon's APS-C, it's dead to me, and it's not even out yet."

Shane · Mar 17, 2026

This would make packing my bag for weddings lighter. I currently use the 28-70 f2 and I also take a 15-35 2.8. For the huge space and weight savings I may be willing to just take a 20-70 2.8. I also carry a 35 1.4 and an 85 1.2 and 100 Macro so one less lens would be nice haha. I really love the 28-70 f2 though, so it will be a tough call. Certainly a great lens if they bring it out.

becceric · Mar 17, 2026

ISv said:
They have some schedule: the Spring. Since the spring (especially the water temperature!) is coming on different time on different altitudes/micro-climates there could be at least a month variability. I'm talking about the toads on Nemorino's photos - Bufo bufo.

I always look forward to hearing the Spring "peepers" while out on my bicycle route, although I have no idea what type they are, for I never see them. Once they are silent, my mind turns to summer rides.

ISv · Mar 17, 2026

becceric said:
We have a local radio station that calls itself "Big Frog 104".
In the summer they have a frogfest concert. I don't know if amphibian orgies are on the scedule.

They have some schedule: the Spring. Since the spring (especially the water temperature!) is coming on different time on different altitudes/micro-climates there could be at least a month variability. I'm talking about the toads on Nemorino's photos - Bufo bufo.

Salamander · Mar 17, 2026

Loswr said:
Post your images takes with Canon's RF 70-200/2.8L. A welcome (for me) redesign of the excellent EF 70-200/2.8 lenses offering improved IQ in a smaller and lighter package. A 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens for portraits and events, and for a wider view of night sports.

Here are a couple of my shots with the lens:

"Kickoff"
View attachment 208922
EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm, 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000

"Strings"
View attachment 208923
EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm, 1/250 s, f/2.8, ISO 5000

With this lens, I often find myself at the long end shooting wide open with a high ISO and still cropping. Looking forward to receiving my 100-300/2.8 for the extra reach with the same f/2.8

Loswr said:
Post your images takes with Canon's RF 70-200/2.8L. A welcome (for me) redesign of the excellent EF 70-200/2.8 lenses offering improved IQ in a smaller and lighter package. A 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens for portraits and events, and for a wider view of night sports.

Here are a couple of my shots with the lens:

"Kickoff"
View attachment 208922
EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm, 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000

"Strings"
View attachment 208923
EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm, 1/250 s, f/2.8, ISO 5000

With this lens, I often find myself at the long end shooting wide open with a high ISO and still cropping. Looking forward to receiving my 100-300/2.8 for the extra reach with the same f/2.8 aperture.

I understand this is an old thread…if the OP is around I’m curious how far away you were when you took these pictures.

neuroanatomist · Mar 17, 2026

Salamander said:
Anyone have a response to my question about the f2.8 vs the f4?

Keep in mind that the 'crop factor' does not just apply to focal length. Image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size. So while the 'brighter' f/2.8 lens on the iPhone seems like it would be better than the f/4 lens on your R6, in fact your iPhone video will have about the same amount of noise as if you were shooting the scene at f/10 on your R6.

Del Paso · Mar 17, 2026

This is my firm order for this lens!

Salamander · Mar 17, 2026

Anyone have a response to my question about the f2.8 vs the f4?

m4ndr4ke · Mar 17, 2026

While my preference for having 28mm on one end of my main lens is clear, objectively I have to recognise that a 20-70mm f/2.8 could be very useful to me, as it would have the potential to replace simultaneously an UWA and a standard zoom lenses.

I doubt I would go for it, as I imagine myself more likely to jump to prime lenses, within a few years, but I'm certain such a zoom lens could make many, many users happy.

Tirmite said:
I can make you a 16-600mm f2.8. Not problem. I can whip out one on my optical lathe in about a week. Do you want white or black exterior? I just need a $5000 deposit and the remaining $20,000 will be due upon delivery (which will cost $1000 because of shipping weight and insurance). Bitcoin only. Call me!

That would actually be very cheap.
A 600mm f/2.8 prime could probably cost 25k alone

Tirmite said:
I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events.
(...)
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost.

I tried the 50-150mm last year. Having 50mm on the telephoto zoom is interesting, but the wider aperture didn't really excite me. I don't know, I'm also the kind of guy who doesn't bother to own an 85 or 135mm, and covers everything beyond 70mm with the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I guess I don't care that much for shallow depth of field. I always found f/2.8 to be enough from about 85 onwards.
I also don't use the widest aperture of my 28-70mm f/2 that often, so there's that...

The FE 50-150mm f/2 weights about as much as a traditional 70-200mm f/2.8, like the EF, and the size is pretty similar too. It's manageable, but these new 1kg 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses and, specially, the original RF 70-200mm f/2.8, that takes less space in the bag, are winning my heart. I can now carry a lens and a camera body where I used to carry just the 70-200mm. That's pretty amazing.

sturm3n · Mar 17, 2026

Very welcome news to me! When I switched from Sony to Canon 2 years ago, one of the lenses I was saddest to part with was the 20-70mm f/4. I wish Canon would just blatantly rip it off. The versatility combined with the size and weight is incredible. However, I'll settle for a bigger, heavier, more expensive 20-70mm f/2.8L.

Tirmite · Mar 17, 2026

I got the 28-70mm 2.0 when I first jumped into Canon mirrorless. It's a fantastic lens for indoor events or just as a "normal" lens to leave on a body and maybe have in the car as an always-with-me camera. But the weight of that monster gets old fast. A 20-70mm or 20-85mm would be a great lens and exotic but not too heavy.
I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events. Also one that you can just leave on the camera all the time. I've decided to get one and if Canon ever makes their own, maybe I'll switch, but it's just too handy to do without in the meantime.
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost. Come on, Canon! Do your own version and add some one-upmanship like making yours compatible with teleconverters. I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm. So that's why I'll be buying the Sony for now and bringing an older a7r body out of retirement.

Tirmite · Mar 17, 2026

Hector1970 said:
20-70mm would certainly be quite useful. I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens. The existing ones are so good. Maybe they will eventually get around to a 16-600mm 2.8 that's less than 1KG in weight

I can make you a 16-600mm f2.8. Not problem. I can whip out one on my optical lathe in about a week. Do you want white or black exterior? I just need a $5000 deposit and the remaining $20,000 will be due upon delivery (which will cost $1000 because of shipping weight and insurance). Bitcoin only. Call me!

neuroanatomist · Mar 17, 2026

Maximilian said:
Personally, I am more on the tele/portrait side of the world.
For that, I would love to see some extra mm FL on the long end, say 75 or 80.
But I suppose that the guess with 20 mm sounds more likely.

There is already the 24-105/2.8L Z (and it’s an excellent lens!).

Exploreshootshare · Mar 17, 2026

Ohhhh, I´m intrigued

starting at 20mm would be really nice. Would it "cannibalize" the sales of the UWA zoom (15-35mm) because there is less need for it? Just a thought/ question. I could imagine Canon coming up with a 20-50mm F2.8 zoom in a very compact size. We will wait and see.

One more thing: that is a very good to differentiate the F2.8 L zoom from the F2.8 STM zoom.

becceric · Mar 17, 2026

Michael Clark said:
There's always the Adam Savage bandsaw method.

View attachment 228406

View attachment 228407

Those images made my eyes open WIDE!
But I'm not buying a bandsaw.

Mountain Dave · Mar 17, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
I very much agree, I've been a fan of the EF 135mm f2.0 for well over 15 years. my copy is beaten to heck and well used. It still puts in great shots and I've not seen optical sharpness issues with it on my R6ii or R5.
However....it's a very old lens and it's AF sometimes can be less consistent that newer designs. Its remarkable that Canon go so much right with this lens, when relatively newer lenses (like the ef 50mm f1.2L) had far worse AF in low light.
One of the more memorable uses of this lens was back from my "available light" Wedding photographer days and I had a wedding contract to cover a ceremony in Canterbury Cathedal in the crypt, lit only by candle light. No flashes allowed and the ambience was amazing. This was the youngest of two sisters and her older sister was married at the same venue two years previously and the other photographer used f2.8 zooms (with flashes on a crop camera) and couldn't get a usable shot because it was too dark and was using Nikon at the time. These days, it would be so much easier in these shooting conditions because the MIRC have better high iso abilities (both Canon and Nikon) and great AF as low as -2ev or better in many cameras. Back then, on Canon full frame, only the single central AF point (in one shot only) or the central 5 points (depending on which model) were usable at these light levels.

To be fair, this lens struggled in this context more than my ef 35mm f1.4 and ef 85mm f1.2, but that's the reality of combined darker aperture and the need to shoot at a higher shutter speed due tot he focal length. A 35mm f1.4 fains a whole stop AND it can get sharp images at 1/30th sec, where as the EF 135mm f2.0 looses a stop and needs to shoot at 1/125-150th to reduce hand wobble or camera shake. Tricks like bracing against a wall / pillar / column help a lot too.
Generally with weddings 1/50th is the slowest you can shoot because the subjects need to be clear, defined and without movement (unless it's clearly a creative shot).
The RF cameras (as we all know) have a far superior Af system than their older DSLR cousins. Continuous, reliable and accurrate tracking across the whole frame is something that we are all enjoying and it's easy to forget the AF deficiencies of the past and that this lens was originally designed to operate with. This lens was designed for film cameras way before digital was anything more that prototype and early concepts, it was launched as an enirely new design around 1997 with a new optical formula, improved over it's famous FD counterpart. Other memorable lenses launched the same year: EF 180mm f3.5 Macro and EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II....it was quite a year for Canon lens design, maybe one of Canon's finest. Here we are 20 years later seeing that some of these lenses from this particular generation are still very relevent. This was a year that legends were born.

One of the sweet things that I love about the ef 135L is it's tiny size and weight. It's truely a discrete telephoto lens. Often it frames similar to a 70-200 @ 200mm with tight close headshots. This is due to the zoom having more focal length breathing at MFD and that many 70-200's are actually quite short of the magic 200mm declaration on the barrel. I've had an older Sigma 70-200 EX DG that was really a 85-185mm (excluding focal breathing).
often, I found at weddings I could take a step closer and I'd get the same frame filling I would from my EF 70-200mm LIS II, but with a far les obtrusive lens that was lighter and way less heavier. Sure, no IS and the AF isn't quite so good, but I usually prefered the images from the 135/f2L.

The new RF is a stuning lens in every way except in the areas that made it's predessor so versatile. The new lens is one of Canon's sharpest primes...seriously it blows away every prime under 200mm by some margin....but you can't fit teleconverters to it. Duhhh.
It's gained 1/3 of a stop of brightness, a truely superior Af system and a new IS system. It's now got more focal breathing than before but can focus closer...all this adds up to a lens that is almost as heavy and the similar bag size as the RF70-200mm f2.8 LIS, which says a lot about the zoom lens!
For me, if I was still shooting weddings in the UK and I needed a newer set of lenses (warrenty and service life are a big factor here), I woudn't choose the EF 135L, I would definatly get the RF 70-200/2.8 and pick up a mint used EF 135L for my bag and review it's use over the season.
But it leaves the RF 135L out in the cold as a worthy sucessor. It superior in every lab tests except it's use case scenario that the EF 135L excelled in. To be honest, this could all change if Canon drops a RF 135mm f2 VCM lens on us, that basically takes the old EF lens and gives us a new lens that gives us an improvement of the features that made this then great. But if you already have a RF 70-200/2.8 then you probably won't ever see much use for the current RF135L or potentially a newer, smaller, lighter VCM option. This is because Canon did a packaging miracle with the RF70-200/2.8 LIS and made it so small and light. This is hard for me to write because the RF135mm f1.8 LIS is a superlative lens, one of Canon's finest...it's just lost 80% of it's photographer's appeal compared to the EF version.

My conclusion, there are a few EF primes that adapt well and are still relevent in the Canon Mirrorless ecosystem. The EF 85mm f1.4 LIS , the EF 35mm f1.4 II L and the EF 135mm f2.0 L are the three that stand out and still stand out as exceptional. Sure we could add the EF 200mm f2.0 LIS to this list, but that's one of the great whites and that's a slightly different topic. While the new RF 85mm 1.4 L VCM and RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM lenses are excellent, if you already have the previous EF version's there's not much to gain from the side grade cost. The Rf 135L is a vast improvement in every metric that is unfortunatly not very helpful to the photographer and their shooting needs and this leaves the EF version a curious better option for many.

For my use, the RF version helps me quite a bit and I do like the color rendition better. Sure, it's quite a bit bigger & heavier but when you add in the additional weight and length of an adapter, it's not a big deal. I never used an extender on the EF version anyway though I have used that as an excuse to keep it!

becceric · Mar 17, 2026

Nemorino said:
More likely a kind of...
...an orgy.

We have a local radio station that calls itself "Big Frog 104".
In the summer they have a frogfest concert. I don't know if amphibian orgies are on the scedule.

Mountain Dave · Mar 17, 2026

Michael Clark said:
In addition to the AF advantages of MILCs, I'd suspect IBIS may make a significant contribution as well. The only real shortcoming I see with the EF 135mm f/2 L is that it does not have IS. IBIS can make a real difference with a non-stabilized telephoto lens in many shooting scenarios.

Too many folks seem to think there is absolutely no way when they are using a non-stabilized 135mm f/2 lens wide open at 1/30 handheld that the resulting images will show the effects of any camera motion when pixel peeping, so if there is any blur in the subject it's because the lens has to be "soft" since their technique is unquestionably perfect!

When using the EF 135mm f/2 L handheld I've had images that weren't as sharp as they could have been due to my poor shooting technique. It's not because the lens is 'soft'. It's because I wasn't holding the camera stable enough. If the camera is moving enough to show motion blur during the exposure that's on me, not the lens. Most of what I shoot with the 135/2 is pre-focused and held using back button AF until the decisive moment presents itself, so AF speed is rarely a factor in the way I use it most of the time. YMMV.

I also suspect IBIS helps out but have no way to prove it. I shoot everything handheld. I'm pretty good at it. Extensive experience with target shooting no doubt helps. With DSLRs, I often practiced by taking a long, heavy lens, turn IS off and using a single focus point, try holding it steady. It's tough. Also, I see a lot of photographers move the entire camera (usually down and/or away) when pushing the shutter. Concentrating on keeping the camera steady is worthwhile. I could shoot the 135 at 1/30 and get a decent hit rate. It helps that it is short, light and well balanced.

bloblom · Mar 17, 2026

Bob Howland said:
R7V and R7-2?

Two different cameras?
Because an R7C was clearly in the pipeline at some point in mid-2024.

I don't know if these documents were ever posted, but 2024 Russian conformity certifications are available for Canon and state a few models and kits approved by the Federal Accreditation Service at the time.

These documents were extracted from fsa.gov.ru on behalf of mvideo, a Russian consumer electronic retailer in early 2025.

2024-06-21: https://static.mvideo.ru/sertificates/Certificates/400413367.pdf

2024-11-13: https://static.mvideo.ru/sertificates/Certificates/400423436.pdf

Later that year, quite a few models disappeared, including the R7C (among others).

And before someone suggests it, the FSA deals with conformity assessment and certification infrastructure, not intellectual property. These are not trademarks but approved models. It's not surprising that the cameras were certified that early either. In the publicly available FCC documentation for the R7 Mark II, RF testing started in early 2025 on a camera with a serial number indicating it was the 250th-something produced.

Hector1970 · Mar 17, 2026

20-70mm would certainly be quite useful. I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens. The existing ones are so good. Maybe they will eventually get around to a 16-600mm 2.8 that's less than 1KG in weight

justaCanonuser · Mar 17, 2026

Michael Clark said:
I've owned my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II since 2010

I have mine since about 2012, if I remember correctly. Works perfectly until today.

Michael Clark said:
What it HAS had every single time I've ever shot with it, is the lens hood properly mounted in place. It's also had a lens cap on it whenever it has been stored in a case or on a shelf. The lens cap goes on immediately before the hood comes off to be reversed.

Same with me, but what happened to my wife changed my mind, and I screwed a good filter on it. She has the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR II, so the actual competition model from Nikon. When that lens still was quite new, she did some street shooting during carneval, lens hood on the lens, no filter. But someone in the crowed managed to poke his umbrella spike exactly into the hood and hit the front lens, not realizing it. Since then it had quite a scratch that could affect the image quality in very bright conditions.

Well, because of Nikon's not so brilliant quality (looking back to the golden days of this camera maker), this lens had recently the second AF drive failure (and that's not the only lens of our Nikon gear), so we decided to throw it away and replace it with a used one in good condition purchased at MPB. You can get decent copies substantially cheaper than used EF 70-200/2.8 II, there must be a reason behind that. Nikon's quality is really not up to Canon's anymore with their pro/prosumer equipment.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics