Another lovely series. Nicely done, SirIssacNewton.

Squirrel with an acorn! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

So many unused lenses (85, 100, 135, 200mm) "thanks" to these wonderful, compact new 70-200 lenses!
Even though the 70-200 Z is a truly exceptional lens, I won't replace my extending 70-200 zoom with it.
But maybe buy it as an addition. Christmas is getting closer.

I love my 28-70mm f/2.8. It stays on my studio camera almost full time now. For my work with models, where I move around a lot, it is virtually the perfect all around lens. The only time I use a different lens is when I want to have some fun with shallow DOF. For example, I use my old EF 135mm F/2 L with adapter to get a certain look.

Mr Cardinal on this Black Friday, taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

homebodyMacro2 said:

Indeed, and yikes!

If Canon wants to announce an $11k+ 300-600 f/5.6, frankly I don't see how that would be a good market choice. The 600 f/4.0 is right there, and you can put a 2x on the 100-300L with good results. It would be an extremely marginal case for the lens. That's why I hope, perhaps naively, that it will be more like $8k.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not the traditional user of this lens, but I am interested. I'm more optimistic that they're going to price it a bit more competitively than what we might initially expect. A few (maybe misled) reasons:

1. There's been reports that another lens is going to be released which might cannibalize sales of the 100-500. I think there's been 4 articles on Canonrumors that made that assertion, and several linked back to this super-zoom with a moderately fast aperture. If this was going to be priced in the 5-figure territory, would it really be competition for the 100-500? That tells me it'll be a bit closer to the 100-500 price point, though likely a ways higher than the 100-500.
2. While Canon always does what Canon wants without much consideration for what others are doing, Sigma's 300-600 has to be noticed at $6600. At that price point, for those who want to shoot high-end wildlife but don't have the capital for a true big white, there could be temptation to buy the lens and a Sony body just for that one subject. When this lens and a body is cheaper than the Canon lens equivalent alone, there's could be a market positioning problem. Canon will always be more expensive, but the math needs to make some sense.
3. I've seen there are some steep discounts on the (theoretically) most comparable currently-available Canon lens in the 200-400 f/4 with extender. That EF can be had for 10k right now on a black Friday sale, down from $12,400 - not a bad discount. Maybe that implies they're just trying to move some inventory before a replacement comes along, or maybe it implies a change in their vision of where this lens needs to sit in the lineup.

Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but I am optimistic that it will be expensive but not necessarily in the same range as we'd see from the other big white lenses.

Canon Rumors said:

You are bang on about the 135. I rented it, I was excited to do so. Optically remarkable, and way too big just to hit a meaningless f/1.8.

Click to expand...

I’ve been tempted by the RF 135/1.8 a couple of times, but then I remember that I didn’t use my EF 135/2 that much after getting the EF 70-200/2.8 II, and the size difference was very meaningful then. Now…what size difference?

Canon Rumors said:

Though, the IS probably doesn't help in this regard. I'm golden with IBIS, I'm not sure why it got IS. Though it goes back to, 'just because it doesn't make sense to me, it may for others.'

Click to expand...

Agree on this, as well…no real need in most use cases, I think. The focal length isn’t long enough that IBIS loses effectiveness, the 135/1.8 gets the same 2.5-3 stop bump as shorter lenses (by comparison, the 100-300/2.8 gains only a 0.5-stop bump from IBIS). Probably the 135/1.8 wouldn’t hit 8 stops without OIS, so maybe that’s a marketing reason to include it.

Canon Rumors said:

You are bang on about the 135. I rented it, I was excited to do so. Optically remarkable, and way too big just to hit a meaningless f/1.8. Though, the IS probably doesn't help in this regard. I'm golden with IBIS, I'm not sure why it got IS. Though it goes back to, 'just because it doesn't make sense to me, it may for others.'

I would definitely prefer a VCM variant. I am all-in on the VCM lenses. 20, 50, 85... and they need to add a you-know-what.

Click to expand...

Let me risk a very difficult guess, maybe a 28mm f/1,4 ???

The rime ice adds a special touch to these photos. Nicely done.

There was a heavy rime frost the night before and last night.

Canon Rumors said:

You are bang on about the 135. I rented it, I was excited to do so. Optically remarkable, and way too big just to hit a meaningless f/1.8. Though, the IS probably doesn't help in this regard. I'm golden with IBIS, I'm not sure why it got IS. Though it goes back to, 'just because it doesn't make sense to me, it may for others.'

I would definitely prefer a VCM variant. I am all-in on the VCM lenses. 20, 50, 85... and they need to add a you-know-what.

Click to expand...

It's a bit dissapointing for me because I was hoping this would be my first RF lens. The EF 135L is such a used lens by me and I was hoping for a clear upgrade for it. I'm currently thinking my first RF lens might be the RF 70-200 2.8 LIS. Followed by the RF 10-20L. I'm still on the fence between my EF 100-400mm f5.6 II L and the RF 100-500L.

I have such a good set of top tier premium EF glass, it gives RF glass a really hard time with it's upgrade path. Even my current EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II has sharpness benefits when using a tele converter over the current RF model.
If I had a EF 600mm f4 II L, the newer RF lens's weight advantage vs the slight drop in sharpness is a more convincing argument for the RF lens. But with the 400mm f2.8, the drop in IQ with a 2x is actualy quite a lot for only 1 kg in weight saving. The 600mm f1.4 only needs a 1.4x TC a similar reach so it's less of an issue.

Ozarker said:

Cripple hammer? It came with the correct battery. You knew it needed a different battery. That's a Canon cripple hammer?

A guy gets a brand spanking new $3k camera. Complains his old tech batteries don't work. Too impatient to wait for the correct battery to charge. That = cripple hammer.

Click to expand...

I am not an electrical engineer, I am a photojournalist who shoots for large newspapers and the wires.
I find it very hard to believe the camera absolutely can not be made to read the percentage remaining in the older batteries.

That is a choice.

The R3 is my work camera, the R6 is a walk around camera, I picked up a spare P battery and will live with it.

I did use the 45/1.2 STM yesterday at an outdoor event in the evening. I did shot while I was moving or while my subjects moved. Or in some moments both of us. Most of the time I shot a f/1.2. And not a single time the AF missed. Yeah, not USM or VCM fast. But worked fast enough for walking people. I'm not going to use it for sports. But I will going to test it at a Basketball game. If it fails: no problem. Still have my 28-70/2 and 70-200/2.8 Z with me ;-)

Kiton said:

I got mine an hour ago.
Does Canada count?

The CRIPPLE hammer has struck right away.
First thing to setup is camera to phone transfer.

NOT permitted without the new P battery. I have at least 10 variants of the older battery, which seem to power the camera just fine but not the wifi transfer feature.

Not sure yet if two of the last gen batteries in a battery grip would be enough to power it, will play around with that later, but I really like the R6 2 stripped down, I do not want to add the grip to that setup.

Click to expand...

Cripple hammer? It came with the correct battery. You knew it needed a different battery. That's a Canon cripple hammer?

A guy gets a brand spanking new $3k camera. Complains his old tech batteries don't work. Too impatient to wait for the correct battery to charge. That = cripple hammer.

Canon Rumors said:

Have you ever seen anyone actually do testing on this topic?

I did a 50mm thing back in the day, 9 lenses... all different, some were around 55, others 45. One was even about 60. I have long since lost all of that testing.

It's an interesting topic and a lot of people don't realize "70-200" is simply the marketing, everyone knows what that means. No one is going to notice that it's a 75-185, even if their previous version was different.

Click to expand...

I was first aware of this issue with long zooms way back when I bought a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. I had high hopes for this lens, the Canon 100-300 f2.8 is a thing of beauty and so versatile. But the Sigma was a worse case of a bunch of compromises that led me to sell the lens a fer months later. The focus breathing was extreme. Even at infinity, it was well short of even 280mm. If I put a 1.4x TC on my EF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II, the Canon lens had noticably more reach. If I foccussed on anything fairly close, the focal length would drop so short, I had more reach with my native 70-200mm f2.8. Plus the poor AF tracking and hesitiant AF lock, plus the truely awful optical image stabiliser....yes this "lens of dissapointment" went back. it was not worth the size, weight and cost over the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II with a teleconverter. Unlike the more modern and better engineered Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 which is just amazing and really delivers on that particular focal range and brightness.

I often choose a EF 135mm f2.8 L prime as my light weight travel companion instead of the far bulier 70-200mm f2.8. This is because it looses less focal length at MFD and the diffrence between 135mm and what's reported as 200mm in a zoom isn't that much. Sure, it's a bit wider but take a step or two closer to the subject and it's pretty much the same look.

Which brings me to a lens that I'm really frustrated with, the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. It's a fantastic piece of engineering and a remarkably sharp lens. However it's totally missed the point of the previous lens and makes me wonder who or why would anyone buy it over the current RF 70-200mm f2.8 or even the legacy EF135mm f2.0 L which I currently own.
While the zoom has become smaller and lighter, the prime has grown and become heavier and bulkier. To the point that all of the versatility and portability has been lost in the newer RF verion. On paper it's superior in every metric, except that now it's become bloaty and over sized. Curiously, it's now an even more niche lens that the EF version. The old EF 135mm f2.0 was a master piece of unobtrusiveness telephoto shooting. It was like a ninja stealth lens, especially if you took the hood off. The newer lens is massive in comparison and not much different to the f2.8 zoom in terms of size and weight or sheer bulk. In fact the RF 70-200mm f4 LIS is pretty much the same size and weight as the EF 135mm f2.0L, which says a lot about how much engineering has gone into the f4 zoom. It's a remarkable lens for sure. I just wish Canon has kept the original use case scenario for the EF 135mm as it's primary design objective and not just added features and bulk. Yes, it's brighter, it's sharper, yes it focusses closer, yes it's got IS....but look at the size of the thing!
It would be really cool if Canon considers a 135mm f2.0 in their new hybrid VCM primes range. Or even in their F2 lens line up, Canon could easily drop a 135mm f2 and a 200mm f2! The 135's design criterior that has an eye on size, bulk, price and brightness. It could be the sweetest lens of the pick.

David_B said:

I actually wasn't that concerned about being correct/right and more concerned with sharing something that I thought others might find interesting - which is how a lot of social media works. I think there have been enough others that found it informative to have been worthwhile. If someone wants to argue about whether something is right/wrong, fill your boots while I get a beer, sit back and watch some tiktok.

Click to expand...

Thank you for succinctly describing the post-truth world.

*Remark: Not compatible with the following Panasonic Lumix models: S52 S1M2 S1R2 S1M2E S5M2X

Click to expand...

That's curious... Does anyone know why?

DhlcadR6 said:

I would rather have 80-200 than 70-180, imho the tele part is where it matters.

Click to expand...

Most 70-200/2.8 lenses are actually a bit short on the 200mm end. They often loose focal length as they focus closer (called focus breathing). A lot of 70-200 designs work out to be nearer 135mm at min focus distance.
My old Ef 70-200 f2.8 Lis mkii is longer at mfd and at infinity (@200mm) than the current RF 70-200mm f2.8 Lis. Some brands are already selling their 70-200/2.8’s where they are actually 75-185mm lenses.
Personally, I would welcome a non L 70-180/2.8 L STM if it was even lighter and more compact that the current L zoom.
Especially if it’s conceptually modelled after the very sweet Tamron variant of this lens, although that’s not got an image stabiliser. It’s light, small, cheap, sharp and very effective.

David_B said:

One day there'll be a RF 24-70/f4 that's at least as optically good as the EF24-70/f4 for a similar price. ah dreams.

Meanwhile, there'll be a 70-200 for every ocassion.

Click to expand...

Though often criticised , the EF 24-70 f/4 was indeed an excellent lens, offering nice close-up possibilities. The only valid criticism was, in my opinion, after 2 samples, the wobbling extending lens tube.
But the "similar price" would remain a pipe dream...

padam said:

Just use a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C or a Z version + 1.4x extender, equals to 100-280mm f/4L (with better minimum focus distance).
They won't make lenses that already exist as such...

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any native mount RF 70-300 lenses, despite that length being massibely common for EF.

EricN said:

You're missing something important. There are sources more reliable/trustworthy than Facebook. As well as less bias than or at least opposing bias to Wikipedia. Simply put, neither is as good as ANYTHING else on the internet. Not wanting to admit you're wrong might be more childish, but virtually nobody is tired or over it when about themselves.

Click to expand...

I actually wasn't that concerned about being correct/right and more concerned with sharing something that I thought others might find interesting - which is how a lot of social media works. I think there have been enough others that found it informative to have been worthwhile. If someone wants to argue about whether something is right/wrong, fill your boots while I get a beer, sit back and watch some tiktok.

P-visie said:

You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.

Click to expand...

They're a source of information, whether or not they're good or bad depends on what you're consuming. I hate both of them equally but sometimes algorithms decide to let you see interesting nuggets.

P-visie said:

In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.

Click to expand...

I hear you - and if it was a regular website (ie not facebook/X), I would but I don't trust facebook URLs because of inbuilt tracking mechanisms to monetize every click. X is similar but not as bad (but I could be wrong.)

I would rather have 80-200 than 70-180, imho the tele part is where it matters.

Canon Rumors said:

70-200s are one the most versatile lenses in lineups. They are used for so many things. Events, portrait, wildlife, landscape, general use.... You could shoot some sports with a non-USM motor. Our kids aren't moving at the speed of light like professional athletes.

Most sports Dads aren't going to be dropping $3000 on a lens to shoot Timbits Hockey. It also becomes far more accessible for people that are shooting with R10s and R50s and that sort of thing.

Canon already makes your preference, so you're good!

Click to expand...

No, but the dads could drop $1500 on an f/4L unless the new STM is significantly cheaper. I guess they now know how much the 16-28 STM sold vs. the 14-35L. Wide angles get away with STM easier though.

My preference would still be a 100-300 f/4L.