Here’s the upcoming Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM zooming in and out

[Viggo]

I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.

 

[Michael Clark]

Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.

Some of those venues base it on the fullest extension of the lens, not the most compact. Of course, if they don't know about the zoom lock...

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.

I'm not crazy about the bokeh from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, either. I do find it an extremely useful lens for many shooting situations, though. But if I can get by with a 135mm prime instead of a 70-200mm zoom, it's the EF 135mm f/2 every time.

 

[Michael Clark]

Sounds oddly sexual. Anything bigger than 6 inches isnt allowed.....

It's about not blocking the view of the ticket purchaser in the seat next to or behind yours.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm not crazy about the bokeh from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, either. I do find it an extremely useful lens for many shooting situations, though. But if I can get by with a 135mm prime instead of a 70-200mm zoom, it's the EF 135mm f/2 every time.

I disliked the bokeh of the MkII so much I kept the MkI, but then I am primarily a portrait type shooter than a sports/action shooter.

 

[Loswr]

I hope everyone crying about an extending lens cried when they saw the 24-70 II

Have there been four prior models of the 24-70/2.8 that were fixed zoom lenses?

 

[YuengLinger]

The outrage culture just kills me. Driven by social media need to have SOMETHING to say. It’s not interesting to just say nice things.

The lens, arguably on track to be one of Canon’s best, already setting off the crybullies because it extends. Jeezus.

In a few weeks, Canon is going release a Pro mirrorless body. It will have IBIS, dual slots, full 4K, and other features that the entirety of the internet whined for.

And anyone who thinks the crybabies won’t find some other feature to set about spitting out their pacifiers and caterwauling about and proclaiming the product USELESS doesn’t understand the interwebs.

When using a lens built for action in a dusty or misty situation, having a truly weather-sealed lens is just one less thing to worry about.

As mentioned by others, Canon's 70-200mm lenses have historically been internal-zooming, so coming to a gear forum that has been discussing Canon gear for years to comment, question, or even grumble about a huge change in design does not seem, to me, to be participating in "outrage culture...to have SOMETHING to say."

On the other hand, scolding people who are discussing a big change that doesn't bother you in the least, does seem to be a perfect example of trying to shut down any type of disagreement with your point of view.

It would be just as annoying to hear somebody say, "Oh, why are all these so-called photographers fussing and whining about fitting all their lenses in their satchels--instead of focusing on performance like I do."

 

[SUNDOG04]

I wonder if its switchable, since many will never use manual focus and real estate is limited.

It is a vital part f my three lens landscape kit and manual focus is often used.

 

[SUNDOG04]

I've never quite got how in the 70-200 range folks lust after the 2.8 when there's hardly any noticeable difference between the 2.8 and F4?

It's not like we don't have the available extra stop of ISO to bump to. (Unlike the days of the 1Ds3) and the F4 is half the weight. Unless it helps the AF speed I guess.

I bought my 70-200 2.8 when I used an EOS 3. Still have and love the lens and I agree, just bump up the ISO. The downside is the weight and bulk, especially when using for landscape. If it were not so damned sharp (could be better at 180-200mm) I would buy an f4.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Many venues have rules about the actual length of a lens they will allow the public to bring in, usually 6 inches. I was denied admission at one event with the current 70-200. This looks like it won't be an issue with this lens.

One option to get around this restriction in the meantime is the EF 200mm 2.8 II. Lacks IS, but is <6 in, and better yet, is BLACK! Much lighter as well. Of course you also lose the zoom flexibility...but if reach is mostly what is needed...

I used it once for this very purpose (on a 5D3) and despite it being an older lens, thought it held up quite well on the 22MP sensor. Most importantly, I couldn't tell a noticeable difference in IQ between this lens and the 70-200 at 200...
_________

ETA: As far as venues go, it has been my experience that some venues may ask for the lens to be extended because they "want to know how far it zooms". I've been asked this a couple of times when I had a prime lens attached and I had to tell them it doesn't zoom. They realize this when I turn the focus ring. (I was allowed through in both cases.) So, one may still run into issues with the RF version of the 70-200 since it does extend out a bit.

 

[iheartcanon]

Just be careful with it on the beach.

Good point!

 

[Pepe]

Se sabe si esta lente podra equipar multiplicadores x1,4 y x2

 

[Pepe]

UNAlguien sabe si esta lente sera compatible con nuevos multiplicadores tipo x 1,4 y x2

 

[Ozarker]

UNAlguien sabe si esta lente sera compatible con nuevos multiplicadores tipo x 1,4 y x2

No. Todavía no hay multiplicadores para el montaje RF. Quizás en el futuro.

 

[Ozarker]

I’m way more interested in performance and how good or bad the bokeh is. The reason I bought two 200 f2 and kept them for so long even though they were too heavy was that the 70-200 mkII had, to me, horrible gritty bokeh. If they can make it more like the non-IS 70-200 I might be interested.

Viggo, surely there will be an RF 70-135mm f/2L coming to match the 28-70.

 

[padam]

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

• Lens construction: 17 elements in 13 groups
• Minimum focusing distance: 0.7m
• Maximum shooting magnification: 0.23 times
• Number of diaphragm blades: 9
• Filter diameter: 77mm
• Size: φ89.9mm × 146mm
• Weight: 1070g (excluding tripod seat)
• Camera shake correction effect: 5 steps

Collection of official pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZsGlLOUTjeQHWIE11tmZxPpMf_k53kOU

 

[JohanCruyff]

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

• Lens construction: 17 elements in 13 groups
• Minimum focusing distance: 0.7m
• Maximum shooting magnification: 0.23 times
• Number of diaphragm blades: 9
• Filter diameter: 77mm
• Size: φ89.9mm × 146mm
• Weight: 1070g (excluding tripod seat)
• Camera shake correction effect: 5 steps

Collection of official pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZsGlLOUTjeQHWIE11tmZxPpMf_k53kOU

1.070g = 2,36 pounds. Seems un-be-lie-va-ble!

 

[JohanCruyff]

Every time I read about a RF 70-200 2.8 or a RF 70-400 or whatever white lens, I wonder where are the RF 1.4 and 2.0 extenders.

 

[flip314]

I'm still holding out hope that it's an internal zoom non-extending design.

 

[Viggo]

0,7m mfd and 1070g , it got interesting , hmm...