There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]

[grilled_rooster]

The RF 24-70 2.8 L. Why? Not because of AF or optics. This lens great. But it's a dust collector. So many owners complaining about dust in their 24-70.

Also i would love to use an Extender on my RF 70-200 2.8. But i don't think it's coming. And if it does: i will lose the compact transportation size. And i'm not sure if i'm willing to spend again so much many again for the same lense just to use an extender.

 

[roby17269]

I doubt it, Canon have indicated that they would only replace them with zooms in the style of the 100-300mm f2.8 / 200-500mm f4.
The RF 400/2.8 and 600/f4 are pretty much at their peak of technical developement. Shaprness wise, AF, IS and lightness...there's no more tech in the R&D cupboard to make worthwhile improvements. Any newly developed lens will only push up the asking price. Is there any point in re-disgining something with no real world benfits but with a new higher sticker price.

We do not know if that's really true though, I mean if they couldn't improve output quality or weight etc.
Also there could be an "easy" upgrade: add a built in teleconverter like Nikon has done

 

[roby17269]

Agree on the 100-500L. The only zooming from 300-500 significantly limits the flexibility of the lens and field mounting the extender is a pain or untenable in some conditions. I have also been underwhelmed by my version of the 100-500 L even though most rave about the sharpness. And the reliability continues to be suspect for lockups.

I have the RF 100-500 and love it. But what I've found using it on the 45mp R5, is that to get good sharpness when hand holding it, I need to shoot at 1/(4xfl), meaning 1/2000 sec if shooting at 500mm.
This might be different if you use a lower-mp body with it, I haven't tried since I do not have one, but I'd assume the bigger pixels would be more tolerant of micro movements.
Some examples here - most of the images, even panos, taken with the 100-500:
Post

 

[EricN]

The RF 24-70 2.8 L. Why? Not because of AF or optics. This lens great. But it's a dust collector. So many owners complaining about dust in their 24-70.

Also i would love to use an Extender on my RF 70-200 2.8. But i don't think it's coming. And if it does: i will lose the compact transportation size. And i'm not sure if i'm willing to spend again so much many again for the same lense just to use an extender.

I don't say you are wrong, but I feel skeptical about a new lens because of dust. The reason is the original EF 100-400mm was notorious for sucking in dust, but it took about 15 years for the mark ii to appear.

 

[AlanF]

I have the RF 100-500 and love it. But what I've found using it on the 45mp R5, is that to get good sharpness when hand holding it, I need to shoot at 1/(4xfl), meaning 1/2000 sec if shooting at 500mm.
This might be different if you use a lower-mp body with it, I haven't tried since I do not have one, but I'd assume the bigger pixels would be more tolerant of micro movements.
Some examples here - most of the images, even panos, taken with the 100-500:
Post

Very nice images. I do a lot of shooting with the 100-500 where there is fine detail I need tack sharp. But, unless it is a bird in flight, where I tend to use 1/3200s, 1/800-1/1000s gets me there, and I can get away with slower speeds at 500mm.

 

[roby17269]

Very nice images.

Thanks!

I do a lot of shooting with the 100-500 where there is fine detail I need tack sharp. But, unless it is a bird in flight, where I tend to use 1/3200s, 1/800-1/1000s gets me there, and I can get away with slower speeds at 500mm.

You may have better technique than me then. Do you use it with a R5?

 

[AlanF]

I doubt it, Canon have indicated that they would only replace them with zooms in the style of the 100-300mm f2.8 / 200-500mm f4.
The RF 400/2.8 and 600/f4 are pretty much at their peak of technical developement. Shaprness wise, AF, IS and lightness...there's no more tech in the R&D cupboard to make worthwhile improvements. Any newly developed lens will only push up the asking price. Is there any point in re-disgining something with no real world benfits but with a new higher sticker price.

The RF 400/2.8 and RF 600/4 are optically identical to the EF III versions, which are actually optically inferior to the earlier version II. Canon reduced the weight of the II series by moving some of the front elements back and making them smaller and lighter. The EFIII and RF are much worse with a TC - see: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 for example.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks!

You may have better technique than me then. Do you use it with a R5?

Yes, and also with an R7. But, maybe my old arms are steadier. I go down to lower speeds when I am in a bird hide and can steady my elbows on a ledge, and if a bird is close and in a dark spot I'll go down to 1/500s - but the little things do twitch.

 

[mpb001]

I personally like the current RF 24-105 L. It’s the one lens I rely on for travel photography. It might get slightly improved like the old EF 24-105L to the MkII version but even that wasn’t much of an improvement over the original. I just stick with what works.

 

[stillviking]

The RF 24-70 2.8 L. Why? Not because of AF or optics. This lens great. But it's a dust collector. So many owners complaining about dust in their 24-70.

Yes, these extended designs are totally dust collectors!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 28-70/f2 is short of the 70mm focal length at infinity too...and it breathes down even further at quite distance focus points.

Based on framing and math, at the long end and a distance of 2.3 m the 28-70/2 has the FoV of a 68.4mm lens. That's actually quite good, IMO. With a quick search I failed to find the patent, but that's well within the norms for rounding and there's probably not much breathing at all at that distance.

Compare that to the RF 24-70/2.8L IS, where the patented focal length for the lens is 24.69-67.88mm. At a similar 'portrait' distance the RF 24-70/2.8 at the long end has the FoV of a 65.8mm lens, wider than the 28-70/2.

The 28-70/2 is a great lens, you don't have to like it but it seems you're going out of your way to find problems with it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 28-70/2 is a great lens, you don't have to like it but it seems you're going out of your way to find problems with it.

Maybe you are right...maybe I need to let this one go....

 

[masterpix]

The Canon EOS R system was originally announced with 4 lenses, the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. The second round of announcements came about 6 months later with the pair of 85mm f/1.2L USM lenses, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L

See full article...

It only give me a short relief to know that I can wait a little longer for a much better lenses. as going above 40MP picture, even little faults of the lenses are visible. So they need to get sharper than ever

 

[Del Paso]

I'd love to see an RF 24-70 f4L. I do t have the 24-105 and hesitate to buy it for the reasons you mention. The 14-35,24-70, and 70-200 f4 make a great long hike kit.

I just took a look at my holiday pictures, and was honestly impressed by what this inexpensive lens can deliver.For mountain hikes, a perfect lens, the specific macro can often stay at home!
But, as usual, better test before you buy, with zooms surprises are not that uncommon.
Not matter how expensive or inexpensive they are...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The RF 400/2.8 and RF 600/4 are optically identical to the EF III versions, which are actually optically inferior to the earlier version II. Canon reduced the weight of the II series by moving some of the front elements back and making them smaller and lighter. The EFIII and RF are much worse with a TC - see: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 for example.

There's a stark difference between the EF600III and EF600II. Even the 1.4x TC is quite a difference.
There's less of a difference with the 400/2.8's though. The 1.4x TC is similar with a slight nod to the mkII. However, with the 2x TC the MKIII fares a lot worse.
My findings with my 400/2.8 MKi and now mkII, the mkII is a tad sharper wide open and with teleconverters. Although it's slight and I'm not sure it will translate into anything tangible in the final imagery. With my mk1 I used to drop the aperture by 1/3 of a stop of f6.3 with the 2x TC and it's nearly as sharp as it is with the 1.4x TC wide open. They are both impressive optics for sure.

 

[AlanF]

There's a stark difference between the EF600III and EF600II. Even the 1.4x TC is quite a difference.
There's less of a difference with the 400/2.8's though. The 1.4x TC is similar with a slight nod to the mkII. However, with the 2x TC the MKIII fares a lot worse.
My findings with my 400/2.8 MKi and now mkII, the mkII is a tad sharper wide open and with teleconverters. Although it's slight and I'm not sure it will translate into anything tangible in the final imagery. With my mk1 I used to drop the aperture by 1/3 of a stop of f6.3 with the 2x TC and it's nearly as sharp as it is with the 1.4x TC wide open. They are both impressive optics for sure.

Stick with your MkIIs. WEX have had a used RF 800 on sale for the last month for £17000+. I can't believe anyone will buy it. But, someone will eventually.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Stick with your MkIIs.

I did. If the weight was a problem, I'd consider the RF...but it's not. Yet.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sales of interchangeable-lens cameras are down I think 90% from their top year (I think 2010) and even the number of people who'd replace a 24-105/4 is plausibly bigger than the number of people who'd buy a 35/1.2.

I guess so but overall, Canon would be looking at profit rather than sales volume. A significantly reduced cost would be grounds for a new version but I am guessing that the RF24-105/4 is more of a volume product needed for higher end kits rather than a big profit generator.
At the end of the day, this is only speculation and we will never know for sure... but the 'optics' (see what I did there!) would be that the R&D spend on a version 2 lens could have been used for a new focal length lens.
A bit like the upcoming referendum on "the voice" for indigenous Australians.. if it fails (and most of our referendums changing the constitution do) then it will appear that we a racist to a global audience.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'd replace my 70-200 f2.8 for Mark II if it was an internal zoom. Wouldn't care if the optics were the same. The external zoom has been a PITA.

I'll bite... why a PITA?
I haven't found any issues with mine (besides the lens hood window being too easy to open. The reduced length/weight has been awesome

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, these extended designs are totally dust collectors!!

I haven't found either the RF70-20/2.8 or the RF100-500 as dust collectors. I have had my R5 sensor cleaned once (recently) after 3 years of usage.