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

wockawocka

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 13, 2011
757
91
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.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,506
612
Southeastern USA
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.
Portraits wide open, same distance to subject, not only have more subject/background separation and creamier bokeh, but a more appealing luminosity to skin tones. At least comparing the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to the older ef 70-200mm f/4 IS. This makes it worth using the 2.8 for portraiture, though for family traveling I'd never bring it.

And for me, personally, even with great sensor performance these days, I'm always looking to lower my ISO, all other exposure factors considered.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
231
36
Anyone who speaks ill on this lens extending should probably throw out their 24-70s. it's really not that big of a difference, and this makes the 70-200 no different to carry than a 24-70. It's long overdue that someone made this lens more compact, and I'm happy to see Canon jumped on this.

Really changes the game on the logistics of carrying a 70-200--if you have a Think Tank roller, the lens will now fit vertically like the 24-70 instead of horizontally, where it normally takes up the space of 3 lenses. Same thing goes for the beltpacks--it will be infinitely easier to fit a small lens like this into a belt pack and etc.

I'll be more interested to see if this lens got the engineering plastic treatment to save weight, or if it's still magnesium alloy like the EF version. Again, not a problem to me either way as this is how the 24-70 is built and that lens has never caused a problem whether it's been through heavy smoke from a house fire, sand flying in the wind, or torrential rain.
 

Cochese

EOS 80D
Oct 22, 2014
105
49
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've never once considered F/4 to be as good as F/2.8.Slightly sharper on occassion. But also a lot dimmer. YMMV when it comes to the 2.8 lens though. Every lens has it's sweet spot insofar as distance is concerned.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
226
299
Unless Canon had invented some special stretchable material, it was expected.
There are a lot of people on these forums that could never be convinced that it extended... I wonder if they will believe it now.
 

Famateur

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 9, 2012
774
88
It'll be awhile before I'm in the market for any of these lenses, but...it'll be nice to have F2.8 and IS for all three. The compact size of the 70-200 is especially appealing.

Two niggles when comparing to my 70-200 F4 L IS, though:

  • The zoom and focus rings are in reverse order. I rarely use manual focus and quite appreciate having the zoom right up next to the body, the natural resting place of my support hand. Seems awkward to have it on the objective end of the lens, though I've never tried it. Any input from those who have? Is it as awkward as it looks?

  • The throw of the zoom ring seems to require quite a lot of travel for the full range. With my 70-200 F4, it's very short (can use my finger without twisting my hand), and it's butter smooth.
Still, it's neat to see these new RF lenses as they are developed. By the time I've got an R body (waiting to see what the next year brings), there'll be quite a few to choose from...
 
Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...

But somehow it's the end of the world if the 70-200 extends?
Of all the five Canon L lenses I own, my 24-70 is the only lens that extends, and it's the only lens which has dust inside the lens. That's why I too am wary of extending zoom lenses. Or maybe because I live in a very dusty city - Kathmandu.
 

RayValdez360

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2012
412
171
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.
guess that extra stop of light doesnt matter.....
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
437
431
Like I said in the other thread, it extends quite a bit, which is not surprising. Looks to be (at least) as long as the EF version when fully extended.

That said, its more compact profile once retracted could make a significant difference when transporting it. There have been times where I’ve decided against the EF 70-200 at certain events just because of its size. This might be one RF lens actually worth getting once in the system...

Now for IQ...(and the official announcement, of course)
It's funny how things can be so relative. As a wildlife photographer I take my 70-200 because it is SMALL and it can reduce my bag size. Only when it will suffice with an acceptable level of compromise though.
 

Tom W

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2012
198
128
A slow news day, eh? :)

A lot like the 100-400 II, only shorter. Good deal for portability.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,506
612
Southeastern USA
Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...

But somehow it's the end of the world if the 70-200 extends?
I complained about it after diving into the sand to get a ground level shot of a box tortoise scrambling down a dune. It's just that the 24-70mm, in both its iterations, has had the exposed zoom barrel for decades now. The 70-200mm has been a rugged, dust and weather resistant go-to Little Big White for years. Now not quite as much. But Canon will find out if customers like the trade off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iheartcanon

Treyarnon

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
62
36
Cornwall, UK
Visit site
We are calling this new 70-200 and 'extending' lens. Perhaps in reality, its really a 'collapsible' lens! And I can see for some the pack-able advantage of the lens when collapsed down is going to be a massive boom. Finally, people will be able to pack both the 100-400 and 70-200 into a reasonably sized bag!

But for me, I'll probably go for the EF mk3 version, unless this new lens is otherworldly sharp. I prefer the rugged build and smooth controls of a non-extending lens. And I don't have a 100-400...


Anyone who speaks ill on this lens extending should probably throw out their 24-70s. it's really not that big of a difference, and this makes the 70-200 no different to carry than a 24-70. It's long overdue that someone made this lens more compact, and I'm happy to see Canon jumped on this.
Lets see how this new lens feels in the hand. My concern about the 70-200 is that it's going to be a lot of glass to shift, and shift a long way.