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

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
849
128
Funny how nobody ever complains about the EF 24-70 f2.8 lenses getting dusty... Or any of the other L-zooms, really...
I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM. Doesn't extend, but had a dust particle settle behind the front element.

The sky did not fall, and the world did not come to an end.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,084
1,627
Irving, Texas
One of the main causes of lens fungus is darkness. Putting a lens away for 6 months plus in a lens case is really unhealthy for lens optics. Leaving them out with the caps off for a few days at a time allows microscopic fungus to be killed off by UV rays.
Very true. I keep all my old Takumars and Mamiya/Sekors out. I've always kept my Canon's in Pelican cases, but since moving to humid North-East Texas I have considered a dry box with U.V. light built in. Proper lens storage is inexpensive. Just getting them outside and using them helps a great deal.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,359
155
Ottawa Ontario
Canon's 2.8 trilogy will likely be the best of their kind on the market. I'll welcome the smaller size of this 70-200 if I come back to Canon bodies. But I would prefer the 15-35 in f/4 for the smaller size, because at the ultra wide end I don't really need the f/2.8
 

MadScotsman

EOS R / RP
Sep 9, 2019
11
22
I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM. Doesn't extended, but had a dust particle settle behind the front element.

The sky did not fall, and the world did not come to an end.
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.
 

analoggrotto

EOS T7i
Aug 27, 2016
94
40
I'm sure it will be similar if not the same as the 100-400 II. Why does that matter anyway? I have no issues with my 100-400 II after 4 years now. And yes there is a bit of dust in it, but who cares? it means nothing.

Unless you're one of those that losses their mind when they see a dust spot inside the lens.
That's a lot of questions.

Actually, I just wanted to make a pun. I almost always shoot primes and zoom, constantly switching lenses has left my camera dusty inside and the lenses arent too great either, I'd rather worry about taking a good picture and having fun. For all of my post processing, I've not seen much if any effect of the dust.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
525
132
Maybe we should wait til we get the lens before we declare Canon a failure.

The RF 24-105 extends and I have had zero issues with dust (I live in a very dusty desert) and I have seen no lens creep when held vertically unlike the EF 24-105 that drooped like a trombone when shooting downwards. As for IQ, it does seem that Canon has been working to establish world class IQ cred and this lens cannot afford to fail in this regard. As far as I can see there is zero upside to Canon making a mediocre lens. Particularly one that will be a bulwark in the lineup of RF lenses that is Canon's future.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
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.
No matter how high you can bump the ISO, you'll always be able to shoot another stop faster Tv with an f/2.8 lens than with an f/4 lens.

For a lot of the sports venues I shoot at, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, or even between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800... or the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 (which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than "hardly any noticeable difference" when shooting sports).
 

MadScotsman

EOS R / RP
Sep 9, 2019
11
22
Know something we don't?? Please say you do! :D
Do you not follow CanonRumors?

IBIS patents rumored. Rumors of Pro R versions with dual slots have been swirling for months. Rolling out video updates through firmware as we speak.

You don’t have to be Fellini to figure out that the near future holds a pro R body they will almost certainly carry a “pro” feature set.

The R was NEVER marketed as a Pro body. Nor was it priced as one. Those that dissed it for lack of “Pro” features were, frankly, misguided dumbasses.

There have been about a million posts here on CR and everywhere else rumoring a Pro R body. Likely with ibis. Likely with dual slots. Likely with better video. Likely before the Olympics next year.

Y’all act like you don’t follow the Canon rumor mill.

My point was that no matter how great it turns out to be, the Northrop and BroKnows youtube types will HAVE to find something to bitch about.

Or be proclaimed irrelevant.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,016
114
No matter how high you can bump the ISO, you'll always be able to shoot another stop faster Tv with an f/2.8 lens than with an f/4 lens.

For a lot of the sports venues I shoot at, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, or even between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800... or the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 (which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than "hardly any noticeable difference" when shooting sports).
This post, 100%!

A couple years ago I shot this poorly lit show at night. Very dark. ISO 10,000 needed at f2.8 to freeze action. An f4 lens would have been pretty much unusable here.

In the right circumstances, it can make all the difference in the world.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,084
1,627
Irving, Texas
This post, 100%!

A couple years ago I shot this poorly lit show at night. Very dark. ISO 10,000 needed at f2.8 to freeze action. An f4 lens would have been pretty much unusable here.

In the right circumstances, it can make all the difference in the world.
Sometimes people say there is no need for fast glass. Well, if there wasn't, then no fast glass would be made.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Looks rather awkward from what I see. Hopefully I'll never need to go from infinity to MFD anytime soon.
I think you mean from 70mm to 200mm. That's the zoom ring, not the focus ring.
Do you not follow CanonRumors?

IBIS patents rumored. Rumors of Pro R versions with dual slots have been swirling for months. Rolling out video updates through firmware as we speak.

You don’t have to be Fellini to figure out that the near future holds a pro R body they will almost certainly carry a “pro” feature set.

The R was NEVER marketed as a Pro body. Nor was it priced as one. Those that dissed it for lack of “Pro” features were, frankly, misguided dumbasses.

There have been about a million posts here on CR and everywhere else rumoring a Pro R body. Likely with ibis. Likely with dual slots. Likely with better video. Likely before the Olympics next year.

Y’all act like you don’t follow the Canon rumor mill.

My point was that no matter how great it turns out to be, the Northrop and BroKnows youtube types will HAVE to find something to bitch about.

Or be proclaimed irrelevant.
I don't think anyone (other than Sony trolls) is denying that kind of camera is on the way. I think the part of your original comment that folks are taking exception to is "... in just a few weeks... "
 

Buck

EOS M50
Jul 28, 2015
44
8
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.
 

RayValdez360

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2012
426
184
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.
Sounds oddly sexual. Anything bigger than 6 inches isnt allowed.....