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

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,212
773
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
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...
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
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.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,901
1,034
119
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.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,577
679
Southeastern USA
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." :p
 
Last edited:

SUNDOG04

EOS T7i
Mar 1, 2015
66
15
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.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,016
114
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.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,084
1,627
Irving, Texas
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. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohanCruyff

JohanCruyff

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2012
327
13
53
Milano, Italy