Images and specifications for the upcoming RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & DM-E100

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,080
1,624
Irving, Texas
You may get your wish at some point, Canon already has patent applications for f2 portrait zooms

Thanks for this. I completely missed the post. I hope it gets produced. This is a dream zoom for me. Happy, happy, happy!
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,013
113
Wow. Almost 400g lighter than the EF version. That's significant.

Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...:)
Having a pair of EF IIs, looking ahead I could possibly see letting one of them go in favor of the RF version. Not both though!
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
478
478
www.flickr.com
Let's trust in Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.
I have no doubt they've thought of it, but it's a concern I've heard raised many times though I've never experienced it. I was more curious if anyone had first hand experience with a telescoping lens actually being damaged due to drawing something into the lens barrel that didn't belong there, considering that I've never heard of an example where it actually happened.
 

shawn

I'm New Here
Jan 28, 2019
22
23
Must have appalling focus breathing to only be 0.23x @ 0.7m, old lens does 0.25x @ 1.2m, this must be close to 100mm at mfd.

Only thing that's good is weight reduction. To see an 85 f/1.2 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 shows we've entered a parallel universe
Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.
 
Aug 6, 2018
3
2
Not that anyone should care what my opinion is, but here's my 2 cents: I don't like the way extending lenses look. Just seems cheap, like a less expensive design method or cheaper engineering. I like internal focusing/zooming designs, persoally. I like the compact size but had decided to keep my EF v.II and just use it with the adapter. BUT... now that CR posted the photo with the hood I'm changing my mind. First time I've seen that photo. So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood. It won't look like an inferior 3rd party lens after all (at least when the hood is attached). May seem trivial, but we're in the image business. Photography is about visuals. I don't want gear that looks like a Tamron or Tokina when I'm paying top dollar for Canon L lenses. Same reason I'll pay more for an Apple laptop because it not only engineered well, but it's got a durable metal case and a beautiful aesthetic as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj and -pekr-

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
482
283
Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.
With it being an extending lens now they could have fixed that. Focus breathing tends to be worse in fixed length design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

exkeks

I'm New Here
Sep 14, 2017
11
3
So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood.
No, the first EF 24-70L reached its full extension @ 24mm, while being fully retracted @70mm. According to the leaked images, the RF 70-200L does it the usual way (i.e. fully extended @ 200mm). Thus it would not make sense to hide the tube inside the lens hood, as the lens would have nearly no straylight protection @ 200mm then. Furthermore one can clearly see that the lens hood is going to be mounted on the extending tube and not on the lens body.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,303
301
I
I don't like it either. You are not alone. ;)
yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though :)
However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background :)
I am personally would go for the DS. stopped down, it would act like a normal lens but a bit slower by 1.5 stops approx. That's what, T2.0?
I see an opportunity for Artistic souls here. buduar, nude, portraiture and studio.
 
Last edited:

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
285
48
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
I

yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though :)
However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background :)
I am personally would go for the DS. stopped down, it would act like a normal lens but a bit slower by 1.5 stops approx. That's what, T2.0?
I see an opportunity for Artistic souls here. buduar, nude, portraiture and studio.
Artistically I like the softer bokeh of the DS, I feel the harsh out of focus circles of the NonDS are almost celebrating the pure physics of how much Bokeh you can get, but in turn this them means the Bokeh is distracting. Throwing the background out of focus is usually to help the viewer focus on the subject. Bokeh wise i like the DS.
However i'm less of a fan of the light loss in this fast lens, and also the apparent deeper DOF effect this then gives. Its not a clear cut issue for me. I'd (hypothetically) not go for the DS as low light and shallow DOF would usually be preferable over potential for distracting Bokeh that i could post process away.
As above - I want to see more image examples in different light scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serenesunrise

lovelife

5D MK IV and a bunch o lenses
Dec 18, 2016
2
1
Germany
Cons in my opinion:
- will be less weather resistant then the internal design as there is more regions needed to cover (traveling zoom barrel is a source of lens contamination)
- more stress on zooming mechanism when one bumps in the lens with zoom on 200mm with the hood attached (not much force needed to damage it as the lever length is so big)
- attaching and removing the hood especially at lower temperatures will again stress the zoom mechanism
Last two will cause a failure in the guides of the zoom barrel rather sooner than later.

The internal design is More robust and weather proof to me so I do not see reasons to sacrifice it for a smaller lens.
This lens is not bought by amateurs anyway so again why? To have less complaints about the weight?

I could be totally wrong about the performance aspect of this design which is unknown for now and which does worth the longevity sacrifice - but does not calm my pessimism about the design anyway.
 

Codebunny

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
38
18
With the new hood it looks like a baby version of one of the big whites. I am looking forward to it and it'll be permanently attached to a EOS R (Or some new EOS R with CF Express, I really want one card format). 70-200 is really handy to have at the ready when your main camera is sporting something huge and unwieldy when some small animal gets close.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
177
72
Actually the old lens focus breathes the opposite direction and is 270mm at minimum focus distance. So this lens is probably closer to 200 than it looks on paper.
That is not possible and is not true. The calculated FL at mfd is 172mm for the mk II/III. For the new RF I've now calculated FL = 106mm. These were calculated with well known equations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign