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

Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
The 70-200 has a nice hood...which has just made me laugh. In the shop...and in a camera bag, with the hood reversed, this lens will be quite compact. However...in actual use...with the hood on...the lens will be as big and bulky as the EF version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
228
188
The 70-200 has a nice hood...which has just made me laugh. In the shop...and in a camera bag, with the hood reversed, this lens will be quite compact. However...in actual use...with the hood on...the lens will be as big and bulky as the EF version.
But it's the transport size and weight what actually matters, no? I don't care if my tiny EOS M transforms into an 1DX in my hand, as long as i can keep it in my pocket when i'm travelling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabao and sanj

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,234
795
The DS wasn’t for me either.. I thought it looked less pleasing and with less blur. And it will be a very tough secondhand sale if that should happen.

never thought I’d be even slightly interested in a 70-200 again (y)
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,234
795
RF lenses are Viggo's krytonite... and mine too!
Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,737
Irving, Texas
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.
I think I'll rent one and check it out when they are available. Unfortunately boudoir is not in my quiver at this time.
 

shawn

EOS M50
Jan 28, 2019
26
25
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.
My info is from a discussion on Dpreview.com... cant validate its truthiness. However I have also read that it is entirely possible for a lens to focus breath longer than its infinity focal length. Im still not convinced either way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB
Mar 14, 2012
2,305
193
Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.
Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS. That is enough for me. Now I really need a "pro" R body so that I can sell my 5D4 and some EF glass to recoup my RF expenditures. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
386
344
118
Williamsport, PA
Canon knocks it out of the ballpark again.
Crushing the competition.
Fast versatile 70-200 f2.8.
Smaller and easy to transport in your bag, no wasted materials.
Like using a carbine length vs a rifle length without giving up any of the power of the rifle.
Canon innovates and does listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadScotsman

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,966
1,178
119
I really like the look of the bokeh of the DS, much more so than the very traditional 'regular' 85. The loss of 1.5 stops seems excessive but when you are using 1.2 it isn't as bad as say a 2.8 or f4 aperture, that f1.2 is effectively a T2.0, still not bad.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
386
344
118
Williamsport, PA
Example of how great this is.
the lens is 37.74 oz vs the 52.21 oz Sony lens.
Huge savings and it is about 50mm shorter as well.
Canon is really making mirrorless smaller and lighter where Sony can not do this it appears.
Again Canon shows the way and leads the pack.
Sorry Sony trolls.
 

AlP

EOS R
Sep 5, 2018
19
31
Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS.
Although I generally agree, it also has slightly lower coma and much lower distortion. Might not be relevant for everybody, but at least for distortion the improvement is massive.
And, at least for me, 15 mm at f/2.8 with low coma makes my 15 mm Irix lens redundant, meaning that I can use one lens for all wide-angle requirements. Let's just hope that the zoom mechanism doesn't deteriorate too much over the years as otherwise the lens might change focal length when pointed upwards at 15 mm during long exposures...
 

shawn

EOS M50
Jan 28, 2019
26
25
Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.

So nearly every zoom lens ever made.
I can appreciate that people are used to internally zooming 70-200's, as even the 3rd party ones are internal zooming, but I think this is actually a better solution for 90% of photographers.

I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and while it is a great lens it is freaking heavy and I often choose not to bring it with me when I go on non job related trips because it's just not worth the energy it takes to lug it around.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,737
Irving, Texas
Example of how great this is.
the lens is 37.74 oz vs the 52.21 oz Sony lens.
Huge savings and it is about 50mm shorter as well.
Canon is really making mirrorless smaller and lighter where Sony can not do this it appears.
Again Canon shows the way and leads the pack.
Sorry Sony trolls.
Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet. ;)
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
371
294
Hamburg, Germany
I recently got an old Nikon lens, a 70-210mm 4.0 - That thing zooms internally, but extends when focusing :ROFLMAO: So for those complaining, it could be worse: You could have the length of an internal zoom with the vulnerability of a extending design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia