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

Joepatbob

I'm New Here
Sep 5, 2019
19
26
This short Adorama video shows the presenter holding the new 70-200. Just try to contain yourself, eh? ;) It looks like a great lens...!

Is it disconcerting to anyone else that there doesn’t seem to be working models reviewed?
 

Sparky

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2019
18
27
Is it disconcerting to anyone else that there doesn’t seem to be working models reviewed?
No not really, all the manufacturers put restrictions on the use of pre-production kit. I tested the RF 24-70 today and the test images look great, from a technical viewpoint! The colours are nice, it’s really sharp and focuses fast. I am buying it tomorrow and shooting a wedding with it in the afternoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joepatbob

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
741
108
OK, the size and weight of the RF 70-200/2.8 have certainly got my attention. Might be the first of the RF lenses which makes me seriously consider the R system (although I'm sure I'm still not going to like the price!). Looking forward to reviews and sample images to see how it performs.
 

SteB1

I'm New Here
Feb 22, 2019
9
6
A minimum focus distance of 70cm for a magnification of only 0.23x suggests that there is going to be a lot of focus breathing on the RF 70-200mm f2.8. The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II/III achieve 0.21x at 120cm, a whole 50cm further away.
 

Proscribo

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
219
87
A minimum focus distance of 70cm for a magnification of only 0.23x suggests that there is going to be a lot of focus breathing on the RF 70-200mm f2.8. The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II/III achieve 0.21x at 120cm, a whole 50cm further away.
By calculating the angle of view (from sensor), knowing the distance and size of subject, I get about 160mm focal length at MFD.
For L IS III that is ~250mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteB1

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,151
386
By calculating the angle of view (from sensor), knowing the distance and size of subject, I get about 160mm focal length at MFD.
For L IS III that is ~250mm.
I don't think that the L IS III has an effective focal length of 250mm at mfd. should be less than 200.
 

Yasko

EOS 80D
Jun 9, 2017
114
18
The RF mount is a huge money making scheme :). At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,101
1,647
Irving, Texas
The RF mount is a huge money making scheme :). At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.
Everything, absolutely everything, about business is about making money. Always has been. Always will be. FD mount was. EF mount was/is. RF mount is. So is Valentine's and Mother's day.

However... more consideration goes into making mama a card than buying one off the shelf.

Not everyone who buys into a camera system has a lot of money and takes on such a challenge lightly. Only the wealthy can do that.
 

Ale_F

6D - 7D
Nov 22, 2018
45
32
My practical 2c on weight and size:

EF 70-200 2.8III: 88.8 x 199mm x 1480g + 890g (5D4) = 2370g
EF 70-200 4.0II: 80 x 176mm x 780g + 765 (6D2) = 1545g
RF 70-200 2.8: 89.9 x 146mm x 1070g + 660g (R) = 1730g

12% heavier than a 6D+F4 and more compact with high aperture.
 

shawn

I'm New Here
Jan 28, 2019
22
23
The RF mount is a huge money making scheme :). At least the lenses are worth a lot of money because of the well-made optical designs and materials, but somehow I think some people really buy them without a lot of consideration.
Well, it‘s a hobby, we all like new toys and if you got the money left, why not?
I for instance, will keep my 200 ii lens even if I would buy a RF camera at some point. I use it rarely and I like it‘s not extending during zoom. There are other lenses I would buy first when switching to EF. Until then the good Canon adaptor will do.
What is a smiley supposed to mean in the context of calling something a scheme?

Canon is trying to offer a product that competes well in a saturated market. What do you want them to do, give it away for free?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,039
496
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...
That's a pretty easy fix: gaffer's tape or a "lens band" that is nothing more than one of those rubber wrist bracelets with a slogan on it that are so popular (and cheap). My EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS has had zoom creep for years. I use one of those wrist bands placed half on/half off the zoom ring and it doesn't budge due to gravity yet is still easy to twist with my fingers.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,039
496
I don't think that the L IS III has an effective focal length of 250mm at mfd. should be less than 200.
Most testers that measured it put the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II zoomed all the way to 200mm at around a 196mm FoV at MFD. When focused at infinity and zoomed all the way to 200mm, the measured FoV is actually about 189mm. So the FoV actually narrows slightly as the lens is focused closer. This is in direct contrast to the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, which expands the FoV significantly as it is focused closer. Zoomed to 200mm the FoV when focused at infinity is about 195mm, but when focused at MFD, the AoV expands to a 140mm or so equivalent angle of view.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,039
496
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.
Your equations are probably based on the premise of a single thin lens with no real thickness (which doesn't actually exist). Internal focusing compound lenses with the likes of 23 lens elements in 19 groups can vary greatly depending on which side of the back focal plane the moving element(s) are located. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and III actually narrow the FoV as the lens is focused closer. Zoomed all the way to 200mm: at infinity the observed AoV is equivalent to 189mm, at MFD the observed AoV is equivalent to 196mm.