A new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is coming

[Hector1970]

I still use my 70-200 2.8 II in my R5. Works perfectly. The adapter doesn’t concern me. I like the stubby RF version, it’s just not worth it for the smaller format. If a longer version II comes out I’d see less of a point to change. It might be a version III with a built in adapter. Canon will get me eventually. My 70-200 started getting wobbly. Then I learnt about all the screws under the rubber and once tightened it was perfect again. It’s a super lens.

 

[AlanF]

I had the impression that English 'Champagne' was generally more expensive than the French original, and so a proper ascetic would probably save their pence by consuming the original. Until, obviously, climate change wrecks the Champagne region, and we all shift our attention to the south of England (or Tasmania in the case of Australians).

The champagne growing areas of England are being bought by the French growers like Taitinger already - see for example https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/31/fren...ng-land-in-the-uk-as-things-heat-up-17666553/. proper ascetic would not drink champagne. The English champagne does win some competitions.

 

[mxwphoto]

The advantages of the RF 70-200 2.8 has diminished some after the Sony 70-200 ii with an internal focusing design came out with slightly lower weight than the Canon RF (1045g vs 1070g) (EF III was 1480g by the way).

Since we know it could be done now on weight parity, a worthy successor may have the following: even more heft reduction via lightweight composites and octagonally cut gmo or pmo lenses (ala rf 16mm style, assuming image quality will remain high enough) with target weight of 850g, and able to take teleconverters.

 

[sanj]

Videographers would prefer a non-extending lens to avoid issues with a matte box. I think I might change my mind and get this version. How much heaver would it be??

 

[SonicStudios]

I loved the EF 70-200 and I'm looking forward to going back to the future with an internal zoom RF 70-200. I'm also thinking maybe this new zoom will also take TC's

 

[David - Sydney]

I had the impression that English 'Champagne' was generally more expensive than the French original, and so a proper ascetic would probably save their pence by consuming the original. Until, obviously, climate change wrecks the Champagne region, and we all shift our attention to the south of England (or Tasmania in the case of Australians).

Why wait?
https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyl...s/news-story/093ff2bd13e8c5a2f764ee3f67bddec4
It will be interesting to see what happens in this year's awards

 

[MiJax]

Never really cared about the having the smallest 70-200 possible. Never really cared about having the lightest 70-200 possible. But I absolutely hated not having the flexibility of using a TC with the lens. My hope is that they go back to the conventional form factor, allowing TCs again.

In terms of Canon deciding to replace the lens so quickly, I have to believe it was based on sales. That would be the most obvious reason to rework a relatively good performing lens. That said, I'm sure the sales were fine, but I'd bet they couldn't be at the expected level if it's being replaced after 4 years. Note, they been averaging 8-10 years between 70-200 releases (with only the non-IS version being replaced after 6 years).

 

[MichaelC165]

Interesting! I actually went for the RF 135mm over the 70-200, largely based on the fact that the RF 70-200 is telescopic and my OCD could never live with the extra dust that sucks in. I genuinely based my decision knowing on how I would handle it, which is ridiculous, but I gotta do what I gotta do to keep myself "sane". If it was non-telescopic, I might have gotten that one instead. So very weird and fascinating decision from Canon (if it's true), but I'm not against it!

 

[scyrene]

Would be a pity, if my three RF 2.8 L lenses would be outdated after three years.

Best not to think of it that way, then. Functional items don't "become outdated" just because a newer version has been released.

 

[scyrene]

Why wait?
https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyl...s/news-story/093ff2bd13e8c5a2f764ee3f67bddec4
It will be interesting to see what happens in this year's awards

This is way off topic of course, but as a general rule, awards in the world of wine are best taken with a pile of salt, as they are mostly a marketing tool. Entries are not taken from an open field, producers pay to be there, and many others don't bother. It's beneath the attention of the highest profile wineries - Krug has little to gain, they can already essentially charge whatever they like and never produce enough to meet demand. Although the judgments are as objective as possible (which is to say, somewhat), the top trophy wines in a given competition are absolutely not necessarily the best in their category overall, just (maybe) the best of those that were entered.

 

[koenkooi]

Best not to think of it that way, then. Functional items don't "become outdated" just because a newer version has been released.

You mean they don't suddenly stop working once a newer version has been announced?!?!?!?

 

[DBounce]

No way am I going back to the full size and weight zoom. Those just end up being shelf decorations for me; I inevitably leave them home. The current RF 70-200, is the first one that I actually don’t mind carrying.

 

[john1970]

Maybe Canon is considering revising the 70-200 mm f2.8 so it is compatible with the rumored 1.4x/2.0x switchable TC?

Such a scenario makes some sense because then there would be three lenses that are compatible: 70-200 mm f2.8, 100-300 mm f2.8 and a 200-500 mm f4.

 

[dolina]

I'd prefer Canon transition all their popular EF lenses to RF mount before releasing a Series II.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe Canon is considering revising the 70-200 mm f2.8 so it is compatible with the rumored 1.4x/2.0x switchable TC?

Such a scenario makes some sense because then there would be three lenses that are compatible: 70-200 mm f2.8, 100-300 mm f2.8 and a 200-500 mm f4.

What makes you think the 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6, and 1200/8 would not be compatible? Or the 100-400, 600/11, or 800/11?

 

[EricN]

I'd prefer Canon transition all their popular EF lenses to RF mount before releasing a Series II.

I imagine some EF lenses never sold enough to be a high priority right now. I prefer Canon do what they think is best to make the best profits they can.

 

[dolina]

I imagine some EF lenses never sold enough to be a high priority right now. I prefer Canon do what they think is best to make the best profits they can.

I agree... no 3rd party lenses until a decade after RF mount was released.

 

[EricN]

I agree... no 3rd party lenses until a decade after RF mount was released.

I remember some time ago, you wrote that you hadn't switched. Did you ever buy an Rf camera?

 

[dolina]

I remember some time ago, you wrote that you hadn't switched. Did you ever buy an Rf camera?

Waiting for R5 II. You buying a R5 II?

 

[EricN]

Waiting for R5 II. You buying a R5 II?

haven't decided yet, because it's not announced