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

[EOS 4 Life]

I also prefer external zoom because of the lower profile and lighter weight, since I use it to shoot theatre handheld without the collar.

Not sure where these balance complaints are coming from, it's nothing that can't be overcome through getting used to with regular use, or by using a monopod which sports shooters are doing anyway.

I use lenses and cameras from multiple vendors so I don't mind differences between them.
However, I do understand people wanting constancy from one vendor.
It is not really the Canon way but it could have been a way to get people to switch to Canon RF lenses and cameras.

 

[john1970]

I have used the current RF 70-200 mm f2.8 zoom for sports and find it well balanced and after a day of shooting really appreciate the lighter weight vs. the EF internal zoom design. I could see a 70-200 internal zoom that is compatible with teleconverters being popular and it would be interesting if Canon had both an external and internal zoom as offerings. I currently own the 100-300 mm f2.8 so I would not buy an internal zoom of the 70-200 mm. Even with a 2x TC on a 70-200 mm I would find 400 mm generally speaking a bit short for wildlife.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

When it comes to awards or giving points to wines, the worst possible example is Mr. Parker's wine bible.
You want good marks? Nothing easier: more, lots more oak and alcohol, and you have a winner. Hie notation system is ridiculous at best. Additionally, some testers seem to know more about coke (the beverage!), than about wines.
The finer, elegant wines hardly stand a chance against the stronger, heavily oaked ones, Americans are said to prefer.(freely quoted from Joseph Bastianich & David Lynch "Vino Italiano, the regional wines of Italy" )
Edit: This is a book by Americans who really know a lot about wine!
And well-written too (that's become rare, nowadays)

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

Of course Canon will maximise their profits but the issue is what to do about the remaining EF catalogue.
The ones that are left (bar some f1.4) are the missing pieces and if the rumour that Canon Australia is not importing any more EF lenses (just leaving the remaining ones in local stock) then that inflection point is coming closer.

Replacement TS-E lenses have been rumoured for some time. Same with the 200-400 and 500mm being replaced by a 200-500/4.
Nothing about a new RF8-15/4 or MP-E for instance.
The EF14/2.8 has long gone now but no replacement wide primes besides the 16/2.8

It may be that Canon makes a commercial decision not to play in certain niches and let 3rd parties fill the gap when they are willing to pay the licensing fees eg the Sigma 14/1.4, Laowa for magnification >1.4x etc.

 

[EricN]

Of course Canon will maximise their profits but the issue is what to do about the remaining EF catalogue.
The ones that are left (bar some f1.4) are the missing pieces and if the rumour that Canon Australia is not importing any more EF lenses (just leaving the remaining ones in local stock) then that inflection point is coming closer.

Replacement TS-E lenses have been rumoured for some time. Same with the 200-400 and 500mm being replaced by a 200-500/4.
Nothing about a new RF8-15/4 or MP-E for instance.
The EF14/2.8 has long gone now but no replacement wide primes besides the 16/2.8

It may be that Canon makes a commercial decision not to play in certain niches and let 3rd parties fill the gap when they are willing to pay the licensing fees eg the Sigma 14/1.4, Laowa for magnification >1.4x etc.

I think it's only one lens getting second version and the other lenses we are waiting for details about will probably include at least one wide prime L and I hope an Ultra wide prime L, but you may be right and they'll give that to Sigma. I'm also guessing at least one of the rumored auto focus tilt shift although I have no idea what focal length. Hopefully with 6 lenses they can make most of us happy.

How is the Australian used market?

 

[David - Sydney]

I think it's only one lens getting second version and the other lenses we are waiting for details about will probably include at least one wide prime L and I hope an Ultra wide prime L, but you may be right and they'll give that to Sigma. I'm also guessing at least one of the rumored auto focus tilt shift although I have no idea what focal length. Hopefully with 6 lenses they can make most of us happy.

How is the Australian used market?

Not many second hand RF lenses especially at realistic prices. The local 5 year warranty gives more confidence of any issues though.
I would contemplate upgrading to the RF14-35/4 and the RF100 at some point though for the extra 2mm and the focus speed of the macro.
That said, I have a full range for my use cases at the moment. No GAS for me after getting an astro tracker + bits for milky way stuff at the moment.

 

[Del Paso]

I think it's only one lens getting second version and the other lenses we are waiting for details about will probably include at least one wide prime L and I hope an Ultra wide prime L, but you may be right and they'll give that to Sigma. I'm also guessing at least one of the rumored auto focus tilt shift although I have no idea what focal length. Hopefully with 6 lenses they can make most of us happy.

How is the Australian used market?

There's been a rumor of a 14 mm TSE, it would act as an ultrawide too-. (But certainly be ultraexpensive...)
Yet, since this lens would be a medium format lens (shifted coverage), this could imply a bulbous front element.
I wouldn't care, since I hardly ever use filters, but many forum members certainly would...

 

[sanj]

Does anyone know how much heavier will the new lens be?

 

[Walrus]

Does anyone know how much heavier will the new lens be?

I think is yet to be officially confirmed that a Mk II lens is coming at all, and if it comes, is yet to be confirmed which actually is the lens coming...so guessing on weight of an unknown lens that maybe it's not even coming is just guessing the lotto numbers.

 

[Jethro]

Does anyone know how much heavier will the new lens be?

Still a rumour obviously, but the old non-extending EF 70-200 f2.8L IS III was nearly 1.5 kg. You'd hope this would be a little less than that, but presumably not by that much. The current extending RF 70-200 is about 1.1 kg.

 

[frankchn]

Does anyone know how much heavier will the new lens be?

The Sony 70-200 GM II is 1045g, so it shouldn’t be too much heavier than that.

 

[PGSanta]

The Sony 70-200 GM II is 1045g, so it shouldn’t be too much heavier than that.

I really don't think it will simply be an internal zoom 70-200. I think it's far more likely we get something will built in TCs for the sports crowed/wildlife shooters. I bet it will exceed the optical quality of the Sony, and be significantly larger/heavier/more expensive.

 

[EricN]

I really don't think it will simply be an internal zoom 70-200. I think it's far more likely we get something will built in TCs for the sports crowed/wildlife shooters. I bet it will exceed the optical quality of the Sony, and be significantly larger/heavier/more expensive.

could it be internal zoom and TC compatible?

 

[danfaz]

I really don't think it will simply be an internal zoom 70-200. I think it's far more likely we get something will built in TCs for the sports crowed/wildlife shooters. I bet it will exceed the optical quality of the Sony, and be significantly larger/heavier/more expensive.

It'll be interesting to see what this new 70-200 turns out to be after seeing what they've done with the 24-105.

 

[dirtyvu]

I'm also in the camp for the compact 70-200. With the internal zoom lens, I wouldn't be able to take it into Dodgers Stadium for example whereas with the current one, i can bring it in because it meets the 6" max requirement. It also fits a travel bag more easily. I only take 3 lenses on trips nowadays. The RF 24mm, the RF 28-70, and the RF 70-200. When I only take 2, it's the 24 and the 28-70. The 24 for video or run and gun. The 28-70 when I want to set it and forget it.

 

[EricN]

The 28-70 when I want to set it and forget it.

What do you mean?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm also in the camp for the compact 70-200.

I do not think Canon should replace it but I do think it would be a good idea to make a second lens that can take extenders and has an internal zoom.
Just make it a 70-210 or something like that.
Although, a 70-250 would be better since compactness would no longer be the goal.

 

[DrD]

I do not think Canon should replace it but I do think it would be a good idea to make a second lens that can take extenders and has an internal zoom.
Just make it a 70-210 or something like that.
Although, a 70-250 would be better since compactness would no longer be the goal.

Not a bad idea, change the focal range. Back in the early 90s when shooting film on an OM-10, one of my favorite lenses was an 80-220 mm (was variable aperture of course). However, a constant aperture mid-range to longer-range zoom lens could complement the new 24-105 f/2.8

 

[kaihp]

However, a constant aperture mid-range to longer-range zoom lens could complement the new 24-105 f/2.8

It's already here. It's called the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM. Unfortunately, the price is not palatable for me. I'm happy to hang on to my EF 300mm f/2.8L II IS USM which was around 1/3rd of the price when I bought it 10 years ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…my EF 300mm f/2.8L II IS USM which was around 1/3rd of the price when I bought it 10 years ago.

When was the 300/2.8 II priced at under $3200? IIRC, used copies of the MkI were selling for that amount after the MkII launched. Or maybe you meant a 1/3 lower price than the 100-300/2.8, not 1/3 of the price.