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

[Canon Rumors]

Yesterday we reported that a version II of an existing RF mount lens was coming early in 2024. We weren’t told which lens, as the source didn’t know for certain, but we wrote about 4 RF lenses that we deemed most likely to receive an new version. The article brought some more information in our

See full article...

 

[Loswr]

Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.

I wonder how many people would own both. Compact for your R5... big one for your R3/R1.

 

[H. Jones]

Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.

Right there with ya, the RF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS was actually what pushed me over the edge to buying an EOS R5 and switching to mirrorless. It's life changing having a 70-200mm the size of a 24-70mm, and I couldn't possibly look back. Definitely makes my 100-400mm feel like a massive lens in comparison when I bring it along.

I totally get the sports argument, though I shoot plenty of sports for newspapers with the RF 70-200 and don't personally feel like it's ever gotten in my way. That said, I definitely get know what they're talking about, as the original EF 70-200 had a super short throw on the zoom ring which was nice.

I don't personally care enough about the zoom throw on the RF 70-200 to sacrifice my love of the compact size, so I don't foresee myself picking this up if it's released as the mark II.

 

[SonicStudios]

Ah gezzzz, what's next, a 28-70 with IBIS ... a new 50 or 85 with IBIS, I do find it curious why some of the RF glass did not have IBIS, especially the 28-70.

 

[John MacLean Photography]

I've had my RF 70-200 F2.8 for just under 2 years and this happened. I've had four EF versions since the 80-200 back in 1991 and never had this happen. They need to up their game and use higher grade materials. On that note, bring back the easy to see/feel raised red lens mount dot. My aging eyes can's see that recessed pink line, and my muscle memory is rooted in twisting EF lenses without hardly looking. Preferred the EF back caps too, since they didn't need to line up. But that's gone forever. Rant over...

 

[Loswr]

...I do find it curious why some of the RF glass did not have IBIS, especially the 28-70.

I presume you mean OIS (lens IS). Given that the lens gets 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS, I don't see that it needs it. Of course, that means no stabilization on my R8, but using the 28-70/2 on my R8 is an ergonomic nightmare anyway. From a technical standpoint, I expect it was excluded for good reason – there's so much glass in that barrel as it is, adding IS would have been quite a challenge in an already large/heavy lens.

 

[frankchn]

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

I am thinking they might just vary the design enough such that this will be a 70-210mm f/2.8 or something. Would also be a good opportunity to shift the front filter size from 77mm to 82mm to get it in line with the 15-35 and 24-70.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Ah gezzzz, what's next, a 28-70 with IBIS ... a new 50 or 85 with IBIS, I do find it curious why some of the RF glass did not have IBIS, especially the 28-70.

The body has IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilizer), and the lenses have IS. Some lenses don't have IS because of design considerations. Image stabilizer adds complexity,
size and extra cost to a lens and sometimes the lens is already too big and complex (like the 28-70 or 50 1.2).

 

[BC]

Honestly every sports shooter or other working photog I know has scoffed at the idea of re-buying all their glass. These are folks that have already gone out and bought all the tier 1 glass they need for their industry, or rent stuff they need for the odd special purpose. It's mostly lifestyle photogs and the accountant/engineer crowd buying the newest shiny thing.

The EF 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II and III are built like absolute tanks and working photogs will keep their equipment going for at least a decade - most of the 70-200s I see on working news and sports shooters cameras get repair and maintenance several times over their lifespan.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I've had my RF 70-200 F2.8 for just under 2 years and this happened. I've had four EF versions since the 80-200 back in 1991 and never had this happen. They need to up their game and use higher grade materials. On that note, bring back the easy to see/feel raised red lens mount dot. My aging eyes can's see that recessed pink line, and my muscle memory is rooted in twisting EF lenses without hardly looking. Preferred the EF back caps too, since they didn't need to line up. But that's gone forever. Rant over...

I still prefer the EF L lens build quality and materials over the RF.

 

[SHAMwow]

Man this is weird. I was one of the people that was not happy about the switch to an external zoom. But I needed a 70-200 so went with it. I still don't love the operation of the RF 2.8, but I've now gotten used to it and the results are fantastic from that lens. My still biggest gripe is the throw of the zoom ring taking a turn and a half. Shakes the camera and can make you miss shots. I'd like to see the length of it too. The compactness has Never helped in my bag because it is still too tall to stand up. And it would really depend on the resale market if I switched.

 

[Loswr]

I've had my RF 70-200 F2.8 for just under 2 years and this happened. I've had four EF versions since the 80-200 back in 1991 and never had this happen.

Unlike the EF versions, the RF is small enough and light enough that I almost never use the tripod ring.

If there was one change I could make to the 100-300/2.8, it would be to make the tripod ring removable.

 

[padam]

Ah gezzzz, what's next, a 28-70 with IBIS ... a new 50 or 85 with IBIS, I do find it curious why some of the RF glass did not have IBIS, especially the 28-70.

Only have the 100-500 to look through, but I can see how the IS element group wobbling in the inner tube without power.
Similar elements in the 28-70 are way larger and heavier. and they still have to move for focusing in a speedy manner, don't think there is any space for IS there. In exchange, you get a big image circle enabling the sensor to move around more, therefore making IBIS effective on its own.

Here is why some people don't like the current RF 70-200/2.8 lens:

 

[kafala]

This would be a great update. I like the zoom being closer to the body like on the RF 24-70mm 2.8 lens. Also hope the zoom throw is shorter on this new one and they get rid of the horrible focus breathing for video. A lot of their lenses have been on sale for a while so I wonder how many II versions we will see.

 

[Maximilian]

Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

Same here. Maybe I'll get some discounts on the Mk I

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Interesting to read that some people are unhappy because the control rings are cramped on the lens. Canon knows best, guys - it's supposed to be that way. Apparently complaining DOES actually get Canon to take action sometimes, though, so let's all take this as a sign to continue complaining, even if most of the time all it does is serve to annoy the people who have 10,000+ posts who have read the same complaints one too many times.

 

[Loswr]

Interesting to read that some people are unhappy because the control rings are cramped on the lens. Canon knows best, guys - it's supposed to be that way. Apparently complaining DOES actually get Canon to take action sometimes, though, so let's all take this as a sign to continue complaining, even if most of the time all it does is serve to annoy the people who have 10,000+ posts who have read the same complaints one too many times.

Funny, I don't recall a single complaint on CR forums about cramped control rings on the RF 70-200/2.8. Sort of proves my point, but by all means people should feel free to keep whining.

But to be clear, it's not the complaints that are annoying, it's the asinine predictions of dire consequences for Canon if those specific individuals' complaints are not addressed.

 

[Walrus]

Never tried the RF, probably never will; but one of the most interesting things on paper, at least for me, is the shortest size in the bag, and the lighter weight on a long wedding day.
Bur on the other side, I would find pretty frustrating the lack of TC compatibility.
So probably the best move for Canon could really be having a second line (maybe a 70-180 or 70-210 just to differentiate a little) which features the internal zooming, for people who likes that most, and also sporting the the TC compatibility.

If this move will help having more RF 70-200 "Mark I" on the used market for cheap, well, I think that's only positive, maybe in 10 or 15 years I will be able to afford it ahah; but for now it's a no go, my non-IS EF version is tack sharp, while being my least used lens, and on the used market I only can get 400/500€ for it, that's too much difference to cover to reach the RF lens that would see the least usage of me, too.

 

[AJ]

Interesting to read that some people are unhappy because the control rings are cramped on the lens. Canon knows best, guys - it's supposed to be that way. Apparently complaining DOES actually get Canon to take action sometimes, though, so let's all take this as a sign to continue complaining, even if most of the time all it does is serve to annoy the people who have 10,000+ posts who have read the same complaints one too many times.

My guess is that it was Canon brand ambassadors complaining, or other people close to Canon, that triggered this. Not randos on the interweb.