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

[Loswr]

Two diaphragms??

Yes, a secondary diaphragm in a lens blocks stray light, increasing contrast. It’s a fixed diameter based on the lens’ maximum aperture, so it’s only effective with the lens wide open.

 

[David - Sydney]

Those birds will land just about anywhere

bin chickens, tip turkeys, tip chooks, bankstown flamingo garbage goose, trash turkey, the list is endless for local names for the Australian white Ibis!
for a humorous aussie song about them...

 

[David - Sydney]

DS

I would be fascinated to know what the proportion of sales the DS version represents. It sounds like an interesting differentiator but in practice,,,?
What do you think Canon will call an internal zoom version?

 

[David - Sydney]

USD499 RF1.4x
USD599 RF2x
USD2500 RF70-200/2.8 (discounted)
USD2600 RF100-500 (discounted)

Internal vs existing external would potentially be narrower but is likely to retain the engineering plastic materials. It should be cheaper to make without the extension mechanism

Today the incremental cost for 2 TCs and RF70-200/2.8 is a bit under half way towards the RF100-500, missing 100mm on the long end and would have a IQ/AF speed bump.
Would be more compact to carry one or both TCs than another lens but an internal zoom 70-200 would be bigger than current version.

I am not seeing a compelling reason for an internal zoom just to add TC compatibility though. Have I missed something? What could Canon add to make it significantly different?
DS

 

[esglord]

This makes the most sense of what was mentioned in the prior post. Though, the compact size of the current one sold me on the whole system, so hopefully they’ll sell both.

 

[EricN]

Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the words I would say "Extremely rich" hobbyists buy "extremely expensive gear"
The average hobbyist, or just "hobbyist" in short, would likely prefer, and be able to afford, a middle range superzoom like the 100-400.
Probably in Italy we have a different perception of the word "hobbyist" then other countries

I don't think it necessarily has to do with being rich. Some people would prefer to prioritize saving until they can afford Whatever expensive thing they want, while other people prioritize buying inexpensive things more frequently.

 

[shadowsports]

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...

Hi @John MacLean Photography ,
Try calling the Canon Parts Dept. They might be able to help with foam inserts for your collar.

Canon Parts Dept
Canon Parts Order Desk at (866) 481-2569
Weekdays from 9 AM - 7 PM, ET.

 

[shadowsports]

70~200 f2.8. I own the EF mkII and the RF mkI.

I like both. I've fully embraced RF so I'll stick with the compactness of the RF mkI model as well.

 

[Famateur]

Disclaimer: I normally read every comment before adding my two cents, but I haven't this time. If I repeat what's already been said, my apologies in advance.

At first, the idea that the RF 70-200 F2.8 would get an update seemed strange, but the more I think about it, the more it might explain some of the decisions Canon made in the current model, specifically: external zoom, and incompatibility with teleconverters. The former was explainable for space saving, but the latter was a total head scratcher to me. If the rumor is true, then perhaps it's likely those decisions were made knowing that there was a solution further down the lens roadmap.

If Canon releases a new 70-200 F2.8 with internal zoom (in response to sports shooters preferring that configuration for balance, etc), then I would anticipate that the new lens would also support teleconverters.

Photographers would then have the option to choose what suits their work best. Portrait and wedding photographers can have the space saving and probably have no need for teleconverters anyway. Sports/wildlife shooters can go for speed and balance as well as a teleconverter when needed.

I'm a 70-200 F4 kind of guy (well, actually, it's that I have a 70-200 F4 kind of wallet*), so I've got no skin in this game, but it's still interesting to me.

How cool it would be to actually see an official lens roadmap!




* Okay, truthfully, I have an 18-55 kit lens wallet, but I'm patient with my savings and spring for things like the 70-200 F4 when I can.

 

[Berowne]

My guess is, that Canon will do the same thing as they did in case of the EF400 and EF600 superteles: simply put an RF-Mount on the EF-Version and sell it as Version II.

 

[PGSanta]

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 love the external zoom design, as it makes a 70-200 so very much easier to travel with. That said, the lens is not a good one for sports, or action; the criticisms are valid.

What are the chances they'd make an internal zoom 70-200 f2? Sure, it'd be huge, but for the niche uses where the current model falls short, it'd be something people would be willing to tote to the "office".

 

[Sporgon]

What do those folks do for a standard zoom?

Good point ! But the RF 70-200 has a significantly greater extending portion than the likes of the RF 24-70/2.8 & 28-70/2. Granted the 24-105 lenses extend considerably further out than their 24-70 cousins, but the greater the extension the more vulnerable these lenses could become in adverse conditions.
IIRC Canon stated they had fitted a lock to the zoom of the EF 70-300L to prevent accidental damage if the lens were to be inadvertently left extended.
Also on the RF 70-200/2.8 is the IS unit in the extending barrel ? The block diagram of that lens’s formula show it much further forward than I’ve seen before.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Maybe keep the compact design for f4, f2.8 goes back to the traditional way to fight Sony's GM2

 

[Del Paso]

Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the words I would say "Extremely rich" hobbyists buy "extremely expensive gear"
The average hobbyist, or just "hobbyist" in short, would likely prefer, and be able to afford, a middle range superzoom like the 100-400.
Probably in Italy we have a different perception of the word "hobbyist" then other countries

I'm definitely not extremely rich, not even rich, far from it, and yet...
I think it's a matter of priorities.
PS: should you ever hike in the Val di Sole Pradalago area, and find a Leica M hangdgrip: it's mine (I stupidly lost it!).

 

[Deleted member 383640]

If they are targeting sports photographers with that lens, then that lens will be, as I predicted a few years ago, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Extender 1.4x, and it will appear alongside the EOS R1 camera. The lens will be very similar in size and weight to the EF II and III versions, but with the great advantage of a built-in extender and a fixed body size. The price will, of course, be high, just as it is the case with the vast majority of products that are the best on the market.

Just my predictions...

 

[john1970]

If they are targeting sports photographers with that lens, then that lens will be, as I predicted a few years ago, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Extender 1.4x, and it will appear alongside the EOS R1 camera. The lens will be very similar in size and weight to the EF II and III versions, but with the great advantage of a built-in extender and a fixed body size. The price will, of course, be high, just as it is the case with the vast majority of products that are the best on the market.

Just my predictions...

That lens configuration is an interesting hypothesis and one that I did not consider. A RF 70-200 mm with a built in 1.4x TC!

 

[Walrus]

PS: should you ever hike in the Val di Sole Pradalago area, and find a Leica M hangdgrip: it's mine (I stupidly lost it!).

If it's Leica stuff, then I'm going to look for it; if I resell it I can surely make up for the search cost, and likely buy food for the next 6 months

 

[SNJ Ops]

If they are targeting sports photographers with that lens, then that lens will be, as I predicted a few years ago, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Extender 1.4x, and it will appear alongside the EOS R1 camera. The lens will be very similar in size and weight to the EF II and III versions, but with the great advantage of a built-in extender and a fixed body size. The price will, of course, be high, just as it is the case with the vast majority of products that are the best on the market.

Just my predictions...

Many will not appreciate having to pay even more for a built in TC which only gets them to roughly 280mm equivalent but at the cost of a stop of light.

It seems what many pros/enthusiasts want is essentially the most recent EF 70-200mm f2.8 that is a smaller, much lighter, has TC compatibility, has a similar short zoom throw, improved IQ with the other RF lens features.

I do wonder if Canon behind the scenes have had enough negative feedback on the current model to make this move because I remember there being quite a split in opinion when current model came out. Some people adore is compact size while others really don’t care for the compromises Canon made to get it so small.

 

[EricN]

If it's Leica stuff, then I'm going to look for it; if I resell it I can surely make up for the search cost, and likely buy food for the next 6 months

I think you should check the prices for handgrips before you decide to look for it.

 

[Australisblue]

I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8L. I was expecting to maybe have it on my camera 40% of the time but it’s on my R5 at least 90% of the time which I wasn’t expecting. I love it. Before I got it I was a little worried about it being an external zoom but turned out to be a non issue for me (disclaimer is I’m not a pro though) and I like being able to fit it in my bag much easier. My only disappointment is that it doesn’t work with my RF extenders (which I knew before buying it). The only reason I’d even consider a new 70-200 would be if it was compatible with the extenders.