Canon RF 70-150mm f/2.8 IS STM Coming To Complete the Trilogy?

[Loswr]

Two questions to R8 owners:
Has anyone used the R8 with either the RF24-105mm F4 L or the 70-200mm F4? Also, how is the 100-400mm on that body?

I´d use the R8 with the RF 16mm, 35mm (maybe 28mm if I can get it at refurb price)...

The R8 is my travel camera, and I usually bring the RF 10-20/4L and RF 24-105/4L, along with 1-3 other lenses (TS-E 17, 100-400, and a prime or two). Examples of the R8 with the RF 24-105/4L, RF 100-400 and RF 28/2.8.

 

[Maximilian]

And if it can do MFD of 40~55cm, it\'s gonna be a good portrait lens for me.

You need 40 cm @150mm for portrait?
You're doing portraits of spots?

Joke aside, I know from the 100-500 how a good MFD can make a lens very versatile
Let's hope for a good spec sheet and even better IQ.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

If you are ok w/ an extending zoom the 70-200 2.8 is amazingly small in the bag/at rest on the camera.

Perhaps this is better weighted for a stabilizer etc. but then again if you are going full vid production the 70-200 non-expanding gives you the stable balance (sort of)

Not coming up w/ a use case unless in use size is a super premium issue.

 

[Walrus]

Good news, I really want to replace my EF 70-200 2.8 non-IS with something like that, but I'd like it at least around 180mm; if it's just 150mm, in a world where Tamron manufactures a 35-150 which is even brighter at wide angle, frankly I wouldn't find it super appealing, and would otherwise look for occasions on used EF 70-200 2.8 II IS as I'm doing today.

You don't allow the Tamron in RF, ok fine, but at least give me some extra mm on the tele side on this new lens, to convince me that being with them is still better then jumping ship.

I gladly bought almost immediately the 28-70 STM so I could sell my EF 24-70 II before prices sunk, but I'm not going to buy a 70-150, that's for sure, especially around 1500€ which I guess would be a realistic price they're going to ask for it.

 

[Toamelicious]

Well, maybe a bad news for me. I just bought 70200F4L.

No bad news for anyone. People who couldn't decide or couldn't afford until now, will have another option to consider and you my friend have just gotten yourself an amazing lens.

 

[Del Paso]

Well, maybe a bad news for me. I just bought 70200F4L.

No need for regrets.
I too own the 70-200 f/4 and I don't even think of replacing it with the STM 70-150. It is just too good optically.
As to the mechanical construction, the 70-200 is an L lens, a guarantee for a high reliability and durability.

 

[mpmark]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

Go to Sony, no one asked you to stay.

 

[Loswr]

the 70-200 non-expanding gives you the stable balance…Not coming up w/ a use case unless in use size is a super premium issue.

The use case is affordability. Consider the use case of 1/3 the cost, or the use caseS of covering 16mm to 150mm with the three f/2.8 non-L zooms that together will cost about the same as the 70-200/2.8L Z.

 

[esspy2]

if they cut out of the long focal range to 150mm, do you think they can increase the wide focal range to 50mm? Of course, I would love a longer focal range to 200mm, but maybe physical dimensions, price, and manufacturing are preventing that. A 2.1x zoom is kind of disappointing, unless the lens is literally the size of the 28-70mm.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

if they cut out of the long focal range to 150mm, do you think they can increase the wide focal range to 50mm? Of course, I would love a longer focal range to 200mm, but maybe physical dimensions, price, and manufacturing are preventing that. A 2.1x zoom is kind of disappointing, unless the lens is literally the size of the 28-70mm.

Considering it is a trinity, I´d guess they won't even try going to 50mm. The UWA zoom goes to 28mm, the standard zooms starts at 28mm. Seems very intentionally to me.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The R8 is my travel camera, and I usually bring the RF 10-20/4L and RF 24-105/4L, along with 1-3 other lenses (TS-E 17, 100-400, and a prime or two). Examples of the R8 with the RF 24-105/4L, RF 100-400 and RF 28/2.8.

thx for the pics. I am actually not concerned with IQ, my concerns are more about the ergonomics (no joystick) and the handling/ balance with certain lenses. I fear, the RF 24-105mm F4 L would be too "front-heavy" ("frontlastig" as a German would say). Any thoughts on this? It would be very helpful since the local camera stores here in the area either don´t have a R8 or won't take it out of the box for testing... it'll be a while until I can test it.

 

[Ozarker]

Now, one step closer to an RF 70-135MM F/2 L.

 

[bn5fg]

Good news! I'm extremely happy with the RF 28-70mm f/2.8.

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

Sorry, but I can't agree. Third-party lenses are just as mediocre as Canon's closed-shop offerings. The only glass actually worth a damn? Glorious Sony GM—everything else is just cosplay for real optics. But to truly appreciate these marvels, you need a real photographer’s camera—none of that Canon nonsense with their stone-age 24MP sensors pretending it’s still 2012. Let’s be honest: Canon’s just irrelevant at this point.

 

[Loswr]

thx for the pics. I am actually not concerned with IQ, my concerns are more about the ergonomics (no joystick) and the handling/ balance with certain lenses. I fear, the RF 24-105mm F4 L would be too "front-heavy" ("frontlastig" as a German would say). Any thoughts on this? It would be very helpful since the local camera stores here in the area either don´t have a R8 or won't take it out of the box for testing... it'll be a while until I can test it.

First off, I will say that I prefer 1-series bodies for daily use, I find them more comfortable to handhold for long periods (a few hours) with my usual everyday lenses. Those are lenses like the 24-105/2.8 and 28-70/2, so the 24-105/4L is ‘light’.

My typical use for the R8 while traveling does not involve holding it for long periods. It’s either in a shoulder bag and I take it out for some shots then put it back, or it’s on a tripod.

I’ll also note that I have a Really Right Stuff plate on the R8 – it’s the one for the EOS RP and it effectively extends the bottom of the camera by 9.5 mm (just like the Canon EG-E1 extension grip that also fits the R8). That extension gives my pinky a place to rest.

With all that said, I don’t find the setup to be front-heavy or ungainly to use handheld with lenses like the RF 24-105/4L, RF 24-240 or RF 100-400. It does feel front-heavy with the RF 28-70/2 or RF 100-500L, for example.

Hope that helps…

 

[Skux]

This is a bit of a weird one. It had better be small.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

I am in the same boat here - fascinated by the prospects, but wishing for just a smidgen more. The 28-70 is a for sure next purchase. A 70-180mm would be a no-brainer to go with it. 70-150? I am less sure. It doesn’t sound like much difference, but that 150-200mm range would get a lot of use at f/2.8 for the things I like to shoot. 20mm I can sacrifice. 50mm? Leaves me with thinking to do.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

First off, I will say that I prefer 1-series bodies for daily use, I find them more comfortable to handhold for long periods (a few hours) with my usual everyday lenses. Those are lenses like the 24-105/2.8 and 28-70/2, so the 24-105/4L is ‘light’.

My typical use for the R8 while traveling does not involve holding it for long periods. It’s either in a shoulder bag and I take it out for some shots then put it back, or it’s on a tripod.

I’ll also note that I have a Really Right Stuff plate on the R8 – it’s the one for the EOS RP and it effectively extends the bottom of the camera by 9.5 mm (just like the Canon EG-E1 extension grip that also fits the R8). That extension gives my pinky a place to rest.

With all that said, I don’t find the setup to be front-heavy or ungainly to use handheld with lenses like the RF 24-105/4L, RF 24-240 or RF 100-400. It does feel front-heavy with the RF 28-70/2 or RF 100-500L, for example.

Hope that helps…

Thx for thoughts on this matter. It does sound appealing and like the R8 could be coupled with the RF 24-105mm F4 L without too much hassle. The R8 would kind a take the same spot for my use. I don't like carrying around the R5 in cities all the time or during a hike and going light just seems right. I carry my camera/ lenses in a backpack or a small sling bag during city travels. So that'd work too.
I do have other lens options as I stated earlier, but I´d like one zoom with the R8 as well. If those lenses work fine, I wouldn't be in the market for either f2.8 STM lens.

 

[Daniel Lindblom]

I guess this is not the lens for me. I would rather see a RF 70-180mm lens with 2,57x zoom ratio. I don't mind if it's a bit larger than the RF 16-28mm and RF 28-70mm.

 

[koenkooi]

After thinking about how I would use a 70-200-ish lens and having used the EF70-200 F/4L, I really want a non-extending version. And the only candidate for that, the RF70-200Z is very firmly outside my budget. GAS solved

 

[davidespinosa]

I have an R8 with the 16/2.8, 28/2.8, and 50/1.8 primes.
A 70-150/2.8 would be great for longer focal lengths (which I don't use that much).