Images and specifications for the upcoming RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & DM-E100

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,541
1,997
USA
I’m certainly wrong on this, but I have always considered telescopic zooms as cheap compromises. Dust filtration and solidity are among my fears with that kind of lenses.
I don't see how it is much cheaper to manufacture, but the ease of storing in a bag seems to be a preference among many here. Personally, with a few "critical" lenses such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, I don't mind needing some extra space to accommodate a more dust and weather resistant design, but Canon has a different agenda from any individual photographer!
 

shawn

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 28, 2019
66
67
I’m certainly wrong on this, but I have always considered telescopic zooms as cheap compromises. Dust filtration and solidity are among my fears with that kind of lenses.
It means they can make a better lens for less money. How is that bad?
 

ehouli

EOS M50
Jan 8, 2013
42
0
Oh well after seeing the telescopic zoom of the RF 70-200 2.8 L, well... I can see dust specs everywhere! that was my experience with the EF 100-400 mk II.
 

Ramage

EOS R5
CR Pro
Aug 27, 2019
589
1,192
Not all that worried about a few dust specs.

I am sure it has been posted but worth re-posting

 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
739
884
Not all that worried about a few dust specs.

I am sure it has been posted but worth re-posting


As long as they don't make it to the sensor . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanMa and Ramage

Yasko

EOS 90D
Jun 9, 2017
125
18
What is a smiley supposed to mean in the context of calling something a scheme?

Canon is trying to offer a product that competes well in a saturated market. What do you want them to do, give it away for free?

The smiley doesn‘t „mean“ so much at all.
New mount = new lenses = a lot of money made in this case. Nothing else I wanged to say.
It‘s not like I‘m stupid, of course business is about money, but I will keep my EF lenses for a good bit of time, and I have to give it to Canon, they even added functionality to the, via their adaptors. It‘s all fine, we‘re not doomes.

How did you come to the conclusion that I thought they should give it away for free?
It‘s just that I take it with a grain of salt. Especially the new design of the 70-200 I don‘t like very much. Besides the advantages over the older EF model, judging without Images, afaik there aren‘t any available and I am not a pixel peeper.
 

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,134
209
First samples of IQ on the 70-200 are up on TDP.


Unfortunately no apples-to-apples comparison with the EF version.

But, against the RF 24-70 at 70mm 2.8:


IMO, slight edge to the 70-200.

Against the RF 28-70 f2 at 70mm 2.8:


Closer but I'd say the 70-200 has slightly better corners.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
First samples of IQ on the 70-200 are up on TDP.


Unfortunately no apples-to-apples comparison with the EF version.

But, against the RF 24-70 at 70mm 2.8:


IMO, slight edge to the 70-200.

Against the RF 28-70 f2 at 70mm 2.8:


Closer but I'd say the 70-200 has slightly better corners.

All of which follows Uncle Roger's "Law of Zoom Relativity", even when they're not wide angle zooms.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
ef 70-200 /2.8 II at the 70mm end is on par with RF 70-200 besides in the extreme corners where RF lens looks better.
at the tele end, RF lens wins in mid frame and corners.
however, at the 135mm, I favour the EF lens in corners and centre.
I am keen to see some bokeh samples of the RF lens at various FLs. really keen.
 

Dj 7th

EOS R5
CR Pro
Apr 22, 2019
46
58
Hello all,
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8099.JPG
    IMG_8099.JPG
    438.2 KB · Views: 196
  • IMG_8100.JPG
    IMG_8100.JPG
    442.4 KB · Views: 194
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,316
1,442
Oh well after seeing the telescopic zoom of the RF 70-200 2.8 L, well... I can see dust specs everywhere! that was my experience with the EF 100-400 mk II.

I bought one of the very first 100-400 II zooms, used it often in dusty and wet environments (Northern American deserts, Wales and Scotland), and don't have any dust or fungus issues...
I never stow it away wet, or without caps, but don't even use a filter. :unsure:
Sorry for you!
 

Tirmite

I'm New Here
Aug 6, 2018
15
8
Not that anyone should care what my opinion is, but here's my 2 cents: I don't like the way extending lenses look. Just seems cheap, like a less expensive design method or cheaper engineering. I like internal focusing/zooming designs, persoally. I like the compact size but had decided to keep my EF v.II and just use it with the adapter. BUT... now that CR posted the photo with the hood I'm changing my mind. First time I've seen that photo. So it's like the first version of the 24-70mm EF where all that extension is hidden inside the lens hood. It won't look like an inferior 3rd party lens after all (at least when the hood is attached). May seem trivial, but we're in the image business. Photography is about visuals. I don't want gear that looks like a Tamron or Tokina when I'm paying top dollar for Canon L lenses. Same reason I'll pay more for an Apple laptop because it not only engineered well, but it's got a durable metal case and a beautiful aesthetic as well.
FOLLOW UP: Well, I bought it anyway. I don't care for the way it LOOKS as it extends when at any setting other than 70mm but the lens PERFORMS great. It's incredibly lightweight compared to the EF version, it's very sharp, and the trap door in the lens hood is handy in case a mouse crawls in your hood. Might also be handy for rotating a polarizer filter. : ) I assign ISO to the custom function ring so at events I can rapidly adjust exposure when panning from brightly lit stage areas to dark audience areas. Kind of pricey but worth every penny IMHO.