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

[navastronia]

Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...

To tell you the truth, I bought it out of peer pressure and never liked the images it makes, especially past 135mm I'm happier now with cheaper, lighter, faster primes on my EF bodies. However, if I can figure out how to make more income in the next couple of years, my dream setup is a 1D-level mirrorless, RF 35 1.2 (if we get one) and the RF 85 1.2. Those 3 together could run 10-12 grand including taxes, which, honestly, is no big deal. It's not like I need both kidneys.

 

[Cochese]

No a few do it but most notably is the 100-400.

And 70-300.

 

[slclick]

Whoo, and I was thinking my Tammy 85 was heavy at 700g.

 

[Danglin52]

No a few do it but most notably is the 100-400.

I think with modern lenses, dust is a non issue with lenses that extend. I have used my 100-400 II since it was released and have never had an issue with dust infiltrating the barrel. That includes many trips to wild areas and two 18 day trips to Africa. Maybe I am just lucky.

 

[Random Orbits]

What I saw was two photos of the same girl. 1 with each lens. I don't know why Canon would simulate the difference in bokeh. They have the lenses. Look at the difference in the position of the left ear ring in relation to her head. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS

I'm going to wait on more reviews before deciding between the nonDS and DS versions. The lens is big and heavy. Yes, it can be used for many types of photographs, but it's really designed for portraiture, so I'd treat it as such. For that reason, I think the DS version is interesting. It softens the blur circles but makes them smaller, but it also tends to reduce the cat-eye effect toward the center of the frame. Sometimes I want the hard edge of the OOF highlights and sometimes I don't. I'd like to see how it affects the transition zone. It's too bad the effect can't be turned on/off, but I guess one can always go for the 85 DS to go along with the RF 50.

 

[Danglin52]

Wow! You're selling your EF 70-200 IS II; that really shows commitment to the new R mount!
I'm not that bold; I have the EOS R, the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX and also the same lens, EF 70-200 IS II but I don't have the guts to sell it...

I actually sold my EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and replaced it with the 70-200 f4 L IS II. I am getting a little older and have been on a mission to cut some weight out of my wildlife kit. I am not ready to move to R until the R II or high mpx body is available, but I will give this lens a look. It is still heavier than the f4 II, but the weight reduction may put it back in my back when combined with an R body. I miss the f2.8 occasionally when the light is low, but have no regrets with the IQ of the f4 II. If only they would put my 1dx II and 200-400 on a diet!

 

[navastronia]

I think with modern lenses, dust is a non issue with lenses that extend. I have used my 100-400 II since it was released and have never had an issue with dust infiltrating the barrel. That includes many trips to wild areas and two 18 day trips to Africa. Maybe I am just lucky.

I hope your experience is typical! To me, the main thing I find bothersome is that extending lenses just don't feel as robust as non-extending lenses. They seem to always have a little wiggle that I find disconcerting. Does that ever bother you, or not at all?

 

[shawn]

I've heard a lot about the concerns with the telescoping 70-200, but if I'm honest I am happy it telescopes to keep the pack size down so much. I'm sure there will be some risk with sucking particles of dust or water vapour into the lens, but I'd probably accept that for the packed size. I've never had an issue with my 24-105 or my 24-70 which both extend quite a bit. For those who have had issues, how frequent of an occurrence is it?

Let's trust in Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.

 

[shawn]

I hope your experience is typical! To me, the main thing I find bothersome is that extending lenses just don't feel as robust as non-extending lenses. They seem to always have a little wiggle that I find disconcerting. Does that ever bother you, or not at all?

I have the 28-70 RF and it is telescoping. It only has the smallest amount of wiggle when fully extended. You can't see it move but you can feel a faint click. I have no worries about it or the upcoming 70-200. I can only say I am excited for this new lens!

 

[Jasonmc89]

70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?

100-400

 

[Jack Jian]

Let's trust in Canon engineering. I'm sure they have thought of that fact that particles of dust or water vapor can be sucked into their premier telephoto zoom.

One of the best and biggest system in the market for sports, wildlife and rough terrain photography/videography works and a brand that takes feedback only from field pros and you thought their engineering team may probably not thought of it? Like seriously? You think those engineering team is still in kindergarden? Forums always amazes me....LOL

 

[navastronia]

One of the best and biggest system in the market for sports, wildlife and rough terrain photography/videography works and a brand that takes feedback only from field pros and you thought their engineering team may probably not thought of it? Like seriously? You think those engineering team is still in kindergarden? Forums always amazes me....LOL

That's exactly what he was saying. Not sure who or what you're arguing with

 

[MaximPhotoStudio]

I am sure these are AMAZING lenses, but not exactly revolutionary. I would love a bold move from Canon in a longer zoom. If an unheard of before 28-70 f/2 is possible, then why not something crazy like 70-150 f/2?

 

[wockawocka]

I went from using the 2.8 to the F4 IS as I found the 2.8 too heavy, this RF version is almost 400grams lighter than the EF mkiii and about 290g heavier than the F4 - Looks like I'll be going back to 2.8 (unless they bring out a lighter F4).

 

[flip314]

I am sure these are AMAZING lenses, but not exactly revolutionary. I would love a bold move from Canon in a longer zoom. If an unheard of before 28-70 f/2 is possible, then why not something crazy like 70-150 f/2?

You may get your wish at some point, Canon already has patent applications for f2 portrait zooms

Patent: Full frame f/2 zoom, possibly for mirrorless? - Canon Rumors

A patent application showing an unusual f/2 zoom from Canon has appeared in Japan (Patent application: 2018-132675). It’s possible that this zoom lens is related to a mirrorless camera body with its short BF distance. Canon News tells us that the patent itself deals with a floating focus system...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Jack Jian]

That's exactly what he was saying. Not sure who or what you're arguing with

Okay, apologies.. maybe a misunderstanding from a language barrier, non-native English speaker here. LOL

 

[Ozarker]

I'm going to wait on more reviews before deciding between the nonDS and DS versions. The lens is big and heavy. Yes, it can be used for many types of photographs, but it's really designed for portraiture, so I'd treat it as such. For that reason, I think the DS version is interesting. It softens the blur circles but makes them smaller, but it also tends to reduce the cat-eye effect toward the center of the frame. Sometimes I want the hard edge of the OOF highlights and sometimes I don't. I'd like to see how it affects the transition zone. It's too bad the effect can't be turned on/off, but I guess one can always go for the 85 DS to go along with the RF 50.

You could always buy both.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Must have appalling focus breathing to only be 0.23x @ 0.7m, old lens does 0.25x @ 1.2m, this must be close to 100mm at mfd.

Only thing that's good is weight reduction. To see an 85 f/1.2 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 shows we've entered a parallel universe

 

[dominic_siu]

RF70200 even lighter than my RF2870! I’m eager to see how compact it is

 

[Ozarker]

but damn it feels gangster to shoot with.

Yes it does. The 28-70 is a monster, even bigger than the 85.