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

JuanMa

Canon New F1
May 10, 2018
90
143
64
Spain
500px.com
The EF 70-300L and 100-400L II have the same design, as do the standard (24/28-xx) L zooms for RF and EF.
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.
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,773
2,302
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!
 
Upvote 0
Aug 27, 2019
667
1,414
Not all that worried about a few dust specs.

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

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

navastronia

R6 x2 (work) + 5D Classic (fun)
Aug 31, 2018
853
1,073
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: 1 users
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
May 4, 2011
1,175
251
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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,355
4,265
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!
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0