Internal zooming Z lenses!

[Ozarker]

I was disappointed the RF 70-200 was not internal zoom like the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Now we have internally zooming Z lenses. Will any of you upgrade for that very reason?

 

[SHAMwow]

I upgraded my 70-200, but I don't care about internal or external. It was the throw. It just didn't work for me for sports.

 

[Quack]

Nope. Would rather have a lens that stores smaller rather than one that has internal zoom.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nope. Would rather have a lens that stores smaller rather than one that has internal zoom.

And one where the tripod ring comes off completely.

Not ruling out the possibility that I’ll get the 70-200/2.8 Z. I learned my lesson when I said I wasn’t interested in the VCM lenses, and now I own the 24/1.4L.

 

[SvO2]

I’m tempted to consolidate my 70-200 non Z and 100-500 into a 70-200 Z + teleconverter. We’ll see.

 

[vjlex]

I did.

I was disappointed the RF 70-200 was not internal zoom like the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Now we have internally zooming Z lenses. Will any of you upgrade for that very reason?

I did. When the original RF 70-200mm was released, I opted for the EF 70-200mm III. Non-internal zoom and lack of teleconverter compatibility were the main reasons. Seemed liked an "upgrade" in name and price only. The wait paid off- I got the internal zoom Z lens last month. Admittedly, I haven't had much time to play around with it yet though.

 

[vjlex]

I’m tempted to consolidate my 70-200 non Z and 100-500 into a 70-200 Z + teleconverter. We’ll see.

I've been using the EF 2X teleconverter for a little while now. So far, I've never really got anything super sharp with it. I recently decided to go for the EF 100-400mm over the 100-500mm. I'm not sure how committed I will be to telephoto shots, so opted for the more affordable last-gen lens. As a bonus, my teleconverter works on it for the full range. If only I could get more usable images with the teleconverter...

I'm on the fence about keeping the EF 2X. I haven't tried it out extensively with the 100-400 yet, but from the little I did, I wasn't impressed (moon shots; the ones without the TC looked great). Is the RF 2X any better than the EF 2X III?

 

[Raptors]

I sold my RF 70-200 2.8 for the Z version. My main reason was the short throw (I also shoot sports) and the compatibility with both extenders. I did take the lens (from Canon) for a test drive and within my first hour of shooting, I was sold. I shot ice hockey this past weekend and used the lens with the 1.4x…don’t own the 2X…yet. I am very pleased with the results.

 

[SHAMwow]

I'd also like to add that the way I pack my bag I never saw any storage benefits either from the RF original. Both my everday bag and my action back it couldn't be stood up and the bag would close. So there was always a gap in my bag from the shorter length that I never really used. I will say now I have to uncouple the lens from the body to fit but its a small price to pay for the throw. And other sports related things. The balance is so nice now. And I was so sick of the external zoom sliding down on my leg as I rested between plays. Then I'd lock the zoom, action would kick up, forget to unlock zoom, etc.

I think the RF original excels for weddings, portraits, landscape, or an extreme sport like rock climbing etc where the pack down size actually matters a lot. I know people think this is a money grab, but I love that both versions exist. And I couldn't care less about the video stuff.

 

[Ozarker]

I've been using the EF 2X teleconverter for a little while now. So far, I've never really got anything super sharp with it. I recently decided to go for the EF 100-400mm over the 100-500mm. I'm not sure how committed I will be to telephoto shots, so opted for the more affordable last-gen lens. As a bonus, my teleconverter works on it for the full range. If only I could get more usable images with the teleconverter...

I'm on the fence about keeping the EF 2X. I haven't tried it out extensively with the 100-400 yet, but from the little I did, I wasn't impressed (moon shots; the ones without the TC looked great). Is the RF 2X any better than the EF 2X III?

I used to run a Canon 2x on the EF 70-200mm II. I should say, "I tried." Never sharp enough. I do wonder if that improves if adapted to an R series camera.

 

[Ozarker]

I'd also like to add that the way I pack my bag I never saw any storage benefits either from the RF original. Both my everday bag and my action back it couldn't be stood up and the bag would close. So there was always a gap in my bag from the shorter length that I never really used. I will say now I have to uncouple the lens from the body to fit but its a small price to pay for the throw. And other sports related things. The balance is so nice now. And I was so sick of the external zoom sliding down on my leg as I rested between plays. Then I'd lock the zoom, action would kick up, forget to unlock zoom, etc.

I think the RF original excels for weddings, portraits, landscape, or an extreme sport like rock climbing etc where the pack down size actually matters a lot. I know people think this is a money grab, but I love that both versions exist. And I couldn't care less about the video stuff.

I loved the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for portraits. I'm sure the RF versions are greats, too.

The new 24-105mm f/2.8L is very tempting. Especially since I no longer can afford gobs of lenses. There are just so many great choices. Like you, video isn't important to me.
Canon's zooms have gotten so good, it would be tough for me to justify any f/2.8 prime. 24-105, 135, and a what, long zoom?

Though, I do still want my f/1.2 lenses and 28-70 back.

 

[john1970]

I was disappointed the RF 70-200 was not internal zoom like the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Now we have internally zooming Z lenses. Will any of you upgrade for that very reason?

I upgraded for the shorter (faster) zoom throw and compatibility with teleconverters.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

I was disappointed the RF 70-200 was not internal zoom like the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Now we have internally zooming Z lenses. Will any of you upgrade for that very reason?

I simply waited for the internal 2.8 seeing as i had ef versions and other options but I'm loving the new 70-200Z as well as the new in its own right, 24-105/2.8 Z