Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?

[john1970]

No more 70-200's please. Start releasing the good lenses like RF 500 f/4L or 14 f/1.8.

Agreed. I want to see some more RF telephoto lens along the lines for the RF 100-300 f2.8. Some DO-based telephoto lenses (400-500 mm f4-f5) would be nice as well. 2025-2026 should be interesting.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Agreed. I want to see some more RF telephoto lens along the lines for the RF 100-300 f2.8. Some DO-based telephoto lenses (400-500 mm f4-f5) would be nice as well. 2025-2026 should be interesting.

I would love to see a 100-300 2.8 L lens that is cheaper than the current one. I use my 70-200 F2.8 for 95% of my sports shooting. I occasionally use my 100-500 when standing beyond the finish line shooting hurdles.

 

[navastronia]

I'd like a 24-35 f/1.4 with clicking at 24, 28 and 35.... sort of a tri-elmar. Yeah, never going to happen, plus I whine about cinderblock lenses. Or I'm just inventing new ways to get a 28 1.4L.

Exquisite idea. Dang. I'll take one, too!

 

[frankchn]

I would love to see a 100-300 2.8 L lens that is cheaper than the current one. I use my 70-200 F2.8 for 95% of my sports shooting. I occasionally use my 100-500 when standing beyond the finish line shooting hurdles.

I think if they release something in that focal length as a “consumer option” it will be f/4. Front element sizes >100mm seems to be strictly in the realm of $$$ superteles for all 3 major manufacturers.

 

[Loswr]

I think if they release something in that focal length as a “consumer option” it will be f/4.

Is it time for an RF version of the EF 100-300/5.6L?

 

[OldDudePhotog]

I think if they release something in that focal length as a “consumer option” it will be f/4. Front element sizes >100mm seems to be strictly in the realm of $$$ superteles for all 3 major manufacturers.

F4 would be good also as long as it held that throughout. I know I can achieve something similar with the 1.4x teleconverter and my 70-200 but would rather not have to stop and add that for those races.

 

[john1970]

A 100-300 mm f4 would be interesting, but I would probably just go with a 70-200 mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC for flexibility.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

A 100-300 mm f4 would be interesting, but I would probably just go with a 70-200 mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC for flexibility.

I may just do that I guess, it does make financial sense to get the teleconverter for a few hundred bucks instead of a new lens for a few thousand. I already have the 2x but that would make the lens a little too close for zoom for what I need.

 

[David_B]

No more 70-200's please. Start releasing the good lenses like RF 500 f/4L or 14 f/1.8.

Or even a 70-300 like Canon used to do.

 

[StotesPhotos]

A small 50-135mm would interest me more, but I don't expect many to agree with me.

That's exactly what I'm looking for. I recently bought the Sigma 10-18 & 18-50 f/2.8s and am very happy with them. Just need a 50-135/150 to complete the crop trinity.

I had considered the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 but I shoot too much in that 18-28 mm range.

 

[Loswr]

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the 24-240mm. Please let me know what you thought. Cheers.

So far, I'm happy with the RF 24-240. Build quality is good, DxO PL handles the corner recovery well at the wide end. The lens will definitely work for my intended use of a one-lens travel kit (ok, TBH I'll bring the 28/2.8 or 24/1.8 as well).

 

[plusnq]

So far, I'm happy with the RF 24-240. Build quality is good, DxO PL handles the corner recovery well at the wide end. The lens will definitely work for my intended use of a one-lens travel kit (ok, TBH I'll bring the 28/2.8 or 24/1.8 as well).

Thank you for your assessment. I have always struggled with a travel lens but it is so much easier with a light smal kit on holiday. Cheers

 

[ccming]

refer to the \"Filter Size Diameter\", \"Length\" and \"Weight\" of RF28-70f2.8, I guess the new tele zoom lens will have the same spec so they are friendly for video shooting.