Patent: Inner zoom RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200mm f/4

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,418
1,188
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Canon News has uncovered a patent with optical formulas for an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. What’s interesting about this patent is that both designs are for inner zoom lenses, which is different than the current RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM which as you know has an external zoo, which does help keep the lens compact when in your bag and in your hand.
It would be pretty cool if Canon gave photographers a choice of which design they’d prefer to buy, but I think the chances of that are quite slim.
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4.0L 

Focal length 72.00mm 133.20mm 194.00mm
F-number 4.10 4.10 4.10
Half angle of view (degrees) 16.72 9.23 6.36
Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Total lens length 202.98mm 202.98mm 202.98mm
BF 38.71mm 38.71mm 38.71mm

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L

Focal length 72.00mm 133.20mm 194.00mm
F-number 2.88 2.88 2.88
Half...
Continue reading...
 

Laslen

5D Mark III
Oct 18, 2014
31
65
Giving your customers more choices is always a smart thing to do, within reason.

As an outdoor/wildlife photographer, I would prefer an inner zoom version. I haven't bought the RF partly for this reason.
 
Dec 6, 2018
181
295
Depends on how far outdoor your wildlife is. External zoom is easier to pack in carry-on.
Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that. If it were one or two more inches shorter, it would be equal in my bag. But I'd probably opt for the one less pound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,109
1,374
USA
Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that. If it were one or two more inches shorter, it would be equal in my bag. But I'd probably opt for the one less pound.
I will say that the rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS handles much better for me than its ef counterpart; however, I could not find a lens case for it! I ended up using the smallest camera bag I could find that fits it with its lens hood and lens collar. And that takes up more space than the ef's included accessory lens case.

The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.

Here's what I ended up with:

 
  • Like
Reactions: JohanCruyff

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,011
1,355
Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that.
Weight too. But the RF model can be oriented along the smallest dimension of the largest cabin size bag, and the EF model cannot, unless your bag has no padding at all.
 

mjg79

EOS 90D
Feb 19, 2016
160
102
I really hope we get a 70-200/4 L which also has the extending design. The f4 model is a very nice half way house with top level build quality, optics and AF, a still quite wide aperture but much less weight than the 2.8. In the ef lenses the f4 was so long (though narrower and lighter) that it really offered little size advantage over the 2.8.

An RF 70-200/4L would be great for hiking, landscapes etc.

It actually wouldn't shock me that much if Canon did give an RF 70-200/2.8L that was non-extending. Canon has been doing lots of unprecedented things recently and moreover has always, always focused like a laser on professionals and the 70-200/2.8 as a key product. If professionals say they want the non-extending version then it would be very easy to do - the optical design could stay identical it just would sit in a different outer body. A fixed lens will likely be a bit more robust and better weather sealed no matter what - the RF appears excellent in these ways too but ultimately you can't beat physics. For travel and casual use the extending design looks great, indeed a revelation for a 70-200/2.8, but I could imagine pros preferring the fixed model.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,109
1,374
USA
It does?? Not the nice padded casing like the old ones? What a shame... that’s actually a real bummer, because like you describe, what are one going to carry it in then?
Maybe the person who designed the case for the EF lenses retired, and Canon had nobody to create one for the short and chubby new model. So they tossed in a pouch, just to be generous. :rolleyes: Hey, times are tough for the camera industry!

Come to think of it...I'm surprised Fro-Knows-Photo, who is usually detail-oriented, didn't mention this in his review!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohanCruyff

timmy_650

EOS RP
Dec 20, 2012
293
26
I think they might make one but not for 3-4 years. Make an “update” that is different then the external zoom. Bc I would bet they are getting pretty close to maximum resolution on the EF style lens. Maybe the RF might change that but I don’t think so.
 

photographer

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Jan 17, 2020
13
7
83
I will say that the rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS handles much better for me than its ef counterpart; however, I could not find a lens case for it! I ended up using the smallest camera bag I could find that fits it with its lens hood and lens collar. And that takes up more space than the ef's included accessory lens case.

The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.

Here's what I ended up with:


I don't have this lens, but what about this? 14 cm will be tight, but should fit. They also do 11 x 18 cm. I don't know how wide the lens hood is.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
42
66
Where’s the benefit of the RF mount? It seems like both of those new lenses would be almost the same length as they EF counterparts with adapters on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djkraq

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,109
1,374
USA
I don't have this lens, but what about this? 14 cm will be tight, but should fit. They also do 11 x 18 cm. I don't know how wide the lens hood is.

Thank you. I tried this one because it was recommended on the accessory page. The very wide lens-hood barely squeezes in, then is extremely difficult to pull back out. I didn't think this would get easier with use: It was just too tight and felt like it was putting too much tension on the hood's threads and the lens itself. Furthermore, the tripod collar/foot won't fit in at all, so if you like having that along it has to be stored separately with this case.

It did not work and I told B&H's customer service. Now there are only wraps associated with the lens as accessories, no cases yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: photographer