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

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
183
256
Kenosha, WI
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.
It couldn't stay identical because the telescoping - or lack thereof - is factored into the optics. The only way they could do what you suggest would be to essentially wrap the existing lens in another lens body with gearing that manipulated the telescoping, while the outer body stayed fixed. That would be a wide lens indeed!
 
Please canon ,stop listening peoples whining dont be like sony: :p
Extending zoom is just fine :)
Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.

I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj and Pape

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
296
245
My personal preference would be for an internal zoom - but its not that big of a deal; designing and making two radically different 70-200 F2.8's would be a bit mad.
If you look at B&H, there are currently 11 different 70-200s for EF and 7 of them are from Canon. A couple more for RF is probably not overkill. At the end of the day, it is about price and positioning. The first RF version is a little pricey for some folks and others don't like the external zoom. Personally, I really like the EF 70-300 and would like to see a version of that find its way into the RF line.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,187
3,369
Irving, Texas
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 used this for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS and it fit perfect. They are not available at this time, but maybe they will make one for the RF. I found it to be very nice and rugged. It is semi-hard shell and very reasonably priced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,148
1,405
USA
Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.

I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.
If you shoot in sandy conditions, such as the beach, it's a little more of a problem. Sure, I try to keep sand off of any lens or body, but I did have a grain of sand get into one L with an extending design, only to hear crunching the next day. CPS cleaned it out. It's not a myth, but it is a compromise we choose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vjlex

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,187
3,369
Irving, Texas
Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.

I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.
1. I don't know what the stronger argument could be other than storage size... which matters to some and not to others.
2. I think that the notion internal zooms cost more to mfg. is a better assumption than the idea that they are equal.

As this man says:
If you shoot in sandy conditions, such as the beach, it's a little more of a problem. Sure, I try to keep sand off of any lens or body, but I did have a grain of sand get into one L with an extending design, only to hear crunching the next day. CPS cleaned it out. It's not a myth, but it is a compromise we choose.
I used to live in the middle of the desert where it was windy much of the time with a sand haze in the air. I'd prefer an internal for beach or desert conditions, thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

djkraq

EOS M50
Aug 13, 2016
33
21
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.
Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
554
338
38
Philadelphia
I just ordered my external zoom. the internal zoom is not only annoying on the eos r, I think it puts a little strain on the mount EF mount. I constantly get errors only with that lens.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
554
338
38
Philadelphia
Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.
Word is IBIS doesnt work as well with telephotos. Also since canon is combining IS with IBIS, i dont see why they would get rid of IS, especially in zooms that are used for all purpose shooting including sports.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF and SecureGSM

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
585
S Florida
Word is IBIS doesnt work as well with telephotos. Also since canon is combining IS with IBIS, i dont see why they would get right of IS, especially in zooms that are used for all purpose shooting including sports.
They wouldn't get rid of IS in lenses. Canon is upping its game and the thought of them removing features from L lenses is ludicrous. "We don't need 7 or 8 stops of correction, 4 or 5 will do" just isn't going to happen. The only thing they're removing is my cash...
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
46
68
Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.
So your version is that there’s gonna be RF70-200 with IS (the current one) and then another one without IS? But the versions without IS aren’t much smaller and definitely not shorter. Canon will still release lenses with IS since “it’s always better than IBIS” (I quote canon).
And the length of the lens is given in the patent
 
Jan 10, 2020
26
18
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!
I’m not surprised he would t mention it. He tends to put them to one side. I don’t use them either as I need to get lenses out of my bag fast. Bags in bags gets tedious.
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
113
66
So your version is that there’s gonna be RF70-200 with IS (the current one) and then another one without IS? But the versions without IS aren’t much smaller and definitely not shorter. Canon will still release lenses with IS since “it’s always better than IBIS” (I quote canon).
And the length of the lens is given in the patent
Well, as djkraq stated, this particular patent we are discussing does not have IS groups in the lens design. The problem they claim to be solving with this design is "
[Problem]
To obtain a zoom lens which is easy in high-speed focusing, small in aberration variation in focusing, and easily obtains high optical performance throughout an object distance. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Traveler

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,148
1,405
USA
I’m not surprised he would t mention it. He tends to put them to one side. I don’t use them either as I need to get lenses out of my bag fast. Bags in bags gets tedious.
We're not necessarily talking bags in bags. I like to keep my lenses well padded while stored--just in case something gets knocked over. Not sure JP has kids. But we do!!!

Besides, the point isn't whether you or JP personally prefer a padded bag, such as Sigma includes...It's that Canon did with this class of lens for decades, then, with a significantly higher priced model, stopped. That's news. That's a point that deserves coverage in a thoughtful review. Of course not too many folk have accused him of producing thoughtful reviews. :rolleyes:
 

erader

I'm New Here
Jan 16, 2020
17
10
everyone complained about push/pull with canon 100-400L I and when 100-400L II they complained about twist