Ready for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z?

I'm not a fan of the RF 24-105/2.8's tripod foot design. I'd prefer a removable ring like the EF versions of the 70-200/2.8 for that lens. Having said that, we're stuck with the 24-105/2.8 so I hope the 70-200/2.8 Z has the same foot design. I admit my reason is selfish – I don't plan to buy the 70-200 Z, but Really Right Stuff has not made a dedicated replacement foot for the 24-105/2.8 and I hope that if the 70-200/2.8 Z has the same foot, that will provide sufficient market incentive for RRS to make a replacement foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I'm in a similar situation. My EF 100-400 II LIS is getting a lot of use these days, far more than my EF 70-200/2.8 II LIS. I've hardly used my 70/200 this year. But that's because my use case scenario has changed a lot. These day's I would rather take a 135mm prime than the 70-200 if I needed that range and bright aperture. If something darker and longer is needed, my EF 100-400 LIS II is superb.
However, there are a lot of photographers who use a 70-200/2.8 a lot and it's their main goto lens.


I guess it does come down to different use case scenarios. my 70 to 200 EF 2.8ii only gets used a few times a year but essentially I'll never give it up it's just a beast for what it does and while I often ponder about a 105 or 135 prime, the lack of zoom just puts it in another use case. I last used mine for portrait sessions in February, and before that was September October.

At least it's easy for me to say that until the day I actually get to use one more extensively or own a 135 prime (I used to rent lenses a lot more but nowadays not at all) a few times I've had to do some real gymnastics with the 70 to 200 trying to get different angles such as shooting from the ground etc but once it gets going I just love its flexibility even though it starts at 70mm.
 
Upvote 0
I've used the 70-200/2.8's since 1995, but only ever in the context of the 1.4x and 2.0x. That said I guess many pros saw/see the 70-200/2.8 as desirable even when used by itself.

I'm sure its performance was at least a little hampered by having to look good by itself while also working pretty well with the TC's.

I also thought its non-extending zoom was the best protection against sucking dust, moisture, and fungal spores inside the lens. That said, the extending lenses such as the 20-35, 17-35, 16-35, and 28-70 and 24-70's didn't seem to have problems per se along these lines.

For these reasons, the RF70-200/2.8 with no TC compatibility had no attraction whatsoever for me. It never even crossed my mind to get it. But, I also never questioned why anyone would.

I love the 100-500 and to me I treat it basically as a 70-200 that kind of has a 1.4x and/or 2.0x when I want them. I take the exact same kind of shots with it that I did with the 70-200/2.8 and tele-extenders, except possibly, the portraits from 100-200. And for those I have the 135/1.8 which easily does a better job than the 70-200/2.8s. (My fave EF was the 135/2.0.) So, now that Canon has a TC-capable 70-200/2.8 coming, I'm also not going to be interested in that, as I've already got everything I could use between the 135/1.8 and 100-500.

------------

Another huge problem I have though, is that I earnestly think the f/2.8 trinity concept is behind us. We needed it in the past, first and foremost, because our AF wouldn't even function fully without it! But in addition, without IS and without the sky-high noise-free ISO's we enjoy today, there was always a battle to get a proper exposure. We had to obey the reciprocal rule, and even 400 speed film was unacceptably grainy for much professional use. To be able to get even one extra stop from the zoom meant our keeper rate could double due to faster shutter, and we could get by with slower film some of the time.

A second issue is that shots were never really in focus, especially where the subject wasn't exactly centered, unless we laboriously selected AF points off-center. We couldn't reliably focus-recompose-shoot as few or no lenses had perfectly spherical "planes" of focus. A lens that was in focus at 3m for a centered subject might focus 3.5m away towards subjects at the 1/3 2/3 points. We'd always push the shutter speeds too low and camera movement or subject movement would cause motion blur as well. Since the shots were blurry and grainy, we couldn't use huge images. And in our small images, we needed f/2.8 bokeh to make the subject pop out of the background.

Now we can use ISO 4000 for many shots, and hand-hold 1/2 to 1/15 even at 50mm without a thought. Suddenly exposing by candlelight at f/4 is without worry. The AF absolutely nails the eyelashes every single time. Since the grain-free images are in perfect focus it's nothing to have your image the width of an entire monitor, and at that magnification size, even f/4 is enough to make the subject stand out from the background.

For these reasons, I think the f/2.8 trinity is actually a dead man walking. F/4, including the 100-500/4.5-7.1 (with the same bokeh-ful 70mm aperture of the 70-200/2.8) have long since been the tool the typical photog needs for the vast majority of their shots.

Note I still love bokeh as much as anyone and love the 135/1.8 and have owned the 50/1.2 and on EF, had the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.0 and 1.2, 80/1.2 and 135/2. I get that. But for me this is more a special effect and I never sold an f/2.8 photo back when I was a working photog that I couldn't have sold had it had the DOF of f/4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
It's probably going to have another damn aperture ring that we can't use for photography. I may be missing something, but is there any other camera/lens brand that has you disable the aperture ring for photos? It's so weird and unnecessary.
Oh god not another one.... Seriously what's wrong with Canon letting you lot use the clickable control ring that can act as aperture ring in stills. And in video you get an extra free custom ring.
Canon is such a evil company™, unlike other manufacturers who fixed the aperture ring as aperture ring only, and not giving extra control ring from the cheapest lens to the kill-your-kidney-L-grade.

Canon is DOOMED ™
Long live $only/Neekon

#sarcasm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I own the RF70-200 f2.8 and to be honest, it\'s one of my least used lenses. The RF100-500 is so good and so versatile I rarely pick up the 70-200.

Yet, the lens itself is great. The compact size, image stabilization and low weight make it very interesting for gimbal use, along with obviously the f2.8.

The new one will not be a competing lens, since it will be aimed at a completely different market segment.
 
Upvote 0
Oh god not another one.... Seriously what's wrong with Canon letting you lot use the clickable control ring that can act as aperture ring in stills. And in video you get an extra free custom ring.
Canon is such a evil company™, unlike other manufacturers who fixed the aperture ring as aperture ring only, and not giving extra control ring from the cheapest lens to the kill-your-kidney-L-grade.

Canon is DOOMED ™
Long live $only/Neekon

#sarcasm
Yes, Canon must have realized the D-word als well: “Note that an EOS R-series camera model introduced in 2024 or later (future models at review time) is required to use the aperture ring for stills”.
Source: TDP, RF 24-105 f2.8 review and, if my memory serves me well, there is also an interview with Canon with a similar statement that @neuroanatomist has mentioned.

Canon has deliberately delayed enabling the aperture ring for photos so those that like compaining have something to complain about ;).
 
Upvote 0
It's probably going to have another damn aperture ring that we can't use for photography. I may be missing something, but is there any other camera/lens brand that has you disable the aperture ring for photos? It's so weird and unnecessary.
I'll ask you what I've asked others who have complained about this – what use would a clickless aperture ring be for stills photography? Especially on a lens that already has a control ring with tactile feedback that can control the aperture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
While I would find a black, internal zooming 70-200 aesthetically pleasing, I haven't used my EF70-200 in years. Between the 24-105L and the 100-500L I rarely find myself in a situation where a 70-200 would work better. The RF f/2.8 version has a 0.23x magnification and the f/4 has a 0.28x magnification, combined with very heavy focus breathing, which makes it unsuitable for the insect and reptile close ups I'd like to use it for.

And I like to complain about there not being a proper compact RF camera, so in the unlikely event that I would get a 70-200, I'd get the telescoping f/4 version.

Will this inherit the 'magic drainpipe' moniker that the black, internal zooming 80-200 had?

I have the EF ii version, and I love the IQ on it, it's my favorite lens in that regard. But I rarely use it. When I'm at 70 I always really need it wider, and when I get out to 200 I invariably end up thinking "man I wish this went to 300". My use cases just don't line up with the focal length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I'll ask you what I've asked others who have complained about this – what use would a clickless aperture ring be for stills photography? Especially on a lens that already has a control ring with tactile feedback that can control the aperture.
I personally don't need the click stops to change aperture, and I like the fact that the aperture ring on the 24-105Z is near the base of the lens.

The control ring on that lens is all the way to the front of a fairly long lens and my hand doesn't naturally land there when I am holding that lens on a camera, making it awkward to use. At least for me, to reach the control ring I'll either have to stretch my index finger or shift my left hand.

If the control ring on the 24-105Z were next to the aperture ring (i.e. in a similar position as the current RF 70-200 or 100-500), I wouldn't be as bothered not being able to use the aperture ring.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The new RF 70-200 Z sounds really interesting. I have used the EF 70-200/2.8 IS Mk II quite often with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and the inability of the 'old' RF 70-200/2.8 to take extenders is a deal-breaker for me.

Last year I was trying to shoot pictures of a friend's daugther during competition in a iceskating hall, and the RF 100-500 was just horrible. Switching over to the EF 70-200+extender helped a lot in terms of tracking and less noise (chroma noise in particular). Technically there shouldn't be a huge difference between the EF f/4 aperture and the RF's, but that wasn't my experience.

Same applies to the EF 300/2.8 and RF 100-300/2.8. And the fact that I already have the EF 300 and I'm not giving it up :)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Same applies to the EF 300/2.8 and RF 100-300/2.8. And the fact that I already have the EF 300 and I'm not giving it up :)
I held off buying an EF 300/2.8 hoping for the RF version. I'm happier with the zoom than I would have been with a 300mm prime, the flexibility is great for indoor events. Also, the 100-300/2.8 makes a great 140-420/4 for field sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Thanks for posting that list! I have both the RF100-400 and RF100-500, mainly for their relatively high magnification ratio at the long end. The breathing-corrected focal length you added illustrate nicely why I keep asking for 200-ish mm stabilised 1:1 macro lens :)
I should have added:
- RF 135: [email protected] 935g
- RF 70-200 2.8: [email protected] 1070g

So with the RF135 you have more shooting distance, more magnification, less weight and 1.3 stops faster aperture, not too bad!

I shot a lot with the EF 70-200s in close distances, ZERO with the RF version.
 
Upvote 0
I own the RF70-200 f2.8 and to be honest, it\'s one of my least used lenses. The RF100-500 is so good and so versatile I rarely pick up the 70-200.

Yet, the lens itself is great. The compact size, image stabilization and low weight make it very interesting for gimbal use, along with obviously the f2.8.

The new one will not be a competing lens, since it will be aimed at a completely different market segment.
I use the 100-500 and complement it with the 135 1.8.
Since the 135 made it to my arsenal the 70-200 is running in unemployment.
 
Upvote 0
It's probably going to have another damn aperture ring that we can't use for photography. I may be missing something, but is there any other camera/lens brand that has you disable the aperture ring for photos? It's so weird and unnecessary.
I really like Sony's click/unclick controllable aperture rings. Best of both worlds. It IS odd that Canon doesn't or can't do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
It's probably going to have another damn aperture ring that we can't use for photography. I may be missing something, but is there any other camera/lens brand that has you disable the aperture ring for photos? It's so weird and unnecessary.
According to Gizmodo-JP, you will be able to use the aperture ring for photography in upcoming new Canon cameras ("cameras released after June 2024" - so I guess R1, R5II etc)...

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I personally don't need the click stops to change aperture, and I like the fact that the aperture ring on the 24-105Z is near the base of the lens.
Technically, I suppose there's no need. But personally, I'd rather have the tactile feedback so I can keep my eye on the subject in the VF rather than the settings.

The control ring on that lens is all the way to the front of a fairly long lens and my hand doesn't naturally land there when I am holding that lens on a camera, making it awkward to use. At least for me, to reach the control ring I'll either have to stretch my index finger or shift my left hand.

If the control ring on the 24-105Z were next to the aperture ring (i.e. in a similar position as the current RF 70-200 or 100-500), I wouldn't be as bothered not being able to use the aperture ring.
Makes sense. I doubt I'd use it anyway, I typically use Fv mode and really two dials on the body are enough. Even in M mode, I'm usually in Auto ISO, occasionally not on my R3 but there I have three body dials anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0