Close Menu

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

    By 74 Comments Canon Lens Rumors 3 Mins Read

    One of the more highly anticipated lenses here at Canon Rumors is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z, an internal zooming sibling to the compact RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

    We have been told that the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is in the hands of the usual suspects and is expected to be announced this year. The last date that we had heard for an announcement is at the end of this month. We have been continuously wrong about announcement dates, so we’re not holding our breath. It would be a lovely lens to see being tested at the Paris Olympics.

    We wouldn’t be surprised to see a development announcement RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z.

    For now, we’ll say this year.

    While we haven’t received full specifications for the lens, we have been told about a few things to expect.

    The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z will be an internal zoom lens and will reportedly shave a lot of weight when compared to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III. It will be “significantly lighter than the latest e mount Sigma” we’re told. The Sigma’s impressive E-mount 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN OS Sports Lens weighs in at 2.9lbs, which is about .3lbs lighter than the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM III. Sometimes humans have a different definition for the word “significant” in this sort of context.

    Now, we don’t expect that the price will also be “significantly lighter” than the Sigma counterpart!

    The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z will also be shorter than its EF counterpart, but with a slightly bigger circumference. So I would think we’re likely looking at an 82mm filter thread. The current RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is 77mm.

    It will be equipped with the same aperture ring for video that we have seen on the RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z and RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM. It will also be compatible with Canon’s PZ-E2 and PZ-E2B PowerZoom adapters, hence the “Z”.

    It will be compatible with Canon’s RF tele-converters (We hear the cheers already) and it will have some kind of macro function, which wasn’t explained in-depth to us.

    There is also “a new IS mode”, but no further details were given.

    The current RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM will remain in the lineup, as there are some us that are more than happy with its compact size. Choice is always a great thing.

    Header image is of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III

    More to come…

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    74 comments

    1. Sounds promising (except for the expected price ;) ).
      I really like the small size of the existing RF70-200, but I don't like that it can't be used with the TCs.
      So the anticipation is rising :)
    4. 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?
    5. But what is getting announced(?) later today?:
      youtu.be

      Canon Unscripted EPISODE 1: From Modeling to Headshots – Interview with Peter Hurley

      Welcome to Canon Unscripted, the ultimate destination for photography, video, and creative conversations brought to you by Canon USA.Join us on this captivat...
      youtu.be youtu.be

      Jan Wegener was in his latest video teasing that Wednesday would get us an announcement of something weighting approx. 500g. So it is not this lens.

      No idea, every retailer I know is in the dark as well. Hopefully it's not another attempt at some online thing.
    6. 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 so want an APS-C RF camera body like the M6, I love my R50, but I'd swap it in a minute for such a camera.
    7. But what is getting announced(?) later today?:
      youtu.be

      Canon Unscripted EPISODE 1: From Modeling to Headshots – Interview with Peter Hurley

      Welcome to Canon Unscripted, the ultimate destination for photography, video, and creative conversations brought to you by Canon USA.Join us on this captivat...
      youtu.be youtu.be

      Jan Wegener was in his latest video teasing that Wednesday would get us an announcement of something weighting approx. 500g. So it is not this lens.
      I believe that turned out to be one of the two RF-S stereoscopic lenses but we will see what turns up today.
    8. 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'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.
    9. 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?
      Shooting insects with Canon zooms: focal length at max magnification, weight
      - RF 100-400: [email protected] 635g
      - RF 100-500: [email protected] 1530g
      - EF 70-200 4.0 II: 167mm@0,27 780g
      - EF 70-200 2.8 III: 172mm@0,21x 1480g
      - RF 70-200 4.0: [email protected] 695g
      - RF 70-200 2.8: [email protected] 1070g
    11. Shooting insects with Canon zooms: focal length at max magnification, weight
      - RF 100-400: [email protected] 635g
      - RF 100-500: [email protected] 1530g
      - EF 70-200 4.0 II: 167mm@0,27 780g
      - EF 70-200 2.8 III: 172mm@0,21x 1480g
      - RF 70-200 4.0: [email protected] 695g
      - RF 70-200 2.8: [email protected] 1070g
      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 :)
    12. The breathing-corrected focal length you added illustrate nicely why I keep asking for 200-ish mm stabilised 1:1 macro lens :)
      It’s not like 1:1 macro lenses don’t focus breathe. The EF 100mm L macro is ~67mm at 1:1.
    13. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z will also be shorter than its EF counterpart, but with a slightly bigger circumference. So I would think we're likely looking at an 82mm filter thread. The current RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is 77mm.


      It will also be compatible with Canon's PZ-E2 and PZ-E2B PowerZoom adapters, hence the “Z”.
      I guess you're saying the front end of the lens will be fatter. The PZ-E2/B attaches to the lens with screws/pins and the curvature of the adapter matches the curvature of the lens barrel for the 24-105/2.8. The 24-105/2.8 has a specified diameter of 0.3mm less than that of the EF 70-200/2.8 MkIII, but the EF is pretty much the same diameter along the barrel while the 24-105/2.8 widens out at the front. I would think the diameter of the RF 70-200/2.8 Z would be identical to the RF 24-105/2.8 Z where the adapter attaches.

      1718193304054.png

      I can see the rationale for an 82mm filter, maybe. The EF 70-200/2.8 III has very little vignetting, but the RF version has ~3 stops at 200mm.
    14. 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?
      [...my first attempt at 'multi-quote' so bear with me as I try the (to me) new toy]

      I sort of cannot believe I;m reading this as I had the same thoughts just yesterday. I own a pair of 70-200 lenses (2.8 Tamron and 4.0 Canon) and noted that I seldom use them; once in a while I utilize the 2.8 for bokeh-related purposes but that's about it.
      =====
      I so want an APS-C RF camera body like the M6, I love my R50, but II'd swap it in a minute for such a camera.
      ...I remain flabbergasted that Canon decided not to compete in the 'small-and-light' APS-C market; the oh-so-large lens mount on the APS-C R Canons looks rather silly to my eyes. Of course my eyes are used to M.
      =====
      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.
      ...more of the same.

      This is a neat thread...why I check CR every day!
    15. 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.
      I'm in an analogous situation. My RF 70-200/2.8 has seen much less use after I got the RF 100-300/2.8.
    16. If the new lens is compatible with teleconverters, that would be pretty darn neat. More importantly, I’m interested in how the zoom lens will work. Will it have a similar throw to the 24-105? Will it be as nice and easy to just roll my finger over with consistent force? Will it retain the “parfocal” behavior of the 24-105? The compact size of the current 70-200 brings a LOT of benefits, so I would appreciate the same functionality improvements that the 24-105 introduced before buying yet another lens! Haha Not sure how easily this would replace the existing 70-200 for me.
    17. [...]...I remain flabbergasted that Canon decided not to compete in the 'small-and-light' APS-C market; the oh-so-large lens mount on the APS-C R Canons looks rather silly to my eyes. Of course my eyes are used to M. [...]
      I suspect that EVF-less cameras speak to a very small audience, you can sell a lot more cameras that look 'professional' with their EVF hump, even if their EVFs poke a nail in your eye during use. The M50 EVF was horrible: small and any small amount of off-axis viewing made it distort like a fun house mirror. The RP used the exact same display in its EVF, but with much better optics in front of it, that one was a joy to use!

      Maybe with the Sigma primes available, Canon will decide that a much smaller body makes sense, and we'll get an M6 or M100 styled body. Maybe with a dual-lens kit containing both the 24-105Z and 70-200Z ;)
    19. 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.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment