At first glance, this is a very impressive lens from Canon. With 18 elements in 15 groups, Canon is flexing its optical engineering muscle with this lens.
The first thing I have to mention, and you can see it in the diagram above, is that the rear element is inset into the lens. This is intentional because this lens supports both the x1.4 and x2.0 tele-extenders.
This, of course, made this article rather lengthy because I know y’all would want to see how this does against the 100-300mm with tele-extenders. Now to be fair, this isn’t fair for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z, as it’s a $2999 lens versus a $9499 lens, but it’s a useful exercise.
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z vs Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
First up though, is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Of course, it’s a smaller lens meant to be more portable, so there are going to be optical tradeoffs. These tradeoffs do show here as the new Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z outperforms the older RF zoom. At 70mm, the new Z lens is shaper in the center and carries more contrast throughout the entire image. Sharpness in the corners should be visibly improved as well.
At 200mm the difference isn’t as pronounced, but the new Z lens is sharper throughout the frame, with more flatter and even contrast throughout.
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is a $2499 lens that retailed at $2799, so we are price comparable. What it comes down to is, do you want more optical performance versus portability? Canon at least, gives us the choice now.
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z vs Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
This is an interesting comparison that really isn’t fair for the new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z as the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L is a $9499 lens, and optically excellent. But it’s a useful exercise to see how close we can get to the impressive performance of the RF 100-300mm using extenders.
The first comparison really isn’t fair at all as we are comparing the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L with a 1.4.x extender. But to be honest, it does better than I would expect it to on the wide end, but certainly gets its posterior handed to it on the telephoto lens. This is really to be expected though, and while it doesn’t match the 100-300’s performance, in most cases, it’s probably “close enough”.
The next comparison I think is more fair, as it compares both the 100-300 and the 70-200 with extenders.
In this, the 70-200 fights back with a decent performance against the 100-300mm. However, it should be noted that in both comparisons the 100-300mm is a faster lens when compared against the 70-200.
We’ll most likely expand this article, but I know this is of great interest to our community to get this out fast. Check back often to see what additions we have made to it.
Also, if you still haven’t done so, remember to preorder quickly. This will be another lens on perpetual backorder.
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z – White
- Midwest Photo $2999 (Free 2-year CarePak)
- Adorama $2999
- B&H Photo $2999
- Canon USA $2999
- Wex Photo £3449
- Foto Erhardt €3599
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z – Black
- Midwest Photo $2999 (Free 2-year CarePak)
- Adorama $2999
- B&H Photo $2999
- Canon USA $2999
- Wex Photo £3449
- Foto Erhardt €3599
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z Patent Application and Actual Lens Particulars
Okay this was a pretty crazy chase down forests and bunny holes but Japan Patent Application (2023-176289) indicates a patent application that appears to show an embodiment with the same optical formula as the actual Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z.
| Wide | Middle | Telephoto | |
| Focal length | 72.11 | 117.88 | 194.01 |
| F-number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 |
| Half angle of view (°) | 16.70 | 10.40 | 6.36 |
| Image height | 21.64 | 21.64 | 21.64 |
| Lens length | 217.42 | 217.42 | 217.42 |
| Back Focus Distance | 40.87 | 40.95 | 44.89 |
Now if you notice, the image height on this lens is 21.64mm. That is the standard full-frame image height (basically the radius of the image circle). This means that the lens does not have to perform any default computational software correction which would influence the MTF values. What you see is what you get.
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Midwest Photo Preorder Bonus - 2 Years of CarePak for free
With any preorder of the new lenses, Midwest Photo is offering two years of CarePak for free. This offer runs until November 10, 2024
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z MTF Analysis
I suppose I would stick with the Canon white ;)
Looks like they could improve the Performance over the non-Z lens, esp. at 70 mm. 200mm looks very close, except for the corners.
Personally, I'd be in for the smaller form factor of the first RF70-200/2.8.
Weight
Approx. 2.5 lb. / 1115g (White model) / Approx. 2.4 lb. / 1110g (Black model)
Canon 50mm F1.4 MTF analysis.
Canon RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM MTF Analysis
It’s really light in comparison to the EF version. The EF version is now 1.5x heavier than this new RF version.
Optically, there’s not much between them. According to the MFT charts, the new RF version is better in the corners, centre performance is pretty similar at 200mm. The 70mm performance is much improved.
However, these new charts include in-camera software correction. I would expect a far newer lens formula to be better, but it goes to show how good some of the more recent EF lenses are.
Another thing that strikes me, this new lens with a 1.4x tc is nearly as sharp as the native RF 100-300/2.8 is natively.
The answer is of course to wait for the VCM to hit the grey market, that would make it €300 cheaper, if the pricing behaves like the 35VCM.
all the lenses are top notch for sure.
Dial in the weight savings, better MFD and max magnification, slightly better IS system and AF motors....finally a lens to eclipse the old EF lens.
I'm suprised that this lens doesn't have any flourite elements in it's formula.