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

#2
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 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#4
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.
 
Upvote 0
#5
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#6
Stig Nygaard said:
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.
Click to expand...

No idea, every retailer I know is in the dark as well. Hopefully it's not another attempt at some online thing.
 
Upvote 0
#7
koenkooi said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#8
Stig Nygaard said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that turned out to be one of the two RF-S stereoscopic lenses but we will see what turns up today.
 
Upvote 0
#9
koenkooi said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#10
koenkooi said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#12
Bonich said:
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
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
Upvote 0
#14
Canon Rumors Guy said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#15
koenkooi said:
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?
Click to expand...
[...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.
=====
Canon Rumors Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
...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.
=====
GMCPhotographics said:
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.
Click to expand...
...more of the same.

This is a neat thread...why I check CR every day!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#17
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#18
josephandrews222 said:
[...]...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. [...]
Click to expand...
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 ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#19
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#20
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Is this the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z?
Replies
96
Views
10K
EricN
EricN
Canon Rumors
Is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z coming in two colours?
Replies
69
Views
7K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
A new wide angle Z lens is coming after the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
44
Views
4K
Jacob Kelso
J
Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
626
freejay
F
Canon Rumors
Two more lenses coming with the 3 hydrids or soon after
Replies
71
Views
6K
EvilTed
E
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu