We have covered this topic in roundabout ways in recent months, for both APS-C and full-frame. While we do know f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses are coming to the RF-S lineup, we don’t know what they’ll actually be in focal lengths.

We’ve recently been told by one source than an “RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS STM is in the pipeline”, with a design influenced by the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM. Which would likely mean that it’ll be the smallest 70-200 on the market and likely priced significantly lower than the L variants.

A second source claims that it’ll be shorter on the long end, “something like a 70-150mm f/2.8 IS STM”. Which doesn’t seem as intriguing as a 70-200 to us. Though, we’re pretty confident that there is some truth in the conflicting information.

Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM

Another 70-200 in the lineup would definitely be something that would sell well at the right price point. There are simply a lot of photographers that cannot justify the $2000-$3000 for the current RF 70-200 f/2.8 options. With the improvements to STM that Canon claims are ongoing, maybe USM simply isn’t needed anymore to reliably focus a telephoto zoom lens?

We think APS-C will be the first to get f/2.8 constsant aperture zoom lenses with the new crop cameras that are coming in 2025. Canon will do some work filling out the RF-S line, they aren’t going to give the segment all away to the third-party manufacturers.

Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM Z

We do expect new designs that shrink the size of non-L telephoto zoom lenses in the coming years. Likely using software correction for any of the distortion issues that may arise.

None of this information has come with “VCM” motors attached, so we’re not sure when we’ll see the next VCM lenses. Though we do know that there will be some longer, fast hybrid L-prime VCM lenses in the future, we just don’t expect them any time soon.

Nikon uses VCM type motors in their super telephoto lenses, so that could also be the next place Canon puts their implementation.

If this all seems messy, it’s because it is. Lens rumors have been far more accurate than the camera bodies have been the last couple of years. We hope to get some clarification in the coming weeks and months.

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

Go to discussion...

31 comments

  1. a FF non L 2.8 70-200 might be interesting to me. I have the original EF f/4 IS version that I don't use a lot. I've looked at 2.8s on the used market thinking the wider apeture would make it more usable. I wonder how the price of a non-L would compare to used prices on the EF vII and vIIIs? A smaller size may make it more desirable even if similarly priced.
    • 0
  2. let me guess a 70-180mm f2.8 maybe?

    It's going to be something. I'm not sure if the tele end focal length would make as much of a difference as say 24mm vs 28mm at the wide end size wise.
    • 0
  3. A small 50-135mm would interest me more, but I don't expect many to agree with me.
    35-135mm and I´m on board :) F4 L would be nice. But imho, there is not necessarily a need for a constant aperture if it would be small and light (as far as possible). So F4-5.6 would also work
    • 0
  4. A small 50-135mm would interest me more, but I don't expect many to agree with me.
    50-135/f2.8 macro IS STM? I'm with you.

    If retains extender compatibility it will be perfect.
    • 0
  5. A small 50-135mm would interest me more, but I don't expect many to agree with me.
    I've often said that a 35-135mm f2.0 would be a perfect "one and done" portrait lens. I think the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 comes very close to this in practical terms.
    • 0
  6. I've often said that a 35-135mm f2.0 would be a perfect "one and done" portrait lens. I think the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 comes very close to this in practical terms.

    I'd like a 24-35 f/1.4 with clicking at 24, 28 and 35.... sort of a tri-elmar. Yeah, never going to happen, plus I whine about cinderblock lenses. Or I'm just inventing new ways to get a 28 1.4L.
    • 0
  7. I'd like a 24-35 f/1.4 with clicking at 24, 28 and 35.... sort of a tri-elmar. Yeah, never going to happen, plus I whine about cinderblock lenses. Or I'm just inventing new ways to get a 28 1.4L.
    A 28mm f1.4? you sound like a Nikon guy in denial :ROFLMAO:
    • 0
  8. Perhaps call me spoiled, but I will probably never buy a non-L lens as I think the L quality is just too superior. This is not a statement made of solid scientific standing, just an opinion.
    • 0
  9. Or I'm just inventing new ways to get a 28 1.4L.
    Thanks again though for publicizing the Adorama sales on the Sigma. I got one there and I'm a happy user. AF works great despite the adapter.
    • 0
  10. Perhaps call me spoiled, but I will probably never buy a non-L lens as I think the L quality is just too superior. This is not a statement made of solid scientific standing, just an opinion.
    I certainly have a strong preference for L lenses. 72% of my FF lenses (10/14 RF, 3/4 EF) have the red ring.

    For me, there are use cases where non-L makes more sense. For example, there’s no L version of a lens like the MP-E 65. Mainly, though, I find non-L lenses useful for travel. Except for the 1-5x macro, the non-L lenses I have are the 24-240, 100-400, 24/1.8, and 28/2.8.

    I just bought the 24-240, mainly for family trips where I want decent pictures but don’t want to carry multiple lenses and switch between them. I’ll play with it on the R8 for a few days around the house and return it if think I’d prefer to just take the 24-105/4L as a single lens.
    • 0
  11. Perhaps call me spoiled, but I will probably never buy a non-L lens as I think the L quality is just too superior. This is not a statement made of solid scientific standing, just an opinion.
    Spoiled :LOL:
    • 0
  12. Thanks again though for publicizing the Adorama sales on the Sigma. I got one there and I'm a happy user. AF works great despite the adapter.
    I also have the Sigma 28. An RF 28 1.4 would be nice, but I'm happy with the Sigma, and don't really have any need for something else from Canon. I'm also not even slightly interested in the new RF 24 or 35 lenses. 28 is more natural to me.
    • 0
  13. I certainly have a strong preference for L lenses. 72% of my FF lenses (10/14 RF, 3/4 EF) have the red ring.

    For me, there are use cases where non-L makes more sense. For example, there’s no L version of a lens like the MP-E 65. Mainly, though, I find non-L lenses useful for travel. Except for the 1-5x macro, the non-L lenses I have are the 24-240, 100-400, 24/1.8, and 28/2.8.

    I just bought the 24-240, mainly for family trips where I want decent pictures but don’t want to carry multiple lenses and switch between them. I’ll play with it on the R8 for a few days around the house and return it if think I’d prefer to just take the 24-105/4L as a single lens.
    I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the 24-240mm. Please let me know what you thought. Cheers.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment