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.
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.
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. |
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.
If retains extender compatibility it will be perfect.
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.
Nah, blame stupid Leica.
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.