A new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is coming

#22
AJ said:
My guess is that it was Canon brand ambassadors complaining, or other people close to Canon, that triggered this. Not randos on the interweb.
Click to expand...
My guess is that this was their Masterplan™ from day one. Since, as of now, they are looking to provide almost everything without the support of 3rd party lens manufacturers.
There were so many different 70-200mm versions in EF-mount in the first place (all selling well), that it does not look weird at all to have three RF 70-200mm lenses, some better suited for portraits, weddings, landscapes, travel, etc. and then another for action and sports, converters, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#23
neuroanatomist said:
Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Canon would change the range a tad and go back to the older 70-210 range. That way they could keep both lenses as current.
 
Upvote 0
#24
70-210 never existed with constant 2.8, it will be a 70-200 and I do not think there is any reason to discontinue the current one either.

www.canonrumors.com

Patent: Inner zoom RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200mm f/4

Canon News has uncovered a patent with optical formulas for an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. What’s interesting about this patent is that both designs are for inner zoom lenses…
www.canonrumors.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#25
neuroanatomist said:
Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.
Click to expand...
I’m envisioning something like “Sports Edition” or “action edition” or “Extender Compatible” or something like that with marketing. If they sell the larger size as a feature, it could be priced higher than the current model.

I liked the ability to pack the RF diet-sized lens away on international flights, and really feel the slim size was a great feature. I think there is likely a market for both products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#26
neuroanatomist said:
Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.
Click to expand...
Count me in as well. I had the 70-200mm F4 (sold it cause I got the 100-400mm) I thought it was perfect. Love the size/ weight combo so much. If I get a good deal one day I might get it back...

I never liked the huge internal zooming EF versions and I stayed from them. I wonder how this lens will turn out.
 
Upvote 0
#27
neuroanatomist said:
Count me among the owners who prefer the compact size and lighter weight of the extending zoom.

If this is the 'MkII' lens that has been discussed recently I agree that it may not really be a MkII, though I don't know what Canon would end up calling it otherwise. Add an 'N' for new? Add 'IZ' for internal zoom? I'm sure they'll come up with something.

If this happens, it would clearly provide more evidence that Canon listens to its customer base. Of course, it's manifestly obvious that they do, not that such evidence will sway those who somehow can't accept that Canon doesn't listen to them personally, as they complain here.
Click to expand...
Canon needs to listen only to people that want a 50mm f/1.4 with weather sealing for under $350 and want them to allow third party autofocus. Oh and people who think Canon is D00MMED if they become exactly like because the world really needs two camera companies that are exactly the same!
Canon Rumors Guy said:
I wonder how many people would own both. Compact for your R5... big one for your R3/R1.
Click to expand...
I don't want either, but I think if it was a lens type I like and one is lighter, but missing some special quality, then I would definitely consider having both for different situations.
John MacLean Photography said:
I've had my RF 70-200 F2.8 for just under 2 years and this happened. I've had four EF versions since the 80-200 back in 1991 and never had this happen. They need to up their game and use higher grade materials. On that note, bring back the easy to see/feel raised red lens mount dot. My aging eyes can's see that recessed pink line, and my muscle memory is rooted in twisting EF lenses without hardly looking. Preferred the EF back caps too, since they didn't need to line up. But that's gone forever. Rant over...

View attachment 211736
Click to expand...
You could try using some superglue to affix a bead or something to help you find the location.
neuroanatomist said:
I presume you mean OIS (lens IS). Given that the lens gets 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS, I don't see that it needs it. Of course, that means no stabilization on my R8, but using the 28-70/2 on my R8 is an ergonomic nightmare anyway. From a technical standpoint, I expect it was excluded for good reason – there's so much glass in that barrel as it is, adding IS would have been quite a challenge in an already large/heavy lens.

View attachment 211737
Click to expand...
I've never felt like I the IBIS wasn't adequate for the 24-70mm. Have you?
blackcoffee17 said:
I still prefer the EF L lens build quality and materials over the RF.
Click to expand...
Metal does have a nice feel to it, but plastic can be more durable and lighter, so I think we should accept the RF way...
clearwaterphotog said:
Interesting to read that some people are unhappy because the control rings are cramped on the lens. Canon knows best, guys - it's supposed to be that way. Apparently complaining DOES actually get Canon to take action sometimes, though, so let's all take this as a sign to continue complaining, even if most of the time all it does is serve to annoy the people who have 10,000+ posts who have read the same complaints one too many times.
Click to expand...
Maybe it would be more effective if you sit outside this location and refuse to leave until someone listens to your specific demands
maps.app.goo.gl

1 Canon Park · 1 Canon Park, Melville, NY 11747

Building
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl
Then again, if you keep posting here, you can get 10,000+ posts and annoy yourself, causing a paradox that would reset the flat Earth simulation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#31
I think choice is a good thing. Personally, I really (really, really) love the size of the 70-200 2.8, and of course the quality of the output from it.

Then again, it depends on the length of the new lens. If it adds 1/4 inch, count me in! If it adds 2.5 inches, thanks, but I'm happy where I am :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#33
padam said:
My guess is that this was their Masterplan™ from day one.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The current extending lens is great for most hobbyists who appreciate the lighter, more compact size, but for the rough and tumble of journalistic professional use I can see the non extending design being much preferred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#35
padam said:
70-210 never existed with constant 2.8, it will be a 70-200 and I do not think there is any reason to discontinue the current one either.

www.canonrumors.com

Patent: Inner zoom RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200mm f/4

Canon News has uncovered a patent with optical formulas for an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. What’s interesting about this patent is that both designs are for inner zoom lenses…
www.canonrumors.com
Click to expand...
I forgot about that one. But I did notice at the time that the 70-200/2.8 in that patent application has a backfocus distance of 24mm, just 4mm longer than the flange focal distance. If that's the one that becomes a product, it will not be compatible with the current RF extenders. The patent application formula for the 70-200/4 does leave room for an extender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#36
neuroanatomist said:
I forgot about that one. But I did notice at the time that the 70-200/2.8 in that patent application has a backfocus distance of 24mm, just 4mm longer than the flange focal distance. If that's the one that becomes a product, it will not be compatible with the current RF extenders. The patent application formula for the 70-200/4 does leave room for an extender.
Click to expand...
Well, there was also rumour about a new extender that can be switched to 1.4x or 2.0x but who knows if it is compatible. Or if this is the exact formula that they are planning to make...
 
Upvote 0
#38
Walrus said:
Never tried the RF, probably never will; but one of the most interesting things on paper, at least for me, is the shortest size in the bag, and the lighter weight on a long wedding day.
Bur on the other side, I would find pretty frustrating the lack of TC compatibility.
So probably the best move for Canon could really be having a second line (maybe a 70-180 or 70-210 just to differentiate a little) which features the internal zooming, for people who likes that most, and also sporting the the TC compatibility.

If this move will help having more RF 70-200 "Mark I" on the used market for cheap, well, I think that's only positive, maybe in 10 or 15 years I will be able to afford it ahah; but for now it's a no go, my non-IS EF version is tack sharp, while being my least used lens, and on the used market I only can get 400/500€ for it, that's too much difference to cover to reach the RF lens that would see the least usage of me, too.
Click to expand...
for me, the only thing that spoke in favor of trading in my EF mark ii for the RF was the size in the bag. However, I own the EF mark ii, it takes great photos. net, the cost to trade up isnt worth it and the new lens is a no-go on my 5DIV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?
Replies
31
Views
2K
plusnq
P
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
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
Replies
46
Views
4K
upallnight
U
Canon Rumors
Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?
Replies
113
Views
10K
Dragon
Dragon
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu