A new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is coming
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The RF version delivers better IQ than the EF version, in a smaller and lighter package. I might feel differently if I still used a DSLR, but when I switched from the 1D X to the R3 as my primary camera, swapping many of my lenses made sense.
This comparison was done by a friend on his R5 with his adapted EF MkII and my RF, these are 200mm f/2.8 and the top one of each pair is the EF MkII.
Upvote
0
+1 I bought the RF70-200/2.8 on special before I even had a R body (I had the R5 on advanced pre-order) just because of the size/weight. No dust pump.
I just wonder whether existing EF body/EF 70-200/2.8 users have ever tried the RF versions or whether it is just welded to their perceptions of weather sealing etc and previous extender zoom issues. They can already adapt their EF to a R body so I am not sure that is the reason. Eye-AF is more than enough to bring sports shooters to use R bodies.
I believe that the RF70-200/2.8 is slightly less sharp than EF70-200/2.8 but certainly sufficient for my use cases.
Upvote
0
+1 The tripod ring for the lens sits at home.
The combination is light enough that I can use the tripod mounted to body if needed. Not ideal weight distribution but the ball head is more than up to it.
Upvote
0
I am not convinced that this is a mark I vs II scenario. Surely Canon will keep both available but as @neuroanatomist mentions, there isn't precedence for 2 different concurrent L lenses besides DO as far as I know.Same here. Maybe I'll get some discounts on the Mk I
Upvote
0
Well, the paint chips around the EF mount showed a flawed use of materials. It didn't affect image quality but looked awful. No issues with the new RF materials
Upvote
0
It will be interesting to see what the new design offers. As others have previously mentioned I wonder if it will be built to be compatible with the upcoming 1.4/2.0 x switchable TC. If so, I could see this being an addition to the line up. For me personally, I really prefer the current compact 70-200 mm f2.8 lens.
Upvote
0
If the new 70-200 can use the TC's (at any focal length)... it's an easy "both" for me. There are times I use the current as a walkabout lens due to its size. But there are times I wish I had a bit more, but not enough to grab the 100-500. I can use the 100-500 for shorter walkabouts, but once I put a TC on it, it becomes more of a stationary endeavor (walking around w/ barrel extended most of the way makes me uneasy). Given the TC's are small, having one lens that can do 70-200/2.8, 98-280/4 (w/1.4TC), or 140-400/5.6 (w/2.0TC) is very temping.
Upvote
0
Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the wordsWhy not?
Many hobbyists buy extremely expensive gear.
PS: don't tell my wife...
I would say "Extremely rich" hobbyists buy "extremely expensive gear" The average hobbyist, or just "hobbyist" in short, would likely prefer, and be able to afford, a middle range superzoom like the 100-400.
Probably in Italy we have a different perception of the word "hobbyist" then other countries
Upvote
0
So I've been a working pro for 33 years, plus some AP stringing in college. I've owned the non IS 70-200, the IS II and IS III. The optics of the version II and III EF lenses were leaps and bounds better than the non IS 70-200. Just bought an RF 70-200 about 10 days ago. I was a newspaper pj for 26 years. Now I mostly do events and portraits for higher ed. I traded for the weight. Sometimes I'm handholding for 6 hours a day. My chiropractor is now cancelling his upgrade plans for a new carbon fiber bike. I'm so happy with the weight loss. I find the stiffness of the zoom a bit of an issue, but I'm used to it after a few jobs. I did find out it can make a loudish clunk when you hit the end of the zoom extension. Not a good thing if you are trying to be quiet at piano recital. For all you nerds out there I had both lenses in hand for a couple of day before I sold the EF Mark III. The EF lens was not quite 70mm at the short end. I suspect it's more like 73 or 74mm. There was a noticeable gap switching from the long end of the 24-70 RF. The RF 70-200 is probably more like actually 70mm at the short end as it's almost an exact match for image size as the long end of the RF 24-70. But at the long end if the EF lens is 200mm, I suspect the RF is more like 193-194mm. Very few lenses are ever precisesly what they are billed as. I remember back in the day camera magazines used to measure that. Image quality is very similar. The EF lens might have slightly smoother falloff on the out of focus points, but unless you were shooting them side by side you'd never notice it. I might miss the loss of teleconverter compatibility, but I almost never used it as I still own a circa 1994 300 2.8, heavy, tack sharp, but I don't care so much about the weight as it's always on a monopod. The other big benefit of the small RF lens is if I do switch lenses to use something like a fast 135mm, or an 85, the RF70-200 is much easier to store in a fanny pack with the hood in place. Couldn't do that with the EF one, especially with an adapter on it. As others have said Canon needs to get it together with lens back caps only fitting one way and better mount alignment dots on the lenses. I just went through all my RF backcaps and put light colored masking tape with a black Sharpie mark on them so I can find the alignment in the dark. Also Canon makes only single alignment caps for the EOS M system, but a Sigma back cap for that system fits all three ways. I suspect that someone could make a killing making replacement EOS RF rear caps that fit three ways.
Upvote
0
Yep, the caps are annoying.
I also had some issues with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8. It bumped on the grass with the hood hitting the grass as the plastic stool I was using broke. it was attached to an R5 and hanging on my side on a shoulder strap. The "fall" to the grass was only ~50cm. The filter attachment ring on the lens cracked around the screws and shifted outwards. I was able to reposition it and it seemed to still be working. However, when I looked at the images later they seemed to be a bit softer. I sent it to Canon and they had to replace that as well as some internal elements/mechanics that had shifted.
I had the EF 70-200 f/2.8 III before the RF. I had plenty of bumps like that with the EF version and nothing ever happened. Of course, this is all anecdotal, but I do feel the RF version is much less robust.
I do enjoy the compactness of the RF version, but I would love to have the more robust internal zoom design of the EF version. The TC compatibility is also a big difference.
I can see both being useful.
Upvote
0
Also anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in Uncle Rog and he’s handled and repaired many (!!) lenses. These are excerpts from the summary of LensRentals’ RF 70-200/2.8 teardown:
Upvote
0
Well, there is an RF 85 f/1.2 and and RF 85 f/1.2 DS.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.
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
Having two different lenses with the same focal lengths and apertures would not be unprecedented.
Upvote
0
I know professionals who could not be happier with the RF 70-200 f/2.8.
Just because people are in the same profession does not mean they have to be the same.
Upvote
0
There are professions that make a lot more money than photography so it does make sense.Maybe it's a country difference in perception of the words
I get shocked whenever I see a professional portrait photographer using Leica.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
