Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

goalerjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

I know the current model is the modern day "dust pump" but really? We need a Mk2 version?

https://www.canonrumors.com/a-new-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-is-coming/

Sep 23, 2023 at 01:43 AM

matejphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

I think there is room for two versions of f/2.8 zoom.

The compact one that we have (I have it and I appreciate the smaller size).

A bigger one with internal zoom (like the EF used to be) for sports and it would take extenders.

I could potentially see owning both. Compact for hikes (although maybe f/4 would be better) and travel and the bigger version for sports (or when I am 100% traveling with a car).

Sep 23, 2023 at 05:11 AM

tomasr
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

Long overdue.

Nobody else wants to make extending design and for a good reason. Nobody else makes them in all plastic.
Likewise there are reports of industry "leading" focus breathing so pretty poor for video or even stills where focus stacking is required

Sep 23, 2023 at 05:55 AM

action99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

tomasr wrote:
Long overdue.

Nobody else wants to make extending design and for a good reason. Nobody else makes them in all plastic.
Likewise there are reports of industry "leading" focus breathing so pretty poor for video or even stills where focus stacking is required

Actually the RF is quite (for me extremely) good for video and is so lightweight and compact that you can use it on a Ronin RS3 Pro, and the Ronin focus motor can even drive the zoom. The EF one is too long and heavy for this. 200mm 2.8 with AF on a gimbal can create quite unique takes...

I also don't get, other than for IceHockey through the plexi hole or against the plexi, what is the issue with non internal zooming for sport. I do a lot of sports and I have zero issue. I had the EF one and I also have 100-300 2.8 so I know the difference.

The only downside imo of the RF one is that it does not support converters.

Sep 24, 2023 at 11:18 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

goalerjones wrote:
I know the current model is the modern day "dust pump" but really? We need a Mk2 version?

https://www.canonrumors.com/a-new-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-is-coming/

As a counterpoint to the negative stuff on "telescoping" zoom lenses...

1. They pack a lot smaller since they are much shorter with the zoom retracted. Imagine if your 100-400 or 100-500 was a not-telescoping design.

2. I've had a bunch of lenses using this design over the years: 100-400, 24-105, 24-70. I simply have not had a "dust pump" problem. I think that gets repeated so often for two reasons. One, all zoom lenses eventually get dusk inside since zoom lenses necessarily move air around internally, and if we are looking for an explanation when we notice it on our telescoping lens it is easy to blame the design. Second, the term "dust pump" is so catchy that it "sticks."

3. No lens is perfect, but there are some really excellent telescoping zooms... so the design itself does not need to be associated with poor performance.

YMMV.

Sep 24, 2023 at 01:07 PM

armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

It's good to have choices though I would have preferred that Canon focused on the other holes in their lens lineup than the 70-200 f/2.8 first.

FWIW Nikon has the internal zooming Z 70-200 f/2.8, and a lesser expensive, and lighter 70-180 f/2.8, so yes, there is room for two similar bodies with different utilities in the lineup.

Sep 24, 2023 at 01:24 PM

goalerjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

gdanmitchell wrote:
As a counterpoint to the negative stuff on "telescoping" zoom lenses...

2. I've had a bunch of lenses using this design over the years: 100-400, 24-105, 24-70. I simply have not had a "dust pump" problem. I think that gets repeated so often for two reasons. One, all zoom lenses eventually get dusk inside since zoom lenses necessarily move air around internally, and if we are looking for an explanation when we notice it on our telescoping lens it is easy to blame the design. Second, the term "dust pump" is so catchy that it "sticks."

I work around horse racing, stables and various other dusty areas, so the dust issues for the zoom are real. None of my fixed focal length lenses, RF28-70 (external zoom), EF300mk2, RF85 mm have the same amount of dust inside.

Edited on Sep 25, 2023 at 09:59 AM · View previous versions

Sep 24, 2023 at 11:27 PM

action99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

Sep 25, 2023 at 07:20 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

goalerjones wrote:
I work around horse racing, stables and various other dusty areas, so the dust issues for the zoom are real. None of my fixed focal length lenses, internal zooming also, RF28-70, EF300mk2, RF85 mm have the same amount of dust inside.

I regularly photograph:

- migratory birds in the winter season, often in fog, wind, and sometimes light rain.

- desert landscapes, often enough in conditions including blowing sand and dust.

- along the California coast in conditions including ocean spray and fog.

- (a lot) in mountain environments where I encounter, wind, rain, snow.

I've been using some telescoping lenses for a decade or more. The "dust pump" stuff has never been a problem and, frankly, I'm a bit tired of this meme.

I currently use the EF 24-70 f/2.8 and the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 which have the telescoping design. Years ago I used the older 24-105. I use a couple of telescoping design lenses from other manufacturers on a different system.

To folks who chose to use non-telescoping lenses in part because you heard that they are "dust pumps," you are free to make that choice. But your belief that caused you to make that choice is not the same thing as evidence.

Sep 25, 2023 at 09:23 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

I also do not think the dust pump issue is real or significant. But I do think that making a 70-200 that could not take an extender was an unusual choice as I think having that option is appreciated by most. So I'm not surprised if will revert to a more typical lens of its type.

Sep 25, 2023 at 09:42 AM

JimmyJames
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

The 100-300 is what the 70-200 should have been. Internal focusing with stops on the tripod collar when rotated. As someone with GAS, I cannot decide if I will trade up the new 70-200 or keep my current version. The 100-300 is perfect making the 70-200 is almost redundant.

What I'd like to see now is a 24-105 f2.8 more than anything.

Sep 25, 2023 at 10:34 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

Robin Smith wrote:
...I do think that making a 70-200 that could not take an extender was an unusual choice as I think having that option is appreciated by most.

I'm with you on that! Although I have a longer lens, when I travel I often rely on the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS... and the f/4x TC to give me a bit more useful reach. I'd rally miss that on the RF equivalent lent...and it is enough to give me pause.

(It can't be that the extending design make the TC impossible, since PCs do work with other lenses f that design. I wonder if there is some issue with the shorter distance between the rear of lenses and the sensor on the RF bodies.)

Sep 25, 2023 at 11:37 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

My RF lens equivalents of EF versions that accepted TCs (70-200/4 and 135/1.8) both have rear elements very close to the mount flange. The 70-200 once zoomed to 200 appears it could possibly work with a TC, if one fit. There must be an optical advantage to this design decision that overrides leaving space for TC use.

I'm also not that happy about lack of TC compatibility with particularly the 135, but really appreciate the smaller size of the 70-200. While it's strictly only my experience, I've barely used TCs on any of my EF lenses for years, other than the 200-400's internal TC. So I don't miss it that much with RF lenses. And I'm not chasing resolution, so even cropping a bit on 24MP is acceptable to me. I think if I had an R5, lack of TC compatibility would be even less of an issue. But I can accept that some want to fill the frame at 45MP...

Dust pumps: it should be noted that even non-extending zoom designs still move around a lot of glass and displace a lot of air, but it's all done internally. Yet these lenses are not airtight, as I discovered with my original EF 70-200/2.8 long ago. I shot with it in cool, damp, rainy conditions one day and didn't appreciate that the damp air might get into the 'sealed' lens. The next day was sunny and hot. After a short period working with the lens, I was baffled why the view through the viewfinder was so 'foggy.' Until I peered into it and noticed significant internal condensation; the interior of the lens was still cold and damp from the previous day. The fastest solution was to rapidly rotate the zoom ring back and forth, which sucked warm dry air into the lens and quickly cleared the condensation. I think my dustiest Canon lens was the EF 85/1.2 directly inside the stationary rear element.

Sep 25, 2023 at 03:21 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

rscheffler wrote:
Dust pumps: it should be noted that even non-extending zoom designs still move around a lot of glass and displace a lot of air, but it's all done internally. Yet these lenses are not airtight, as I discovered with my original EF 70-200/2.8 long ago. I shot with it in cool, damp, rainy conditions one day and didn't appreciate that the damp air might get into the 'sealed' lens. The next day was sunny and hot. After a short period working with the lens, I was baffled why the view through the viewfinder was so 'foggy.' Until I peered into...Show more →

The last point is important — even non-zooming primes get dust inside!

All lenses get dust in them eventually. If the lens happens to be a telescoping design, many immediately that this is the reason — but there's really no roof that it is.

Sep 25, 2023 at 04:08 PM

sebjmatthews
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

There's definitely room for another 70-200 in the line. Whether any given user here believes in it or not, the fact of the matter is that extending zooms are not as popular as fixed ones. Call it marketing, call it placebo, it doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of pros and wealthier amateurs out there who won't touch an extending lens. We know this because many companies, including Canon, have and continue to use fixed-length designs as a marketing point.

I have no complaint with extending designs myself, other than when the extension is so much that it shifts half or more of the weight ahead of the furthest hand position. That makes for terrible balance. The RF f/2.8 barely avoids that problem thanks to Canon doing the smart thing and putting the zoom ring as far forward as possible (no matter what Bryan Carnathan says), but it's a close call, and it's a problem on the f/4.

The bigger issue for me and the current RF 70-200s is simply the focus breathing. When the f/2.8 came out I shot it side-by-side with the EF mk II, and at the medium distance I wanted to use it for sports, the RF was so much wider than the EF that to equalise them I had to zoom the EF out until the raw file recorded a focal length of 162mm.

If Canon put out a 70-200 f/2.8 with a fixed length, minimal breathing, and that is compatible with teleconverters, two thirds of all their sports pros will buy one, as will a solid portion of their wildlife, news, and even a few wedding shooters. They can still have the 'collapsible' version alongside it—they had the stabilised and non-stabilised versions together for two decades—and I don't expect the f/4 will be repeated or remade. It's simply easy money all-round.

Sep 25, 2023 at 06:27 PM

action99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

JimmyJames wrote:
The 100-300 is what the 70-200 should have been. Internal focusing with stops on the tripod collar when rotated. As someone with GAS, I cannot decide if I will trade up the new 70-200 or keep my current version. The 100-300 is perfect making the 70-200 is almost redundant.

What I'd like to see now is a 24-105 f2.8 more than anything.

Is difficult to please everyone.. for me personally the only thing that I hate of the 100-300 is the tripod collar, first I had to replace the foot as it is soo tall and big for nothing and second I wish you could remove the collar to save weight and size. When shooting handheld is really useless, annoying and is useless weight too, I shoot a lot handheld, ice hockey matches are handheld only for me.
So for me personally I really like that you can completely remove the collar from 70-200 and 100-500, but why on earth the foot of these two lenses has only 1 tripod screw hole??.. I had to buy the iShoot one to avoid the lens twisting on gimbal and tripod.....

I do agree that is redundant to have both 70-200 and 100-300. Since acquiring the 100-300 I have used the 70-200 only for video on gimbal.
But this really depend what you mostly shoot, portrait, weddings etc... the 70-200 is the right one, for sports, action etc.. 100-300 makes the 70-200 redundant.

Sep 26, 2023 at 03:01 AM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

sebjmatthews wrote:
...and I don't expect the f/4 will be repeated or remade..

The RF 70–200mm f/4 is the RF lens that strikes me as most uncompetitive with its Sony equivalent. The new Sony lens is also a 0.5× macro lens at all focal lengths and can take 1.4× and 2× converters; and by the way, it too is an extending design. I have been wondering whether Canon Rumors misheard and it is really the f/4 which is getting a Mk II.

Canon must have done their market research when deciding that the f/2.8 would be extending and not take converters. Nothing has changed there. But the Sony f/4 competitor is new.

I’m not going to judge those who want to use teleconverters with the f/2.8 lens, but popping one on and off for event photography sounds like it is best left in the 20th century, and for wildlife a 70–200 seems the wrong tool when Canon offers such excellent longer zooms.

Sep 26, 2023 at 04:32 AM

sebjmatthews
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

Not all wildlife shooting is about whacking on the longest focal length possible; my most-used wildlife lens is the 300mm f/2.8, bare, while the >400s mostly sit on the shelf.
For sports, having a 70-200 which can use (and produce acceptable results with) at least a 1.4x TC is invaluable. Sometimes you're going to be assigned a position a little further than you'd like, and you don't know that until you're standing there.

Personally, yes, I think the RF f/4 is the most in-need of a redesign. Right out of the gate, I did not like the zoom ring position, it's simply bizarre that they've upped the diameter/filter thread to the same as the f/2.8, and yeah, now Sony have put out something which beats it in every function (as well as in focus breathing), it's hard to justify the f/4.
However, Canon have always let the f/4s lag behind the f/2.8s, and of the people who are not yet convinced by the retractable RF zooms, I think many more would be convinced by a fixed-length f/2.8 than a fixed-length f/4, just like how all the EF f/2.8 zooms have always been refreshed more/sooner than the f/4s. Plus, the main marketing point that Canon have pushed for the EF 70-200 f/4s, and now the RF one, are that they are smaller and lighter than the f/2.8s; the same couldn't be said for a fixed-length version now.

So, I maintain that if we're going to bet on one of the two apertures, it'll be an f/2.8 that gets the second SKU.

Sep 26, 2023 at 06:50 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

melcat wrote:
The RF 70–200mm f/4 is the RF lens that strikes me as most uncompetitive with its Sony equivalent. The new Sony lens is also a 0.5× macro lens at all focal lengths and can take 1.4× and 2× converters; and by the way, it too is an extending design.
.

I don't really keep up with the Sony. market, but I may need to start.

While a f/4 70-200mm may seem a lot less sexy too some photographers than a big, bad f/2.8 version, but it can be a better, more useful choice in lots of situations.

I had the most recent EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for some time. It was (and is) an excellent lens — a fine performer in all ways. But I also had the comparable f/4 version (because there is more than one photographer in our household) and I found myself resenting the added weight/bulk of the f/2.8 and gradually shifting to the f/4 lens for landscape and when I traveled.

I finally sold the f/2.8 and kept the f/4. What I like about it: It is optically very good — there's really no discernible difference between photos made with it and the f/2.8 version. It is significantly smaller and lighter, which outweighed the pluses of the extra stop for my photography. The 1.4x TC works great on it, which is quite useful when trying to control the weight of the whole kit, for example when traveling or backpacking/hiking.

I have not switched to the R system yet, and I continue to use my 5DsR system for now. It works fine for what I use it for, and this allows me to sit back and watch how the mirrorless line evolves... and how the competition evolves. Because a switch to the R system would mean replacing a lot of (if not all of) my EF lenses, a potential move away from my existing system means that it is also a time consider broader equipment changes, including away from Canon and/or to different formats.

So your point about the Sony lens caught my attention. When it comes to such a "bread and butter" butter lens as a 70-200mm f/4, the difference in capabilities you describe could play into a system decision.

On that retractile/telescoping zoom question... I get it that some folks are leery of this design or that they regard such lenses as looking less professional (which was historically true), but after using quite a few of them I no longer have any hesitation about this kind of design. At this point, I actually prefer it!

Dan

Sep 26, 2023 at 09:58 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · New RF 70-200 Mk2 in 2024

Regarding the 70-200/4 mirrorless lenses from Canon and Sony: if you value compactness while in transit, the Canon is just over an inch shorter than the new Sony and two inches shorter than the original Sony. It's also a bit lighter, by about 100g, but perhaps because it doesn't have a tripod collar. And for some here, that was a major oversight by Canon. But it would have resulted in a design like the Sony - smaller than a non-extending design, but not significantly smaller, either. And that's how I feel about Sony's choice - it's kind of half-hearted and not that much smaller than their previous non-extending design, by only one inch. IOW, they played it safe and kept to a more middle ground to appeal to most users compared to their previous version - somewhat smaller, 50g lighter, focuses closer, accepts TCs (the first version did not).

Canon appears to have embraced 'as small as possible' as the goal, which sacrificed TC compatibility and the tripod collar. Had those features remained, then it would likely very much be a physical clone of the new Sony. And for many that would be just fine.

Sep 26, 2023 at 03:45 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.