A very mixed experience with the RF 70-200 f2.8

ZX11 wrote:

JE River wrote:

I wonder if Canon forced themselves to put a longer throw into the zoom ring because of the telescoping design. The seals and support structure for zooming that large chunk of glass and barrel probably need a lot more torque to zoom than the more traditional single barrel 70-200 lenses. Thus, the zoom ring seems geared to sacrifice throw distance for mechanical advantage.

I would assume, if the new RF 70-200 is up to the same build quality standards needed in other 70-200 lenses, the extending barrel had to be overbuilt like crazy to gain the same strength and coaxial alignment found on the single barrel lenses. Then they likely tossed in some thick and tight dust and moisture seals to keep the lens from gunking up.

It wouldn't surprise me if Canon came out with another 70-200 f2.8 RF lens using a single barrel design if there are enough customers who want ultimate usability and don't care if it doesn't collapse smaller.

I like the idea of the RF extending zoom design being the next big thing, then the internal zoom design in a few years being the next big thing, then in a few more years an external zoom design being the next big thing, and so on.

Photographers dumping their obsolete zoom design to buy the new cutting edge design,...a real world comedy sketch.

The extending barrel is a compromise design. It's like buying a convertible car. It's more complicated and needs to be built to avoid lens creep. I would never take an extending lens into a wet tropical environment -- too many horror stories. I would worry about salt water spray too. That said, it makes the most of your camera bag space and may even allow an additional lens to be carried, or just a smaller bag.

IMHO, the longer the max focal length of a lens, the more useful it is to have an extending barrel. Hence the 100-400 really profits from the design. The 80-200 doesnt profit from the extending design as much, but it must be nice.