Will the new 70-200mm lens be as good or better?

[MinAZ]

I am in love with the small compact size and light weight of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is a fraction of the size of the older Mark II/III lens and of course doesn't need an adapter for the R camera.

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount, could it even be better?

 

[RichW]

[No message]

 

[gimp_dad]

I am in love with the small compact size and light weight of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is a fraction of the size of the older Mark II/III lens and of course doesn't need an adapter for the R camera.

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount, could it even be better?

I'm one of the craziest lens buyers I know (I already own all 4 of the new RF lenses) and I wouldn't even do that! Most of the best lenses come down about $200 (give or take) after a year or so. And there is no danger of them going out of production because even though the RF28-70/2L and the RF50/1.2L are pretty exotic, they are also great tools.

Now, if you are really intrigued why not buy an R or RP as the back cap for one of these lenses you really want to try? It will quickly give you a sense of the unique value of these great lenses with a MILC body. The body cost will pale by comparison to the amount you will eventually spend on lenses anyway.

 

[Martin Muehlemann]

Considering the fact, that the RF 24-105, the RF50L are superior to its EF peers, i would count on it.

RF 70-200 will have a list price of 2999 USD

 

[Lawn Lends]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

 

[MinAZ]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Lawn Lends]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

My smaller LowePro shoulder bag (and many other smaller bags) will not fit a full-sized mounted 70-200 2.8. It will fit one next to the camera, but not mounted. In most cases when I need to use my smaller bag, I don't need to have the 70-200 mounted because I can switch lenses.

Certainly, if you need to use a smaller vertical bag AND you need to have the 70-200 2.8 mounted for quick access, this will be a great lens.

Offhand, I think this is a very practical design and the more compactness of it is almost always a benefit while the downsides of avoiding usage of this lens at wet or dusty times should not be a concern unless you do a lot of ocean-side, rainy or dusty photography.

 

[MinAZ]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

My smaller LowePro shoulder bag (and many other smaller bags) will not fit a full-sized mounted 70-200 2.8. It will fit one next to the camera, but not mounted. In most cases when I need to use my smaller bag, I don't need to have the 70-200 mounted because I can switch lenses.

Certainly, if you need to use a smaller vertical bag AND you need to have the 70-200 2.8 mounted for quick access, this will be a great lens.

Offhand, I think this is a very practical design and the more compactness of it is almost always a benefit while the downsides of avoiding usage of this lens at wet or dusty times should not be a concern unless you do a lot of ocean-side, rainy or dusty photography.

True. But I don't think Canon has announced if this lens will be water/dust proof yet. If it is, then no downsides!

 

[Hoka Hey]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

My smaller LowePro shoulder bag (and many other smaller bags) will not fit a full-sized mounted 70-200 2.8. It will fit one next to the camera, but not mounted. In most cases when I need to use my smaller bag, I don't need to have the 70-200 mounted because I can switch lenses.

Certainly, if you need to use a smaller vertical bag AND you need to have the 70-200 2.8 mounted for quick access, this will be a great lens.

Offhand, I think this is a very practical design and the more compactness of it is almost always a benefit while the downsides of avoiding usage of this lens at wet or dusty times should not be a concern unless you do a lot of ocean-side, rainy or dusty photography.

True. But I don't think Canon has announced if this lens will be water/dust proof yet. If it is, then no downsides!

It’s an L which means water and dust resistant.

Joe

 

[Rawpaul]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

My smaller LowePro shoulder bag (and many other smaller bags) will not fit a full-sized mounted 70-200 2.8. It will fit one next to the camera, but not mounted. In most cases when I need to use my smaller bag, I don't need to have the 70-200 mounted because I can switch lenses.

Certainly, if you need to use a smaller vertical bag AND you need to have the 70-200 2.8 mounted for quick access, this will be a great lens.

Offhand, I think this is a very practical design and the more compactness of it is almost always a benefit while the downsides of avoiding usage of this lens at wet or dusty times should not be a concern unless you do a lot of ocean-side, rainy or dusty photography.

True. But I don't think Canon has announced if this lens will be water/dust proof yet. If it is, then no downsides!

Every L quality Lens by Canon is dust and water resistant so far

 

[Rawpaul]

It will be very good.

But it is interesting that Canon went this way with their 70-200 2.8. Even Sony stayed with the internal focus mechanism on their top-notch 70-200 2.8 GM, not sure what Nikon will be doing.

Certainly the compact size will be nice, but it makes more sense in a 100-400 than a 70-200. Lots of camera bags can fit a normal 70-200 without the hood, but I doubt many bags would fit a 100-400 if it couldn't shorten itself.

And how will this affect water intrusion?

Actually, truth - the Sal Cincotta bug-out-bag which I use, fits everything nicely EXCEPT the 70-200 when mounted on my current 5D4. It can barely fit with a struggle. So a more compact 70-200 would be welcome as long as its also much better. Of course, if I were wildlifing or sports shooting with one of those backpacks, this wouldn't be an issue.

My smaller LowePro shoulder bag (and many other smaller bags) will not fit a full-sized mounted 70-200 2.8. It will fit one next to the camera, but not mounted. In most cases when I need to use my smaller bag, I don't need to have the 70-200 mounted because I can switch lenses.

Certainly, if you need to use a smaller vertical bag AND you need to have the 70-200 2.8 mounted for quick access, this will be a great lens.

Offhand, I think this is a very practical design and the more compactness of it is almost always a benefit while the downsides of avoiding usage of this lens at wet or dusty times should not be a concern unless you do a lot of ocean-side, rainy or dusty photography.

True. But I don't think Canon has announced if this lens will be water/dust proof yet. If it is, then no downsides!

It’s an L which means water and dust resistant.

Joe

Sorry Joe , I didn't see your post .

 

[sobrien]

I am in love with the small compact size

Yes, compact is good! I’d take it over the benefits of being non-retracting.

and light weight

Stready on, I have not seen anything to suggest that it will be any lighter, have you? It looks like a chunky, stubby, beasty tank. Significantly girthier than the existing 70-200 2.8s and the 70-300L for that matter. I’d be surprised if there is a material weight saving.

of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is a fraction of the size of the older Mark II/III lens

Much shorter, yes, but also wider.

and of course doesn't need an adapter for the R camera.

True - this will likely be a much better balance on EOS R cameras (than the EF versions with adapter) as the weight will be closer to the camera.

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount,

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

could it even be better?

It should be as good, you’d imagine, which is to say, it will be bloody marvellous at worst, save for the inherent drawbacks to being retracting (dust, having to retract and lock to avoid zoom creep etc).

 

[ZX11]

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount,

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

Is this true? I though Canon said the RF is bigger to give them some kind of advantage when making a 24-70 f/2

 

[HarryLally]

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

Is this true? I though Canon said the RF is bigger to give them some kind of advantage when making a 24-70 f/2

No, the mount is the same size. It's just that the rear lens element is much nearer to the sensor with the R (cf to the FF DSLRs) which gives design advantages with WA lenses.

 

[synp71]

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount,

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

Is this true? I though Canon said the RF is bigger to give them some kind of advantage when making a 24-70 f/2

Both are 54mm. It was Nikon that made the big fuss about the new mount being bigger, because for Nikon, it is.

 

[Lawn Lends]

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount,

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

Is this true? I though Canon said the RF is bigger to give them some kind of advantage when making a 24-70 f/2

You are a victim of Canon marketing. Look at the promotion pieces on this new mount and you will see that Canon never says the mount is "bigger" just that it is "big", but IMHO a reasonable person would imply from the marketing language that it is bigger. I won't say anything more here because then I will be accused of being a troll, but as others have said, the critical dimension that has changed is the reduced distance between the lens mount base and the sensor.

 

[ZX11]

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount,

RF mount is the same size as EF mount.

Is this true? I though Canon said the RF is bigger to give them some kind of advantage when making a 24-70 f/2

You are a victim of Canon marketing. Look at the promotion pieces on this new mount and you will see that Canon never says the mount is "bigger" just that it is "big", but IMHO a reasonable person would imply from the marketing language that it is bigger. I won't say anything more here because then I will be accused of being a troll, but as others have said, the critical dimension that has changed is the reduced distance between the lens mount base and the sensor.

Makes sense.

I'll have to rewatch the BH video with the Canon engineer. Maybe when I was hearing bigger it was related to bigger than Sony and Nikon (before the Z7 arrival) but they made it sound like bigger than the Canon full frames.

 

[RLight]

I am in love with the small compact size and light weight of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is a fraction of the size of the older Mark II/III lens and of course doesn't need an adapter for the R camera.

Question is, I've read that diffractive optics lenses sometimes have compromises built in due to their compact size. Will this lens be equally as good as the current generation 70-200 for full size DSLRs? Or with the advancements in lens technology due to the bigger mount, could it even be better?

DPR thinks it's not DO.

It could be though as this is going to be premium price anyways; why not? You can already adapt a non-DO for less cost. Why not make a DO version with native mount for $$$$ and let folks figure it out if they want it?

DO by nature, ironically can be some of the best optics out there, when done correctly. Canon's been getting, very, very good at it lately. The irony, this could be one of the best telephoto zooms in the same way the RF 50mm is getting all the rave reviews, this could too.

DO optics are known for virtually zero aberrations. They do introduce other issues like flare and light leak leading to contrast reduction though. Canon seems to have fixed the latter issues with their third gen gapless double element. In theory, this lens would be best wide open. Crazy sharp at f/2.8 (where you'd want to use it). Less so stopped down, potentially (they may have fixed that too).

This may be CRAZY expensive though.

 

[lawny13]

Considering the fact, that the RF 24-105, the RF50L are superior to its EF peers, i would count on it.

RF 70-200 will have a list price of 2999 USD

Will probably cost as much as the EF 70-200 mk3. The 24-105 f4 RF is priced about the same as the EF.

 

[RLight]

Considering the fact, that the RF 24-105, the RF50L are superior to its EF peers, i would count on it.

RF 70-200 will have a list price of 2999 USD

Will probably cost as much as the EF 70-200 mk3. The 24-105 f4 RF is priced about the same as the EF.

If this has stronger performance at 70mm (it should) and is smaller (it is) and is RF? That alone, this thing will be more than the mk3.

If it's DO? $4k, at least.

And I think some folks will pony up.

Really this lens says, I need a Pro-R. All those new RF's are shipping before end of year. The 70-200 is likely shipping Q4 as such, if I had to guess.