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

Hi everybody,

I'm a dancesport (and event and concert) photographer based in Germany. Since November last year, most of my work has been done with the EOS R. About 90% of the time I use the 70-200 2.8 is used for dancesport. So I was pretty excited when Canon announced the 70-200 RF. But it was a long wait and expensive! Because of the high price I thought I'd better try it out first on a real-life situation so I rented it for a weekend to shoot the Goldstadtpokal in Germany.

In the 2 days before I tried the lens out around the house and was very impressed with the optical quality and the image stabilization. It is actually phenomenal in that regard. I also liked the size very much and already saw myself going out and about with a considerably smaller bag for my kit.

Unfortunately, under stress, the lens turned out not to be what I hoped for. The first big problem is the throw of the zoom ring. It's too long and stiff. With my EF version, I use my thumb to quickly go from 70 to 200 and back. This is not possible with RF, it slowed me down a lot. Causing me to miss moments and cutting off limbs way too often. I needed at least two throws and the stiffness didn't make it a pleasant experience.

Secondly, the lens was slow to operate. Switching from one couple to another was taking up so much time. It took way too long until it focused on the next subject. As if it made a very smooth focus pull for video. And that is IF it immediately focused on the new subject. I often had to actuate the AF 2 of 3 times for it to properly focus. Causing me to miss unfortunately a lot of moments. I didn't have this problem with the EF version on the R.

So will I buy the RF 70-200? No probably not. But maybe it was some user error, some set-up mistake. Was maybe this single lens not good? Anyone here with different experiences?

And as the last (personal) note; as good as the lens is technically, it is very neutral and therefore lacks some character. The files felt a bit emotionless.

I look  forward to reading what others have experienced.

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.

Maybe they will do that in a small RF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Please 

BobNL wrote:

Hi everybody,

I'm a dancesport (and event and concert) photographer based in Germany. Since November last year, most of my work has been done with the EOS R. About 90% of the time I use the 70-200 2.8 is used for dancesport. So I was pretty excited when Canon announced the 70-200 RF. But it was a long wait and expensive! Because of the high price I thought I'd better try it out first on a real-life situation so I rented it for a weekend to shoot the Goldstadtpokal in Germany.

In the 2 days before I tried the lens out around the house and was very impressed with the optical quality and the image stabilization. It is actually phenomenal in that regard. I also liked the size very much and already saw myself going out and about with a considerably smaller bag for my kit.

Unfortunately, under stress, the lens turned out not to be what I hoped for. The first big problem is the throw of the zoom ring. It's too long and stiff. With my EF version, I use my thumb to quickly go from 70 to 200 and back. This is not possible with RF, it slowed me down a lot. Causing me to miss moments and cutting off limbs way too often. I needed at least two throws and the stiffness didn't make it a pleasant experience.

Secondly, the lens was slow to operate. Switching from one couple to another was taking up so much time. It took way too long until it focused on the next subject. As if it made a very smooth focus pull for video. And that is IF it immediately focused on the new subject. I often had to actuate the AF 2 of 3 times for it to properly focus. Causing me to miss unfortunately a lot of moments. I didn't have this problem with the EF version on the R.

So will I buy the RF 70-200? No probably not. But maybe it was some user error, some set-up mistake. Was maybe this single lens not good? Anyone here with different experiences?

And as the last (personal) note; as good as the lens is technically, it is very neutral and therefore lacks some character. The files felt a bit emotionless.

I think the zoom ring throw is a minor issue. It’s tough to draw other conclusions because the camera it is on is a little outdated already. Overall I really like the lens. I actually prefer the neutral smoothness this lens produces. But, it could be a tad more contrasty. Of course that is easy enough to fix in post. All in all I think it is a great lens.

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.

Thank you for your report. I was wondering if it bothered some users.  I think it would bother me.  I love the exerience with the EF70-200f2.8L,  I bought the original and the mk III version. I think I have shot more pictures with this lens than any other lens.  This is in contrast with the EF100-400L original version with the push-pull zoom action.  I really hated this zoom method from day one of using the lens and it never got any better for me.   I never used as much as I could have.   The newer EF100-400LMK II zoom action is so better.  It now one my favorite lenses.   I use both of these lenses is action sports where the shooting is chaotic.  Zooming speed is vital.    Have the two other RF trilogy lenses but I want to thank you for helping me decide to hold off and maybe use the money on an R5 if the reports of the real camera match the rumors.  Using the adapters with the EOS is not a big deal for me.  I do use this focal length with the EOS R as much as I do my 5D Mk IV due to the better camera handling I experience with that combination.    When carrying two cameras I put the  RF18-35mm on the EOS R body and the EF70-200f2.8 on the 5D.   The EF lenses are great work well with the EOSR but the EROS R with two trilogy RF lenses I have seem to be a little faster focusing, have image stabilization and may focus better in low light.

Hi Bob,

I own both the EF and the RF version. I agree with the throw. But then again, it doesn't bother me at all. In my work (mostly fashion, advertising and company stuff) I can take my time.
About the AF I'm puzzled. On my R (and RP, which focusses the same) the RF seems quicker. Quick ànd very reliable may I add. The AF system in the R is not perfect but in my experience both EF and RF lenses perform reliable. I'm certain the EF isn't better. It will be very interesting to see how the lenses perform on a more proffessional body like tje rumoured R5.

BobNL wrote:

Hi everybody,

I'm a dancesport (and event and concert) photographer based in Germany. Since November last year, most of my work has been done with the EOS R. About 90% of the time I use the 70-200 2.8 is used for dancesport. So I was pretty excited when Canon announced the 70-200 RF. But it was a long wait and expensive! Because of the high price I thought I'd better try it out first on a real-life situation so I rented it for a weekend to shoot the Goldstadtpokal in Germany.

In the 2 days before I tried the lens out around the house and was very impressed with the optical quality and the image stabilization. It is actually phenomenal in that regard. I also liked the size very much and already saw myself going out and about with a considerably smaller bag for my kit.

Unfortunately, under stress, the lens turned out not to be what I hoped for. The first big problem is the throw of the zoom ring. It's too long and stiff. With my EF version, I use my thumb to quickly go from 70 to 200 and back. This is not possible with RF, it slowed me down a lot. Causing me to miss moments and cutting off limbs way too often. I needed at least two throws and the stiffness didn't make it a pleasant experience.

Secondly, the lens was slow to operate. Switching from one couple to another was taking up so much time. It took way too long until it focused on the next subject. As if it made a very smooth focus pull for video. And that is IF it immediately focused on the new subject. I often had to actuate the AF 2 of 3 times for it to properly focus. Causing me to miss unfortunately a lot of moments. I didn't have this problem with the EF version on the R.

So will I buy the RF 70-200? No probably not. But maybe it was some user error, some set-up mistake. Was maybe this single lens not good? Anyone here with different experiences?

And as the last (personal) note; as good as the lens is technically, it is very neutral and therefore lacks some character. The files felt a bit emotionless.

The throw is what it is.  I can see some sports pros not liking it; I think most people will gladly take it as trade off for the smaller/lighter package.

As far as AF.  What are you comparing it to?  Granted I only had the lens for a two day rental when I played with it, but it was noticeably faster than the EF III with adapter I regularly use.  If you’re experiencing it bring slower than an EF on an R body I’d think something was very wrong.

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.

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 new lens really is lighter. And it fits in my bag more easily. How is that a comedy sketch? The new lens is brilliant.

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.

Of course they did.  It was obviously a trade off for the design.  Canonrumors already went over the patent for a non telescoping RF 70-200 f2.8; if the market demands it, it will come.

For the VAST majority of people, even professionals, I think the weight/size savings outweigh the costs of the design; Canon wouldn't of released the lens if they didn't believe this to be true.

rrc1967 wrote:

PGSanta 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.

Of course they did. It was obviously a trade off for the design. Canonrumors already went over the patent for a non telescoping RF 70-200 f2.8; if the market demands it, it will come.

actually we did

But yes, as we suggested, it makes sense for Canon to have multiple choices. Let's face it .. on the EF mount they ultimately had 4 different 70-200's.

Another advantage of the EOS R and RP.  Four different 70-200's, and the RF 70-200, to select from.  Lots of choices.  There is even a pretty good selection in the 24 (28)-70mm range.  Canon aiming for every budget/quality need?

RDM5546 wrote:

Thank you for your report. I was wondering if it bothered some users. I think it would bother me. I love the exerience with the EF70-200f2.8L, I bought the original and the mk III version. I think I have shot more pictures with this lens than any other lens. This is in contrast with the EF100-400L original version with the push-pull zoom action. I really hated this zoom method from day one of using the lens and it never got any better for me. I never used as much as I could have. The newer EF100-400LMK II zoom action is so better. It now one my favorite lenses. I use both of these lenses is action sports where the shooting is chaotic. Zooming speed is vital. Have the two other RF trilogy lenses but I want to thank you for helping me decide to hold off and maybe use the money on an R5 if the reports of the real camera match the rumors. Using the adapters with the EOS is not a big deal for me. I do use this focal length with the EOS R as much as I do my 5D Mk IV due to the better camera handling I experience with that combination. When carrying two cameras I put the RF18-35mm on the EOS R body and the EF70-200f2.8 on the 5D. The EF lenses are great work well with the EOSR but the EROS R with two trilogy RF lenses I have seem to be a little faster focusing, have image stabilization and may focus better in low light.

You'Re welcome The more I think about it and work on the files the less I like the RF version. I may have had an off day but I don't like the results. It misses something I got with the EF version. I have been shooting this same event for years now (last year with R and EF version) and this year I'm seriously unhappy with the results. Normally this events gives me some of the best pictures of the year. The longer throw on the zoom is one reason I think but the other is the the lack of a certain something. The lens seems to be without character. Its very hard to quantify of course but for me the files seem so dull.