Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L USM Z REVIEW - NEW tele zoom!

[@cameralabs]

My review of Canon's NEW telephoto workhorse for events: the RF 70-200 f2.8L USM Z! Order the Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L USM Z from B&H: bhpho.to/48pZVxg or WEX UK: tidd.ly/3Uv5zZg Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: kzbin.info Gordon's travel tips channel: www.youtube.com/@GordonsTravelTips Equipment used for producing my videos MacBook Air 15in (M3): amzn.to/4cPat9S DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-bGk8hD4Q?pm=link Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5 Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

[@dexon555]

I’m a portrait photographer (no video), and I had the EF 70-200 f2.8 MKIII, I was eternally happy to switch to the RF 70-200 f2.8. I hated the weight and size of the internal focusing EF version. I’ve owned the RF version since 2020 and it’s performed better than I could have ever imagined.

[@TigaWould]

Glad they have both options now! I would prefer the internal zoom for a variety of reasons. But I also understand why someone would want the external zoom, and the portability. as far as weight is concerned it's .2 lbs differences and the internal zoom 70-200 f/2.8 is way more balanced than the external zoom so the weight is distributed a lot more evenly with a much shorter throw from 70 to 200mm.

[@dexon555]

@ Like you said, it’s great to have both options. I hope they keep the first version in their lineup.

[@Falke_90]

Finally, internal zoom comes back. YAY! An awesome and useful lens. But that price is truly insane. I still operate my R5 and R6 II with the trusty good old EF 70-200 2.8 L II. It´s a metal tank, but still rocks the park.

[@simonmaduxx6777]

This guy gets it. I've had it for almost a decade and use it two or three times a year. And it freaking still rocks.

[@justinburley8659]

Hopefully this drives down the price of the EF version III

[@simonmaduxx6777]

@justinburley8659 at least in the US it did. Last time I checked though it was still $100 more expensive Denzel vcm. Canon is working hard to keep those old EF lenses prices inflated so customers can keep their eyeballs on RF. Maybe one of the retailers can discuss why these old lenses are sitting there at such high prices when most customers won't look for them and they would prefer to clear them out or at least send them back to Cannon for credit.

[@justinburley8659]

@@simonmaduxx6777 I really wouldn’t call the EF mark III an old lens since it’s only a couple years older that the first RF version. It’s also a great lens, so the price should stay high. There’s a ton of L glass you can find for about $700, but of course the telephoto lenses will be more expensive.

[@simonmaduxx6777]

@justinburley8659 Oh, ok - Version iii was simply a parts replacement for the Mark II. So technically it's not a newer lens. I don't remember if they reduced the amount of metal in the barrel.

[@Galeidan]

Going to keep my current RF 70-200mm f 2.8 L IS USM because it is so small and mine is incredibly sharp specimen. I don't need TC's with it really and I prefer removable collar more than this new lens tripod foot. However I am interested of RF 200mm f 1.8 or f 2 L especially if it accepts TC 's.

[@harambesminion9266]

i rented the first RF 70-200 f2.8 and it was so nice to have it compact.

[@mitchellweitzman9329]

Hi Gordon, looks wonderful! I'd love to see an eventual comparison of the 70-200 with 2x converter verse the 100-500, see how close the new lens is when both at 400MM (i think the 100-500 holds 5.6 until like 360mm if i'm not mistaken). cheers!

[@robgerety]

Great review. I am very much an amateur. I am lucky to have the original RF 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500. They are both excellent lens. I also have both Canon RF extenders. This new lens has me considering selling the two lenses in favor of the new 70-200 2.8 Z. Love to see a review showing use with the 2X extender.

[@PhilippeDHooghe]

No question here, the very best, no complaints. If you have the money...

[@MODERNDEFENSE24]

You are my one the favorite youtube. I never miss a single video from you. ❤❤❤❤

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou, I really appreciate your support! PS - have you seen my vintage DinoBytes channel and my Travel Tips channel?!

[@dr_squirrel]

Steven Seagull 😂😂😂 awesome video, Gordon. The white finish looks insane, a really compelling option.

[@jamesonau]

The one everyone has been waiting for

[@JasperBunschoten]

Love the black version of this lens! It looks like the magic drainpipe from back in the day!!

[@DirkMichaelDeckbar]

The teleconverter possibly is what I am waiting for 🥰 great video as always Gordon

[@JikoMuskato]

What I think? It's a great lens. But looking at the price I'll stick to using my EF version, which is still a great lens and I'm not paying thousands for some improved details.

[@sebastianreiprich3747]

I am going to wait for comparisons with the „old“ 70-200. I really like how small it is and how it fits in bag, but it could use some improvements in terms of sharpness.

[@jimhunt3661]

The decision can also be influenced by the 100-300mm f2.8 L in Canon’s lineup assuming price is not a factor. I have the original RF 70-200 and the RF 100-300 so upgrading would be purely a case of my “gear acquisition syndrome” kicking in. :)

[@funtaril]

Image quality is insufferably great, but that price... Thanks for outstanding preview Gordon!

[@ryansublermedia]

I have just recently rented both the “old” 70-200 and 24-105 2.8 a week each. Both blew me away. Using crop mode on my R5 made it SUPER versatile. But I had a feeling this announcement was coming, and I decided to wait on both. The 24-105 physically was just beautiful. It is a perfect lens. So the fact that they copy and pasted it, added TCs (game changer as a roller coaster and zoo photographer), it made me ecstatic! I have a LOT of saving to do to get both this and the 24-105, but those two with a pair of TCs (and maybe a prime) would be the two lenses to rule them all. Entirely eliminates my interest in the 100-500.

[@alastairnorcross]

Looks like a great lens, but definitely not for me. When I sold my EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II and replaced it with the smaller and lighter RF 70-200 F2.8L IS, I was delighted at the size and weight saving. I know this new version is only a bit heavier, but it's back to the old length. I don't want to go back to a bigger 70-200. I used to use teleconverters on my old EF 70-200s, but that was before I owned any longer lenses. I now have the RF 100-400, RF 100-500, and RF 800 F11, so I don't feel any need to use a 70-200 with teleconverter. My RF 70-200 is ideal for lots of events and sports where I can be fairly close (like track or road racing). It's good that Canon has released this version for those who want it. More choice is good.

[@smith507]

This lens being further aimed at video work, is it parfocal? Also, I recently got the older 70-200mm f2.8 telescopic lens, took it to Iceland and did not have a single issue with moisture or dust; it was, however, pretty small to be carried around. I'm glad Canon is keeping both on the lineup.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

This looks like an ideal lens for wedding and event photographers and videographers. Thanks for this review.

[@falxonPSN]

So this is what all the rumors about a fixed-size 70-200 were all about! This looks great, and I love the option for the black finish. For a lens this small, I'm not convinced a white finish will do anything for you other than give off the "pro photographer - look at me!!!" vibe. Maybe if you are shooting at the equator in mid-day sun, then I could see it mattering. While I liked the smaller RF 70-200 size, the extending barrel did make me nervous, so I had not switched from my EF lens. This may be just the ticket.

[@TubaSolotheHiker]

Great review and absolutely gorgeous lens. RF 70-200 F2.8 is by far the most used lens I own for the work that I do.I don't see myself buying this lens to replace the current one I have, but you never know. I've certainly done more foolish things when it comes to camera and lens purchases..LOL!

[@francescogianniconsentino9301]

buy the 100-500mm 4.5-7.1 if you dont have it alteady!

[@TubaSolotheHiker]

@ already own it. It comes alive on the R3.

[@francescogianniconsentino9301]

so nice! I think this combination makes more sense than buying the new Version (if someone already got the first Rf version)

[@robertlawrence7958]

Use of extenders, internal zoom and a proper tripod mount......why oh why couldn't they have brought this out before the earlier model. It's what I wanted but how am I supposed to afford to keep changing gear when I have already had to spend far more than I can afford by moving over to the RF system. The current model is bitingly sharp, fast focusing, nice and light and not a bad lens. However, try managing to maintain a rain cover on an externally zooming lens during a hectic game of rugby on a rainy day. The removable tripod ring is feeble and not at all smooth to operate and finally, not having the option to use extenders is a slap in the face. This new lens has come too late for me and at a prohibitively expensive price.

[@SteveSSBB]

Another solid video. Thank you. I sold the original 70-200 as I found the lack of TC integration somewhat limiting. This new model is much more interesting on that basis. I may purchase it once I’m able to take one for a test drive.

[@oriwo99]

Certainly a top zoom lens with which you can finally use the teleconverters again. The pricing of the Canon lenses as well as the foreclosure of the RF mount drove me away from Canon a few years ago.

[@zeus.edwards2662]

would love to see a compassion to see if the front 82mm vs the 77mm on the older lens have a difference in light coming in. Internal zoom should be a standard with canon on everything

[@johnkorth8599]

This new iteration just seems insane when comparing it to my 70-200 f2.8 non IS

[@larsmichael7162]

Sounds like a worthy new incarnation of this staple telephoto zoom. Now there could be a Z-hybrid "holy trinity" of lenses in the future, with the 24-105 and the 70-200 already in existence. I for myself am happy with my non-Z for it's portability. I caught myself shifting towards ultra-fast primes anyways (the the 85/1.2DS maybe my all-time favorite lens and still gives me that "wow" when looking through it at the beginning of a session), so the 70-200 is more of a backup for me at this point.

[@queenbreakeryt3394]

Great review! I appreciate the back and forth between color options. It's so hard to choose online lol and this helped. Any plans to review/test with the 2x TC?

[@cameralabs]

Maybe!

[@jeffsellenrick6635]

I'll upgrade my telescoping RF, someday. For me, it's the shorter and smoother zoom throw that I want the most. Followed by the use of teleconverters, the minimum focus distance, and the fact that the two RF versions are basically the same weight.

[@PacouJustPacou]

Notably the throw of the zoom ring is shorter than the first RF (back to the EF design). Also I keep hearing and reading about the possible dirt/ dust/ humidity coming inside due to the expanding design of the first RF version but in reality this does not happen at all. Big selling point for the new: it becomes a 100-280 f4 with the TC

[@melgross]

I think it’s a good idea to make this lens and keep the older one in the line. To me, this shows that Canon listens to its users. With all the critics of Canon we read, it’s still comfortably the largest selling ILC maker in the world, and this is one reason why. With all the wonderful things we hear about Nikon, its share has slipped to a measly 11%. Possibly they’re more interested in people writing nice things than making what people actually want.

[@adamzhang3028]

Thank you as always, Gordon. I want this lens. Hopefully it becomes available for rental before Christmas.

[@cameralabs]

Hopefully!

[@adamzhang3028]

@@cameralabs By the way, how do you feel about the power zoom adapter? I know you showed it in the video, and it's been around since the 24-105 Z, but I don't think I've seen it in use.

[@cameralabs]

@@adamzhang3028 I think it's a bit pricey. It's really for broadcast folk I think.

[@itaylorm]

Awesome analysis. For me the portability is worth it. If I need more range I use one of my longer lenses

[@billmartin1663]

I love the look of the white version, but . . . for the media work I do, it helps to avoid distracting my subjects. I think I'll be better served with the black version. Now . . . how long will I have to wait for order fulfillment?

[@Pepingco]

Cannot wait to get my hands on a copy of this lens. I have my EF 70-200 Mark 3 and I love it but seeing the AF performance in your demonstration, I think I need to upgrade. But boy is this thing expensive. Its about $5400 Australian here and when I bought my EF Mark 3, it was $3400 new. It seems pretty darn steep but I am quite impressed.

[@woodprivacy3776]

I for one value portability-to-performance ratio over anything else and will keep my current RF 70-200 F2.8L IS. It is a very sharp copy at that!

[@navpreetsingh8156]

that power zoom option is such a good idea

[@Gigilatte]

Though it is quite expensive I will surely get this. I don’t own yet any version of 70-200. Thist has an internal zoom just to make sure,since I live in tropical and very humid country . The teleconverter is another plus. I don’t need to buy 100-400 just teleconverter.

[@ThroughJoesLens]

I still have my copy of the original “black” L zoom in that range, a Canon EF 80-200/2.8L from the late 80’s. No IS but using an EF-RF adapter and a body with IBIS the image quality holds up well. 🤷🏻‍♂️👍🏻

[@noelchignell1048]

Bit odd that the 24-105 is 200gm heavier, perhaps it has more elements inside?

[@bigrobotnewstoday1436]

Not a Canon shooter but I like the smaller 70-200 for wedding photography so I can get more into my bag. But I feel sports action and wildlife and maybe landscape photographers will like the newer version better.

[@NizarNoor]

I prefer the compact form with extending barrell

[@MuntyScruntFundle]

I wish this sodding thing had been available last month hen I bought the older version. The older version hasn’t let me down, but the converter thing would have saved me buying a whole other lens!

[@adminggroup5737]

This is a 70-200mm/2.8 lens should be.

[@DerPhiL]

Exept the fking price :S

[@JSS75]

If you were new to Canon would you start with the older 70-200? It’s certainly compact compared to the competition and I don’t need a teleconverter I don’t think.

[@cameralabs]

If you don't need a TC and aren't concerned about the extending barrel, then for sure, save some money and get the first version!

[@Davion474]

Oh wow. Didnt realise this was out. I’m definitely switching out and buying this one. Much prefer black

[@mikegregory8353]

Is this going to be my first RF lens purchase? I’ve been using adapted EF lenses for 3 years to date.

[@albertfetch3503]

I was hoping Canon would reconsider a RF300 2.8. The 100-300 at 50% premium doesn’t make sense for me.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I wonder if they'll do one in the future.

[@JPdeRuiter]

The RF 70-200 2.8 (non Z) is the best tele-zoom I've ever had (in many decades of serious amateur and occasional professional photography), and I love the compact size when transporting it, and the light weight. I'm still scratching my head over why Canon made the Z-lens, but I guess it's good for the video people? I don't need more image quality than I already have in the short one, and I also don't need a TC because I also have the EF-100-400-II which is an amazing lens, and that one *does* work with the EF-TC-III that I have.

[@cameralabs]

They made it to address the TC and extending concerns with the original, while also taking the opportunity to adopt a unified design and accessories.

[@Waldnudel]

Thank you for the great review and the valuable information. Why doesn't Canon make an ArcaSwiss compatible tripod mount? Can you at least attach something from a third-party manufacturer?

[@cameralabs]

I assume licensing, but you can remove the foot and potentially fit a third party one. I think I mention this

[@jbinmd]

Shouldve made the aperture ring a second configurable control ring and put both rings near the body.

[@dons_trains]

Its $5000 in Australia. Its rather expensive for what it is.

[@janplexy]

5:22 - Looks like a toy truck. 😀

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

My toddler would certainly use it as such 😂

[@ChrisandJordan4ever]

Seriously an excellent video! After seeing the outrageous prices of Canon's latest lenses and the fact that Canon won't let the OG R5 use the aperture rings, I'm seriously considering selling my R5 and switching to Sony or Nikon. But as an amateur, I do like the old RF 70 200 for its size and weight. Wonder how everyone else feels.

[@cameralabs]

I'm hoping models like og r5 will get firmware updates for the aperture rings, but it'll still work fine in video

[@AverageXboxGamer]

I know I’m in the minority but I prefer the 1st gen model for RF as it’s very portable and doesn’t take up much space in my bag

[@afb2x]

I do feel like Canon is killing it lately and really love the quality of the equipment but dang is it getting pricey.

[@AZMTB]

I cannot believe it's more expensive than a used 300 2.8 IS. That's just bonkers. I have the RF 70-200 2.8 and have no complaints, it's an awesome lens.

[@pivonroll]

Why didn't you put RF 70-200 f2.8 beside the Z one so that we can have better impression over size difference?

[@cameralabs]

I didn't get the chance but I did show it mounted on a body from the same angle to compare

[@RichartAsia]

Solid lens optics well done Canon R&D

[@energieinfo21]

Nice review, nice lens: I like the idea of having a video capable lens which is also good for photo especially with the IS. Fixed length is also great - I like my 70-200 4 IS for that. And the weight of ~1,1 kg is a bummer! But the EF 100-400 ii is a nice guy too - will just see if I need for more video in the future or if the 100-400 does still better for me. EDIT: ... or if Canon will make my dream lens, sth. like 35...135 f/2.8 with similar IQ which would give me a great allrounder on FF + the EF 100-400 on the R7 which is the 160-640 tele zoom beast in terms of reach and IQ.

[@asystasyorg]

I have to admit I was surprised at the sharpness of the lens, but especially the sharpness with the Canon teleconverter. I have no experience with teleconverters and had heard from some that they compromise image quality, but this seems not to be the case here. I hate to ask such a question here then, but is a teleconverter worth it and do they all (incl. the 2x) actually enhance IQ like this?

[@cameralabs]

A teleconverter magnifies whatever the lens is delivering. If the lens quality isn't great to start with, then the TC will just make that more obvious, hence their bad reputations. BUT if the lens is super sharp to start with, there may still be more than enough detail for the camera's sensor, and the sensor remains the limiting factor. In the case of this lens, the optics are outperforming the 45mp sensor, with or without the TC I tested. So fitting the TC will actually allow the camera to resolve finer details than without. If the lens were inferior, then the TC would just magnify that, and you'd end up with a fuzzier image. Think of the lens as being designed for, say, a 100mp sensor, so you're not seeing what it's capable of with a mere 45mp sensor!

[@asystasyorg]

@@cameralabs Awesome...thank you so much for the informative reply Gordon!

[@flexfashionmagazine2585]

Love the lens but sadly the astronomical price is too high for me.

[@brianmckeever5280]

Looks very nice! I think I prefer my OM Systems 40-150 F2.8 Pro ;-) The camera and lens combined were less $$$. It will probably sell like hot cakes! One thing I did think of, I do like linear focus-by-wire. Might be of interest to potential buyers to know if this one offers that option. Not sure why manufacturers do it any other way. Cheers!

[@kifley19]

Can we take off the knob on the lens?

[@cameralabs]

No, the collar is built-in. Only the foot part can be removed.

[@rollandelliott]

can one use the old ef lenses with RF teleconverters? with the adapter ring between the two?

[@cameralabs]

I'm not sure it would work that way round. I think you'd need an EF lens with an EF TC and then use the EF to RF adapter. But why not try it out in a shop, let me know how you get on!

[@allgamestotal6773]

hi Gordon. is there a big difference between sony 70-200mm II vs this new canon? coz i havent decided which brand to go. thanks

[@cameralabs]

Hmmm, I'd need to do some in-depth side-by-side tests! But you can already compare some of my results for this Canon against my results for the Sony to see. I'd say they're both very good and I wouldn't choose one over the other. Base it on the system as a whole

[@jbinmd]

What's the benefit of the uniform size among lenses?

[@cameralabs]

For cages or gimbals

[@aleksandrseregin4651]

Flurouit in optical scheme or not? Interesting.. In the rf 100-500 scheme, Canon excluded this element for the sake of economy, which affected the characteristics relative to the ef 100-400 II. Although it sells for a price, as with fluorite...

[@orion_cinema]

So annoying, just got the 2019 version and no option for the tele-converters! Your fan from South Africa

[@cameralabs]

Still a brilliant lens. maybe you could return it?

[@orion_cinema]

@@cameralabs i left or i would have!

[@orion_cinema]

@@cameralabs we visited US from South Africa so no chance to return... and its not even out yet to return

[@Skux720]

I get that some people swear by an internal zoom but I'll stick with the original, the size savings are just too good to pass up.

[@Aneliuse]

Meanwhile I went even further with the f4, but hey, i like these reviews. Theyre kinda calming to listen to. Im a bit interested in the 24 though. Either that or the 35 f1.4

[@cameralabs]

Good to hear some love for that version! I love the size

[@dlphotovideos]

5:09 I think since Canon designed the aperture ring then it better work no matter in what mode. It’s ridiculous only be able to work in video mode not photo mode for most of the older bodies. It is unacceptable. None of the other companies have this kind of issues.

[@ER-gn8io]

Genau meine Kritik! Die VCM Objektive sind für mich indiskutabel da der Blendenring für Fotos mit Kameras die vor Juni 2024 ausgeliefert wurden nicht nutzbar ist! Auch die Aussage das der Fokus und die Blende verändert wird bei Berührung des Blendenrings wenn man zum Beispiel mit einer R5 Mark I Videos macht ist ein absolutes Ausschlusskriterium für mich und viele andere! Wenn Canon sich selbst sabotieren will dann sollen sie das tun! Es wird den Erfolg der VCM Objektive schmälern! Viele Grüße aus Deutschland!

[@108u9]

Hi Gordon, for the previous 70-200 RF, if placed front element facing downward with its hood on inside a Thinktank type lens pouch (no camera attached), will the lens slide downwards into its fully retracted form or would it actually hold right where you last left it? Even if jostled? Found the long form factor of the EF a bit cumbersome but never got to try the RF one. Thank you!

[@PacouJustPacou]

the old RF will slide out when the camera faces down but you can lock it at 70mm

[@cameralabs]

Yes it will extend but you can lock at smallest size

[@stubones]

Interesting they're releasing the lens in black or white...

[@frankfeng2701]

The 3-year-old 70-200 GM II is still the marginally better lens in some ways while being cheaper.

[@POVwithRC]

That's fairly irrelevant to someone in the RF system tho

[@frankfeng2701]

@@POVwithRC It'll become less and less relevant as more and more jump ship to Sony.

[@vivalasvegas702]

@@frankfeng2701 No reason to jump ship, it’s the other way around. This new RF IMPROVES(not regress like Sony), the MTF performance of the lens, as you increase the magnification(1.4X-2X) of your teleconverters, no other company has done that before. Sony’s equivalent has noticeable focus breathing issues, this new RF has zero. This latest Canon has an electronic parfocal technology + power zoom, caveated by hybrid shooters, nothing on Sony equivalent. So Canon owns the most compact(footprint) 70-200. Canon also owns a truly “hybrid” 70-200 and it comes in black or white. Sony’s 70-200 is one size fits all, with lots of caveats and compromises.

[@ER-gn8io]

Die Marktanteile ergeben ein ganz anderes Bild! Hier ist Canon eindeutiger Marktführer! Im Jahr 2023 hatte Canon fast 50% Marktanteil! Quelle Google!

[@ER-gn8io]

Jeder glaubt das bessere Objektiv zu haben! Was für ein Nonsens!

[@therehocipe]

What a beautiful expansive Lense 🥰🥰🥰. Without Arca Swiss 🤦🏼‍♂️. Canon 🤨🤨🤨.

[@RCGJR_]

Would this mean lowered price for the shorter 70-200 f2.8? 🙏🏽 😅❤

[@colintraveller]

Keep dreaming

[@ER-gn8io]

Ich denke beide Objektive werden im Programm bleiben damit der Kunde entscheiden kann was ihm wichtiger ist! Ein Preisverfall kann es nicht geben!

[@RCGJR_]

@@colintraveller $800 off black friday sale 😁

[@vtct_ytaa]

can you take off the annoying knob when the foot is removed?

[@cameralabs]

No

[@vtct_ytaa]

@@cameralabs damn what a shame

[@TubaSolotheHiker]

Wow...those teleconverter results are insane. That really really changes things...a lot. Ok....that gets me thinking now..(not a great situation for my wallet).

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

This is very confusing! Will they sell the non-Z and the Z side by side?

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I'm sure I said that near the start of the video

[@Maximilan20]

I think I'll be going for the zoom extended version because who the HELLLL is paying 3.6k for a lens that pretty much has the same optical quality to the previous.

[@Jwitherow1964]

I want one but I have the Sony gm and the Nikon z 2.8 that’s the most expensive 70-200 ever thanks Gordan

[@ER-gn8io]

Aller guten Dinge sind drei!😊

[@jessejayphotography]

Nearly $4K, wow.

[@dezanto]

🙄aaah thanks god I got the older version. Seems make sense to bring the old version for any occasion

[@florianquandt5611]

I love the black version...now my recently purchased EF 80-200 L "magic drain pipe" will be mistaken for it....and I saved myself 3000 Euros😂

[@mrmonday42]

This just proves that Sony needs to have sharper TCs

[@robigerovasilisphotography]

This friggin lens is coming out priced at $5,299 here in Australia 🇦🇺. There is no way this will sell much at this price. The old RF 70-200 f2.8 is still perfectly good and almost $2k cheaper why would anyone pay this price just for internal zooming 🤦‍♀️ I don’t understand Canon’s thinking here.

[@POVwithRC]

I bet it sells a ton. You are just paying an "Island in the sea" tax, and I also bet plenty of actual tax. Location issue.

[@robigerovasilisphotography]

@ Australian Tax is amongst the highest in the world 😫

[@mymusic5772]

I prefer the new version, with the teleconverter it will better suit me for sports photography giving me the reach I was missing from their other 70-200.

[@POVwithRC]

​@@crhuynh8Not really the same.

[@ER-gn8io]

Kein brauchbarer Vorschlag!😊

[@dragSD666]

that price is a joke.. Canon is pushing hard on the prices.

[@noctwice]

Canon $2999 Sony $2799 Nikon $2699 I agree the prices are too high but it isn’t as if the rest aren’t doing the same even when third parties are available on their mount.

[@ER-gn8io]

In Deutschland kostet das Objektiv 3599€! Es ist kein Witz! Was mich aber vom Kauf abhält ist folgende Sache: Die VCM und die neuen Z Objektive sind für mich indiskutabel da der Blendenring für Fotos mit Kameras die vor Juni 2024 ausgeliefert wurden nicht nutzbar ist! Auch die Aussage das der Fokus und die Blende verändert wird bei Berührung des Blendenrings wenn man zum Beispiel mit einer R5 Mark I Videos macht ist ein absolutes Ausschlusskriterium für mich und viele andere! Wenn Canon sich selbst sabotieren will dann sollen sie das tun! Es wird den Erfolg der VCM Objektive schmälern! Viele Grüße aus Deutschland!

[@thefelixwu]

Honestly I prefer canon to release the lenses in EF mount so can use the nd adaptors 😂

[@SogandMahghani-j2g]

Very nice 👍🏻

[@DerPhiL]

3.599,- Euro.... is WAY to high for a 70-200 2.8! dayum! I have bought the 300 2.8 II for this price! (2nd hand for sure) I have the old non-IS (200g less heavy then the IS) and it have costs only 550€ xD... upgrade would be nice... but only if I would win in the lottery...

[@prl105]

£3.5k? Seriously! So not really interested in competing then. Obvs better than the original 'balloon pump' version as it can be sealed properly. Love that it can take the bolt-on PZE2/b powered zoom. 'Heath Robinson' in R&D is feeling loved! Focus looking good, bokeh looks less than stunning, although your subject matter failed to stretch capability.

[@VexMediaPhoto]

Is anyone else seeing Darth Vader and a storm strooper? 😂 For real though, if I were still doing video work primarily, these two lenses and a couple C80s could probably be my ideal kit!

[@pawelmod3292]

Cost in EU?

[@DerPhiL]

3.599,- 🤦‍♂

[@pawelmod3292]

@ The most expensive 70-200 2.8 ever. Almost 1000€ more than Sony’s new 70200. I wonder how they compare…

[@ghalibsworld]

Canon needs an overall zoom lens for an RF-S system like older EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 OR they can allow TAMRON for 17-70mm F2.8

[@cameralabs]

I agree, but at least we have some Sigma options

[@ghalibsworld]

@cameralabs but non of them has Image stabilization.

[@HagaishiSama]

Love the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 ❤❤❤

[@mousbleu]

Thanks Gordon !

[@schimor]

It kills me inside that Canon still doesn't make their tripod mount arca-swiss out the factory....such a basic thing.

[@cameralabs]

Yeah I think it's a shame, but neither does Sony nor most others sadly. At least the foot comes off and can be replaced

[@SuperNova-Steve]

Canon are in a different league, they are the Japanese Leica. The lenses are an insane price but Canon gear is strong and can take a beating. This lens will last and work and work and work.

[@cameralabs]

I'm currently retesting it, and it's really very good.

[@the_wiki9408]

They should have made the smaller original versions of both 70-200s in black. Made no sense for them to be white when they were so small. Especially the f4.

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

It's free of focus breathing. Bereft it might have been were people to lament it.