Canon has already produced some mightily impressive lenses for the RF mount. Now, though, it looks like one of their most legendary EF lenses will be coming to the RF mount.
The patent, first found by Canon Watch, lists an RF 200mm f/2 IS lens, presumably the mirrorless successor to the EF 200mm f/2L. The original EF 200mm f/2L, a successor to the legendary 200mm f/1.8L, was known for several reasons, most notable being the longest focal length with an f/2 aperture on the mainstream market and offering some of the best image quality of any Canon lens, period. Originally designed for sports and wildlife shooters, it found a second home as an extreme portrait lens, where its combination of a long telephoto focal length, ultra-wide aperture, and stunning image quality produced images unlike any other lens. I would even go so far as to say that my copy is what has kept me in the Canon ecosystem for so long. The 200mm f/2 also anchored the wide end of Canon's well-known "big white" lineup of professional supertelephoto prime lenses, which ranged in length from 200mm to 800mm (or 1200mm, if you include the extraordinarily rare EF 1200mm f/5.6L).
There had been some speculation that Canon would not produce an RF version of the lens, particularly with lenses like the well-received RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM, but as impressive as that lens has been, there really is nothing else like 200mm f/2. Of course, just because there is a patent, it does not mean we will actually see the lens hit the market, but I think it's a good sign that Canon likely plans to release it eventually. Hopefully, we'll hear more soon!
I don't actually think that Canon would do 200/2.0 in RF. They have designed RF mount for even faster lenses and after the release of RF 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 now 135/1.8 I really think they will do 200/1.8 again. Unless of course they will do 200/2.0 is because of smaller size, but they really didn't care about size with 85/1.2 and 50/1.2, so just thinking why would they care now
I tend to agree. Canon has finally added numerous "everyday" lenses to the RF system, but they have tended toward making hero lenses you can't necessarily get on otjer systems. That's larger and more expensive, but they want to retain their users and bring in new professionals.
Exactly what I was thinking.. Completely forgot to mention the release of RF 28-70/2.0
Then I wonder why they just put in a patent for a 200mm f2.0 instead of a f1.8.
You may have seen a loads of different patents for canon RF lenses and this news is not confirmed product release, but only states that canon have put this into the database of patented lenses. Thay can still patent 200/1.8, or any other variation of 200mm prime. Wont be the first time we've seen lenses to be patented but never make it to the production line ( just like RF 70-135/2.0 patented in 2019 , May 2020 Canon rumors reported that the lens was in testing, 3 years later...... )
I agree about the 200mm f/1.8. If anything, to create even MORE differentiation over the 70-200's, and simply because it would let them charge more, which is Canon's M.O. anyway.
It's ridiculous what they charge for an f/7.1 100-500mm, I don't care how sharp it is.
Kind of replying to some of the other commenters on this . Yes they have been making more lenses that are faster and more unique than other camera brands.
A 200 f/1.8 would be a beast but as lens technology has progressed I believe they can pull off a lighter f/1.8 somehow . If it doesn’t compromise too much ya know . Like many Sony lenses and the lighter Sigma lenses with bigger aperture openings. That concave front element that creates image distortion and ai fixes it but with slight a crop in the image. Will Canon go that route?
An f/2.0 that’s insanely phenomenal with onion ring free super smooth bokeh and super low CA or non . That’s a feat but if done it’ll be another legendary lens .
I just purchased a used Sigma 135 f/1.8 for my Nikon Z9 and d850 just because of its optical design and qualities. I understand Nikon is coming out with a 135 f/1.8 S line of lens . The price will be insane probably. I got this lens in phenomenal condition for $800 with tax and shipping. It has qualities I want in a portrait lens and way less expensive. I’m not opposed to paying a stupid price for a super quality product. But weigh the odds of performance vs price too.
I hope Nikon does a 200 f/2.0 to replace theirs also. But also do it legendary Nikon not just another super high element high resolution onion ring bokeh ball producing behemoth.
My two cents
I don't see the point unless it's like 1/3-1/2 the price of the 100-300/2.8, I'd take the zoom functionality over the extra stop any day, this needs to be 1.8 or better.
It may doesnt make any sense to you, but trust me there is a loads of people waiting for updated version of this lens and this lens always had the place in the not only sport photographers bags, but portrait photographers and astro photographers because of its characteristics. Its like me saying that I wont pay crazy price for 100-300/2.8 because is way more expensive then 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter ( going from f/2.8 to f/4 is then one extra stop also ).... It is just hard to compare and some people realy looking for the premium quality instead of versatility ( 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 vs 28-70/2.0 but sure there is a bit more difference in separation when going wider compare to telephoto lens with f/2 vs f/2.8 )
At $3500 or less, I'd be very interested, but if it ends up being $6k, I would personally rather save my pennies for the 100-300/2.8.
There's a special use buyer for any lens, but if this lens ever exists, it will compete with the 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 which are both night and day more versatile buys.
I think if that happens it more than likely be starting at $8k for preorder
Spending $8000 on a fixed 200/2 when the prime like 70-200/2.8 is readily available for $2600 is beyond stupid.
This lens should either be f1.8 or well under $4k, really it should be about the same or lower price than the 70-200/2.8, and offer buyers a little faster aperture in exchange for losing the incredible versatility of the zoom.
Nobody is pushing you to buy that lens, but people who know it's performance value will buy it.
There's not much value in a $8000 200/2, when a 100-300/2.8 for $9500 comes on the scene, a $6000 200/1.8 or a $3200 200/2 would make sense in light of the 100-300/2.8, not an $8000 200/2.
If you're shooting portraits or indoor sport you won't say that... 200/2.8 will never be the same as 200/2.0 or 200/1.8
2 is not the same number as 2.8, I never denied that, my point is simply that a lens that can give you every focal length from 100-300mm at a constant 2.8, for $9500 with prime like IQ is so much better use of funds than a fixed 200/2 for $8000 that Canon would sell little to none of them.
For use as a portrait lens, 100-300/2.8 would put 200/2 to shame, you very well might get more separation and background blur out of 300/2.8 than 200/2, and still be able to rack out to 100mm if needed.
An RF 200/2 prime would be a very, very cool lens at $2700, especially if effort was put in to make it as small and light as possible, I would without question buy one, but now that a $9500 100-300/2.8 is on the scene, only a tiny handful of eccentric weirdos would pay $8000 for one.
Sorry for you Chris and your complete misunderstanding of something so amazing as 200/2.0 is or 200/1.8... You clearly never had the opportunity to shoot with the lens and all you saying here is only theory of yours which honestly put you in shame
Have you compared the utility of the 100-300/2.8 to a 200/2?
I've used a 300/2.8, and I'm confident that adding the ability to rack out to 100mm would be worth a lot more than an extra stop at 200.
Yes. 300 is to long for portraits because your subject is miles away. It is the same as comparing 135/2.0 with 70-200/2.8... There is no photographer I know of who would buy 100-300/2.8 for portraits because 70-200/2.8 is all you need, but there are literally hundreds who will die to get their hands on 200/2.0 or 1.8... For the same reasons they shoot with 135/1.8, 85/1.2 and 50/1.2
You don't buy a 100-300/2.8 just for portraits, although it would be amazing for that end, you buy it because it would be night and day more useful than a 200/2.
More useful for who Chris? This is exactly why you don't understand the difference. With you all the things you say is theory... Why will you buy 100-300 when you ok with 70-200
What can you do effectively with a 200/2 that you can't do with a 70-200/2.8, or 100-300/2.8? Not much of anything.
What can you do effectively with a 70-200/2.8, or 100-300/2.8 that you can't do with a 200/2? Lots of things, because a 200mm prime lens isn't really good for very many things.
If you can't understand the monumental difference in utility here, I'm not going to be able to explain to you why spending $8k on the one, would be asinine when just $1500 more would get you the 100-300/2.8, or $5400 less would get you a 70-200/2.8.
If it was 200/1.8 or 200/1.4, I could understand an $8k price tag a little better, or if it was half the price of the 100-300/2.8, but $8000 for a 200/2 would only sell to a tiny number of people.
And that's exactly aimed for tiny number of people who see the point. What is the price difference of 85/1.8 and 85/1.2? Or do you want to compare 28-70/2.0 with 50/1.2? How relevant is comparing 70-200/2.8 with 135/1.8?... So now 100-300/2.8 with 200/2.0... Well hello 👋
If you want the best results in your field you know what is the best... And for the best there is completely different price tag and price you charge to clients
All I'm saying is I don't think Canon would charge $8000, it would make the lens unprofitable as only 12 people would buy it over the 100-300/2.8 for $1500 more.
Your analogies don't make sense because 100-300/2.8 is too similar to 200/2 in it's capabilities, the only real difference being that the zoom has 10 times the utility.
How much is 50/1.2 compare to 28-70/2.0? How much is 300/2.8 compare to 100-300/2.8 ? How much is 200-400/4 IS compare 400/2.8?
To someone with an unhealthy obsession with bokeh above all else, one stop could be priceless, but when thinking practically, $9500 for a 100-300/2.8, makes way more sense than $8000 for a 200/2
Chris you are really proving here how much misunderstanding is in your life about things around you. You may date practical woman where other guy wants to date beautiful woman... If you not able to understand others, you're wasting time trying to make others understanding you. Unhealthy obsession could be 100-300/2.8 for someone who has 100-400/4.0-5.6 which is lot more practical and cheaper.
A slow variable aperture lens has no relationship to this discussion, you're really just not equipped for the discussion at hand guy, give it up.
Just using your own statements... So you actually disagree with yourself now? I can go 70-200 2.8 with 1.4xTC... How about that compare to 100-300/2.8 for three times the price?
You don't even understand F4 vs F2.8? Yikes
Same as difference between F2.0 and 2.8🙈 and btw only between 200-300mm
It's the same one stop difference, but f4 is not fast enough for many applications, and f2.8 is fast enough for most things, also how's a TC on an adapted EF 70-200 going to compare to the 100-300/2.8 in sharpeness? In case you didn't know, the RF 70-200/2.8 does not accept a TC.
You're completely missing the point that 200/2 is a much more exotic lens, with extremely limited utility, it fills a role that is nearly perfectly already covered by the 100-300/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8, all this points to the 100-300/2.8 putting great pressure on Canon to keep the price of a 200/2 within reason, and $8k is not at all reasonable for what it offers.
An RF 200/2 would be a very cool lens, but at $8000 in my opinion, it would not sell well against the 100-300/2.8 for $9500, anything is possible, I'm just stating my opinion on the RF lens lineup, you're of course welcome to disagree.
Exotic lens... So you're going to pay 6000 extra for extra100mm.. How is that not exotic I dont now. You're exactly pointing out yourself that for some it will make sense to spend money on something others will consider rather crazy...
It's exotic in the sense that it doesn't offer much in the way of versatility, it's a very special use case kinda lens, whereas the 100-300/2.8 can take a nearly identical shot, with drastically greater versatility being that it's 100-300 instead of just 200.
It's really shocking that you're struggling so hard with such a simple concept.
Because it's only theory of yours. You have never shot the lens to compare it with at least 70-200/2.8 or 200/2.8.. We own both of them . Have a look at portrait photographers which owns the canon 200/2.0 or the nikon version of it ... 200/2.8 isn't able to give you the same results.
Depth of field for 200/2 is not much different than 300/2.8 when the subject fills the frame equally, and with a 300 there will be less background behind the subject, essentially you will get nearly identical perceptual subject isolation from the two settings.
So again, why would a sane person pay nearly the same price for a lens that only offers drastically less utility?
I know why, because like you, they just don't understand...
Chris you are really master of theory.. I've compared the 200/2.0 with other lenses we have... Have you? No... You didn't.. I dont care what kind of theories you have. I am telling you that 100-300/2.8 is waste of money for someone with 70-200 2.8... You telling me that you rather buy 100-300 over 200/2.0 prime... How many people have 28-70/2.0 over 24-70/2.8... And you try to tell me there is no difference at 200mm?
I'm telling you that 300/2.8, and 200/2 are nearly identical in depth of field with equal framing, this is a fact, there's no way you'd be able to discern one from the other with any repeatability.
This fact is lost on you, but more savvy buyers will realize this fact and therefore the 100-300 will market dramatically better than an $8000 200/2
Now if we're talking about a sub $5k 200/2, that's a more fair fight.
Chris if you can't prove it with actual photos, good luck with putting out more of your theories. Good luck with shooting people on 300mm miles away from you instead of 200mm...for that simple reason loads of top portrait photographers use 200/2.0... Because if they wanter to shoot 200/2.8, you will buy 70-200/2.8.... Not 100-300/2.8...
If you at least had few photos in gallery here to let me see who is the man behind all the facts...
How could I prove to you with photos, you'd just subjectively confirm your bias, but the math doesn't lie, nearly identical dof is nearly identical dof, and 100-300 covers night and day more applications than 200 alone.
Do you have any facts to support your $8000 estimation? No we're both just speculating here.
Do your maths Chris... Why are ppl buying 135/1.8 instead of 135/2.0? Why do ppl buy 85/1.4 instead of 85/1.8? And why will you ever get 28-70/2.0 instead of 24-70/2.8... You have already answered your question long time ago... So did loads of other photographers and canon by themselves. Price difference between RF 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 and 28-70/2.0?
I don't really see what point you're trying to make, people weigh their options, and it used to be that a 200/2 didn't overlap so much in it's capabilities with a far more versatile lens, for only a little more money, now it does.
Both are big, high dollar teles, one can give you a virtually identical rendering of the other, albeit at greater distance, while also covering a wide zoom range, it's pretty clearly a better use of funds unless the 200 is half the price.
$8000 is just absurdly too high in my opinion for what an RF200/2 would offer the buyer.
You don't have to agree with me.
Didn't overlap with 70-200 2.8? 🤣 🤣 🤣 Who will buy 100-300/2.8... No i can't agree.. 200/1.8 and 200/2.0 was overlapping since the beginning with 70-200... And 200/2.8
Do you know what depth of field is? Clearly you don't...
Do you know what focal length is? You want to tell me that people will shoot portraits with 300/2.8 just to get same dof of 200/2.0? 🤣 Thats the craziest theory of yours to the date...
What I'm telling you is that if crazy separation is what you're after, the 100/300 can make virtually the same image as a 200/2 with the right settings and distance, a 70-200/2.8 can't even come close, yeah you'd have to use it outdoors to have the room, not much different than you would with a 200/2.
It has less reach when you need less, more reach when you need more, can produce a nearly identical rendering if that's what you want, it weighs a tad LESS than the EF200/2, it checks way more boxes than a mere 200/2.
So it seems to me a 200/2 would have a hard time competing for tele dollars against it unless it's half the price.
Well wedding and sport inside with 200/2.0... Portrait outside 200/2.0... People who shoot portraits and wedding won't even think about 100-300 for whatever price.. For over 20 years 200/2.0 and 200/1.8 were the holy grail of portrait photography... 100-300 if lens for wildlife and sport...
All of these lenses are sports lenses, but one covers 100-300, can produce a nearly identical image as the 200/2(could possibly exceed it in perceptual isolation)and actually weighs less than the other two in their EF forms.
Again, I'm not saying that a new RF200/2 wouldn't be a highly desired lens, I just don't think it would sell very well compared to the 100/300/2.8 if they price it at $8000.
The way to make it more marketable is to make it either f1.8, or drastically lighter than the EF version, and price it at $6000 at the absolute most, $8000 is just not sensible.
No it can't reproduce anything like that for portrait photographer... I told you that portrait photographers are after this lens and shooting portraits on 300mm is nonsense... Theory of everything again Chris... You really have no idea
Nonsense? 300mm is my favorite focal length for portraits, but I'm not surprised that you don't know what lenses can be used for what, you've made that clear here...
I've done lots of portraiture with the nikkor 300/4 af-D, later replaced it with the nikkor 300/4e and currently use the Canon EF300/4is