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!
Makes it all clear now... 300mm F4 L IS has so much focus breathing that you probably shoot 250mm when shooting up close like that...and you shot this photo on D750 with 300/4 lens nearly 5 years ago... so if that was one of your favorite portrait lenses you're not shooting many portraits . Good to know you can actually take photo Chris, but you won't change my mind on how little you know still thinking you can make point with your theories. 200/2.0 is for full body, not for head shots.. I can do this with 135/2.0 ...no need for big 300mm lens
You can shoot portraits with a 135mm prime, you can shoot portraits with a 300mm prime, but these are special purpose lenses, long prime lenses are nowhere near as versatile/useful as zoom lenses.
99 times out of 100 I'd use a 70-200/2.8 for shooting portraits at a live event, because the zoom range makes it night and day easier to catch candid moments, and still render plenty of background separation.
This 100-300 can do it all, it can capture moments at 100mm range, 200, 300, it can shoot sports way more effectively than a fixed 200, it can shoot wildlife way more effectively, there's just no comparison.
We're not comparing a 2 pound lens to a 6 pound lens, were comparing two 6 pound lenses, you could do so much more with a 6 pound 100-300/2.8, than you could with a 6 pound 200/2, the 200 is relatively useless in comparison.
Chris you are going back and forth.. Tell me one reason you will spend money on 300/4 L IS when all you need is 1.4xTC on the 70-200/2.8 L IS...
So you admitting that you buy long prime for portraits which is relatively useless in comparison to 70-200 2.8 yourself.
You are cutting yourself in your own trap here aren't you?
As I said.. Nobody will buy 100-300 for portraits... But every portrait photographer dream of 200/2.0...
You're an odd duck, and you're arguing against straw men, I love 300/4 primes because they cost nothing on the used market, tend to be incredibly sharp, are very easily hand holdable, and due to their fov, they can create a rendering that rivals the background separation of a lens costing ten times as much or more.
My first 300/4 I bought for less than the price of Nikon's best TC, which wouldn't match a prime with no TC for sharpness.
Not many would buy a 100-300 for portraits alone, but believe it or not, there's more to the photography industry than just the one trick pony of bokeh flexing portraiture, the buyer of a 100-300/2.8 is buying a jack of all trades tele lens, one lens that can do nearly anything one would need a tele lens for, and that makes it WAY more marketable than a nearly useless 200/2 for $8000, 200/2 is a novelty lens for eccentric bokeh flexing.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion that a 200/2 would be a good use of $8000, but it's not in my opinion when $9500 gets you the 100-300/2.8.
There's a reason the RF 100-300/2.8 currently exists, and an RF200/2 does not...
You like it just to push your point Chris. You haven't even try the lens making all the statements here... 300mm is great but 200/2.0 is not... Just to push your point that 100-300 is better... Well.. Its not.. Its just different. If there will be 200/2.0 loads of ppl will buy.. Just like before. 100-300 won't even have the same sharpness and rendering as 200/2.0 prime... And AF faster also... But you already know that Mr Straw man
Funny that Canon wasn't in such a huge rush to get an RF200/2 out in the wild to meet the insane demand...
Probably same as 300mm, 135 L mm, 100 L mm macro, 35mm L, 24mm L,.... They don't need to rush when 3rd party lenses can't compete and use RF
But for some reason they released a 100-300/2.8, it's almost like they think this lens will cover a lot of bases...
For sport and wildlife maybe... You won't get it over 70-200/2.8 for portraits... That's why they are going to release 200/2.0
With all these new lenses coming from Nikon and Canon using diffractive optics or PF technology and saving enormous weight
And at the same time reducing the overall physical size why doesn't someone come out with a 300 mm f 2.0 like the famous Nikon lens of the '80s