Canon 200 f2.8 & 135 f2?

I have not yet shot with either of these lenses but have seen some wonderful photos made with them. Enough that I think I am going to rent one or both of them to give them a try. I am wondering if we will see something like these lenses for the RF mount? Something in the < $2000 range?

I think an RF 200 2.8 is unlikely.
Looking at timeline, the 200 2.8 II, released 1996 was an update of the 200 2.8 released 1991.
I'm pretty sure the only difference is the II lost the built in hood.
The 135 f2 was also a 1996 release. It would be easy to believe the 200 2.8 II was just released without built in hood to match the 135 f2.

Compare to the regularly updated 70-200 Zooms:

f/4L USM September 1999
f/4L IS USM November 2006
f/4L IS II USM June 2018
f/2.8L USM March 1995
f/2.8L IS USM September 2001
f/2.8L IS II USM April 2010
f/2.8L IS III USM August 2018

Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Sony, Nikon have not released any 200mm 2.8 primes.
On the other hand, Sigma have released a 135 f1.8 and Samyang now have MF 135mm f2 and AF 135 1.8.
Sony have 135 1.8. Nikon don't have a modern 135 but do have the 105 1.4.

So I think it's likely Canon will release a fast RF in the 105-135 range.
If Canon release a 200 I think it will be f2 or even f1.8.

Reasons for no 200 2.8s:
Zooms are so good now that the prime's only advantage is weight.
With ISO performance of modern cameras, an f4 zoom is the low weight option.
With the spectacular sharpness of all modern 135s combined with high megapixel sensors, a cropped 135 shot will be at least as good as an EF 200 2.8 shot and you get extra speed.

I think Sigma is the most likely manufacturer to release an (about) 200mm prime but it will be for Sony and L mount.
They have recently released the I Series for Sony and L mount:
24 f2
24 f3.5
35 f2
45 f2.8
65 f2
90 f2.8

So I predict 180 or 200, f3.5 - f4. It should be significantly smaller than the EF 200 2.8.

I agree about how good the various 70-200 zooms have become. I guess I was thinking about it from a size/weight/price perspective as much as from a IQ perspective

duckster wrote in post #19356229
I agree about how good the various 70-200 zooms have become. I guess I was thinking about it from a size/weight/price perspective as much as from a IQ perspective

Yep, as above, just get a 70-200 f4 as modern high ISO performance and mirrorless AF performance at small apertures means you only miss out on a little shallowness of DOF.

Years ago, the f4 zoom missed out on shutter speed and or increased ISO, also you quite possibly lost the high precision AF point that required f2.8 and finally a little shallowness of DOF. In most shooting scenarios, it's now 1 variable compromised rather than 3.

All this is very relevant to me. I have an EF200 2.8. I used it a lot on 20D, 5D, 5D2, 1D2n. When I got 1DIV it was used less. 1DIV was the biggest gain in high ISO performance of all previous body upgrades and the 100-400II replaced the 200 2.8 for a lot of shooting.

Now I have a Sony 135 f1.8. It also replaces the 200 2.8. It's heavier, similar size, much sharper and faster.
So I have regular 'I should use the 200 2.8' thoughts, followed by the obvious reality that the 135 is better for most scenarios.
The 200 2.8s last remaining attribute is I can use it with an OVF if I would prefer OVF.

Canon has already filed a patent for an RF 135/1.4. Of course there is no pricing yet. The EF mount 135/2 was just over $1000 back in '96. But RF pricing has been easily above the EF equivalents. Going past twice that price? I wouldn't be surprised.

And then there are the knock-off brands already available in RF. But manual focus and non-Canon.

So I rented a EF 200 f2.8 and used it for some sports and around the house shots. Really nice lens and has a great look to the images. Surprised at how much smaller it was than the 70-200 f2.8. More on par with the 70-200 f4 versions, but shorter. I mostly used it on a 7DII which made it more like a 300 f2.8, mostly due to the fact that the lens does not support the high FPS rate on the R6. I think a lens like this would be interesting in a more modern version but as has been said, probably not going to happen. I am thinking to rent the EF 135 f2 for a comparison.

The 135 f2 is a lovely lens. However the only real advantage it has over the 70-200 2.8 II is a very subjective quality to the background blur. If you want more blur then the zoom at 200 is pretty close @2.8 as the prime at f2. It's lighter but the zoom has IS which can be very useful when you are balancing flash in low light situations I have both and I'll never give up the 135L but if I could only have one I'd have to keep the zoom because of its versatility.

I have the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and it takes good photos. Can't complain. I would like to shoot it side by side with the Canon version on my R6, just to compare

duckster wrote in post #19365602
I have the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and it takes good photos. Can't complain. I would like to shoot it side by side with the Canon version on my R6, just to compare

I don't have any comparison with the Tamron. The biggest issue is going to be the quality of the background blur. (Bokeh) the 135L renders the blur in such a smooth creamy way that the len is considered magical by some for portraits. However thats a very individual subjective quality.

Many of us have gone through this over the decades with these lenses.

The beauty is now, we don't really have this issue any longer. The 70-200 F2.8 series has completely replaced the primes, they're so good now. The 135L won't be re-made likely. The 70-200 F2.8 handles it all and if you need the specialty look of telephoto that's fast, that's where the really fast 85's come in.

Seeing other people's photos with the 135L doesn't really paint the picture of the process. You think you want it until you try to do a full body portrait at F2 and realize how far away from the subject you have to be.

I did this as well, had the 200 F2.8, 135L and the 70-200 (both F4 and F2.8) and at the end of the day, the versatility of the 70-200 F2.8 and the ability to have great DOF control without being restricted like the primes, just wins. I sold the primes and the 70-200 F2.8 was the clear winner for me. It was always useful because of its versatility with speed and IS and the zoom focal lengths. Just too good. It's a staple for that reason.

Very best,

RF 70-200L f4 for me, please

Going to rent a RF 70-200 f4 for a meet this Friday and try it out.

The 135L is outstanding, great bang for the buck. Look for a used one.

I went the other way. Sold my 70-200/2.8 II and bought back my fast primes. Sometimes I miss the zoom, but then I stuff my 35, 85 and 135 in the bag and I feel better equipped than with the 24-70 and 70-200.