# Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 28, 2020)

> The long-rumored Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will likely be announced sometime in the next couple of weeks. These lenses have been delayed a couple of times already this year I have been told.
> As noted by Nokishita today, the lens hoods for each lens have been added to Canon’s product catalog. Lens hood ET-83G (WIII) and Lens hood ES-65B will be for the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and RF 50mm f/1.8 STM.
> Both of these lenses will be small, especially the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM which I have been told is basically the “size of a Coke can”.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## janhalasa (Oct 28, 2020)

I hope the 50mm will be a 1:2 macro lens.


----------



## Besisika (Oct 28, 2020)

If it is indeed that small (size of a coke can), I might be interested. With the size of R5, you can sneak the pair, and security won't bother you with this "you are a pro nonsense".


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 28, 2020)

Yes, very keen to see the 70-200 F4 L Is. I just hope its not $2k, though it probably will be. 

-Brian


----------



## addola (Oct 28, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> I hope the 50mm will be a 1:2 macro lens.



You beat me to it. It would go nicely with the RF35/1.8 & RF85/2, and make it more versatile.


----------



## Atlasman (Oct 28, 2020)

I'm definitely interested in the 70-200mm f4.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 28, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> I hope the 50mm will be a 1:2 macro lens.


It will complete three f1.8 prime lens combo for most photographers.


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 28, 2020)

im hoping for a good and not too expensive 70-200 f4.


----------



## Mark3794 (Oct 28, 2020)

I hope the RF 50 STM will be as cheap as the EF 50mm STM. I know, i'm dreaming


----------



## raystill (Oct 28, 2020)

Guess on pricing on the 50 f1.8 I'm thinking $299-350 would be nice if under $200 but given the RF line up I doubt it


----------



## Mark3794 (Oct 28, 2020)

raystill said:


> Guess on pricing on the 50 f1.8 I'm thinking $299-350 would be nice if under $200 but given the RF line up I doubt it



$199 would be perfect


----------



## esglord (Oct 28, 2020)

I'm going to guess $349 and $1449


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2020)

I am glad that Canon continues to release "affordable" primes. 


esglord said:


> I'm going to guess $349 and $1449


But I don't think that 349 will be enough for the MRSP of the RF 50 STM. 
Looking at the 85 STM price I'd add at least another 200. 
And if the 70-200 is an "L" maybe we need to look further towards 1,800. 
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> It will complete three f1.8 prime lens combo for most photographers.


RF85 STM is f/2 
But you're right that this is an interesting combo 
And I would buy at least 2 of them when going into R system.


----------



## Joel C (Oct 28, 2020)

I'll be looking "very strongly" at that 70-200mm for certain.


----------



## esglord (Oct 28, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I am glad that Canon continues to release "affordable" primes.
> 
> But I don't think that 349 will be enough for the MRSP of the RF 50 STM.
> Looking at the 85 STM price I'd add at least another 200.
> ...


Those are definitely viable guesses. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the 70-200 was $1800. I think they'll feel some pressure to both improve the quality of the nifty 50 while pricing as low as they can. We shall see


----------



## Traveler (Oct 28, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> I hope the 50mm will be a 1:2 macro lens.


They have to chose between 1:2 macro or small. And since the 35mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 are both half macro I'd guess the 50mm is gonna be the one that is small. I can be wrong but I don't know if I want to


----------



## Traveler (Oct 28, 2020)

I hope the next one is the 14-35 f/4 or a cheap 70-300 (I think a 100-400 "kitlens" is rumored)


----------



## filmmakerken (Oct 28, 2020)

I'm curious to see how the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM stacks up against the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, both visually and economically.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2020)

esglord said:


> ... I think they'll feel some pressure to both improve the quality of the nifty 50 while pricing as low as they can. We shall see


Is the term "nifty 50" to you in relation to the EF 50/1.8 STM or to the EF 50/1.4 USM?
To me it always was to the 50/1.8 and its predecessors, also called "plastic fantastic".
IMO the RF50/1.8 STM will be the equivalent to the EF 50/1.4, as the RF85/2 is for the EF 85/1.8 USM.

_Edit: Af far as it looks now this will be more the "nifty 50" EF 50/1.8 STM equivalent.
Leaves space for a RF50/1.x IS STM macro._


----------



## JordanCS13 (Oct 28, 2020)

I think $1,800 would be far too expensive for the 70-200/4. That's a 50% increase over the current EF version, which is also quite new. For typical similar lenses, Canon's been a bit higher than their EF glass, but not crazily so. The RF 70-200/2.8 released at $2700, while the EF 70-200/2.8 III was $2,099 - a price hike, but one of 28%. The 24-70/2.8's are 21% higher for the RF version. 

Assuming a similar approx. 25% increase, that would put the RF 70-200/4 at around $1,600. 

I still think that's a bit too high, as it's higher than any other 70-200/4 on the market, but I could see $1,500. (though I hope they surprise us and go for $1,300.

I expect the 50/1.8 to come in at around $249. Higher than that would be hard to swallow, with the EF 50/1.8 STM being available for $150, and it's not even large with the adapter. Sony's 50/1.8 is $249. Only Nikon has taken crazy pills with their 50/1.8 pricing.


----------



## esglord (Oct 28, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Is the term "nifty 50" to you in relation to the EF 50/1.8 STM or to the EF 50/1.4 USM?
> To me it always was to the 50/1.8 and its predecessors, also called "plastic fantastic".
> IMO the RF50/1.8 STM will be the equivalent to the EF 50/1.4, as the RF85/2 is for the EF 85/1.8 USM.


I was referring to the nifty 50 EF 50 f/1.8 being replaced by the new nifty rf 50 f/1.8. However, based on previous rumors, I think it will be equivalent only in terms of max aperture. I expect the build quality to be higher though, similar to the RF 35 f/1.8.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 28, 2020)

STM sucks!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 28, 2020)

Soon the complainers from that other forum for that other brand are going to lose the argument that the other brand beats Canon on # of lenses in the ecosystem. Then, they have nothing. Nothing. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on this cold 48 degree day in Dallas, Texas. Yeah, I'm gloating.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 28, 2020)

The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it. It's a perfect lens, there's absolutely no reason why the 70-200 had to be internal zoom--- you wouldn't want your 24-70 to be internal zoom---and when you realize the 70-200 is basically just another 24-70 now, it truly changes how I use my RF 70-200.

WIth that in mind though, I'm blown away that no one thought to shrink the 70-200 F/4 like this before. That lens in itself was always designed for vacation/travel and would have benefited greatly from external zooming. The EF 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS is a great example of that, and a lot of people would choose that lens for its smaller size, over even the 70-200 F/4L IS.

I'm absolutely sure the RF 70-200mm F/4 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's around $1,500. It feels so ridiculous when you see how big the competitor's lenses in this class are in comparison to the Canons. If you're hiking into the woods and want a light, compact telephoto, Canon is really going to look like a sweet deal right now.


----------



## ozturert (Oct 28, 2020)

I wonder 70-200mm f4 will follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8. If it does, it may be smaller and lighter than 24-70mm f2.8L IS


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 28, 2020)

will the 70-200 f4 have a black or white coating?


----------



## David Soares (Oct 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.


----------



## ctk (Oct 28, 2020)

50 1.8 can't come soon enough. A decent budget 50 from Canon is literally decades overdue. I've given up hope on a budget 135 so that 50 and a gimbal are the last pieces of my kit.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 28, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> I think $1,800 would be far too expensive for the 70-200/4. That's a 50% increase over the current EF version, which is also quite new. For typical similar lenses, Canon's been a bit higher than their EF glass, but not crazily so. The RF 70-200/2.8 released at $2700, while the EF 70-200/2.8 III was $2,099 - a price hike, but one of 28%. The 24-70/2.8's are 21% higher for the RF version.
> 
> Assuming a similar approx. 25% increase, that would put the RF 70-200/4 at around $1,600.
> 
> ...



Nikons 50mm is in a different league tho. Its comparable in image quality to the RF50 1.2, only less bright. For me Nikons 50mm is the most desirable. Almost perfect optical quality, weather sealed, internal focus but small and affordable.
I don't need a brick 50 1.2 and don't especially like Canons extending 1.8 lenses.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 28, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> I hope the RF 50 STM will be as cheap as the EF 50mm STM. I know, i'm dreaming



It's nothing to dream about. The biggest appeal of a 50mm 1.8 is how cheap it usually is.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 28, 2020)

I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.

Supposedly the source had said the new RF 70-200 F/4L is going to be the same size as a coke can...well...since I don't drink coke, here's a can of Pepsi for comparison. (Propped up on my wallet, which is unfortunately a bit thinner than the EOS R5, due to the EOS R5...)

I'm actually surprised to say a can of soda is a good bit smaller than the F/2.8, so the new F/4 must be absolutely tiny.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> ... well...since I don't drink coke, here's a can of Pepsi for comparison. (Propped up on my wallet, ...


As I am not in the Pepsi but the Coke fraction, I'll take the purse and can on the right. All right?


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 28, 2020)

So the 35mm and the 85mm have IS, but not the 50mm?


----------



## SteveC (Oct 28, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> As I am not in the Pepsi but the Coke faction, I'll take the purse and can on the right. All right?


Oh, no...the only war worse than Canon vs Sony has now invaded this forum.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Oct 28, 2020)

Value for money the current EF Nifty Fifty is the best value EF lens you can buy. It's far from faultless but on a budget even with an adaptor on an R body to shoot 50mm at f/ 1.8 all this for less than 100 bucks, it's hard to knock it.

Let us hope the new RF version is as good value for the money


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Oh, no...the only war worse than Canon vs Sony has now invaded this forum.


I was only looking for a reason to get the R5 as cheap as possible.
Right now I drink mineral water


----------



## navastronia (Oct 28, 2020)

David Soares said:


> The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. *At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far*. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.



I wanna believe you, but my heart tells me it's coming in between $249 and $349, depending on final build and features.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 28, 2020)

Edit: Since an image of the RF 50 f1.8 shows it's short, without IS or Macro printed on it, I'll take my guess for it to be $349.

edit: My guess for the RF 70-200 f4L IS is $1,499.

I'm hoping Canon comes out with a RF 50 f1.4L (I'll wait to see, but I know it may never happen)
I've got the RF 70-200 f2.8L, so I'll pass on the f4L version but agree that it's a great lens to come out with!
As far as f1.8, I really would like to see a RF 105 f1.8L IS. A 58mm aperture would be ideal for portrait IQ, bokeh size & portability.

It's really *fun* being in the Canon RF camp now!
And walking around with that smooth R5 grip in my right hand is soooo nice.


----------



## Ale_F (Oct 28, 2020)

What's better?
If the F4 follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8, it has the size of a coke (pepsi) can.
Otherwise I appreciate the internal zoom of the EF, it represent a very rock solid lens.

Compatibility with extenders?


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 28, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 193657
> 
> 
> I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.
> ...


oh, that 2.8 looks good


----------



## ctk (Oct 28, 2020)

David Soares said:


> The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.



I feel like the 50/2 will be in the $250-350 range. A $149 lens doesn't make much sense IMO. I doubt it would be much better than the (IMO awful) EF STM lens. Traditionally 50s are cheaper than 35s so I think this new 50 will split the difference and hopefully be a huge upgrade IQ wise. The 50 STM was one of the worst primes I've ever used. Even old FD primes were better.


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 28, 2020)

Very excited for the 70-200 f/4. Especially given the R5 and R6 IBIS and ISO handling capabilities this will be an amazing travel lens.


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 28, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it. It's a perfect lens, there's absolutely no reason why the 70-200 had to be internal zoom--- you wouldn't want your 24-70 to be internal zoom---and when you realize the 70-200 is basically just another 24-70 now, it truly changes how I use my RF 70-200.
> 
> WIth that in mind though, I'm blown away that no one thought to shrink the 70-200 F/4 like this before. That lens in itself was always designed for vacation/travel and would have benefited greatly from external zooming. The EF 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS is a great example of that, and a lot of people would choose that lens for its smaller size, over even the 70-200 F/4L IS.
> 
> I'm absolutely sure the RF 70-200mm F/4 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's around $1,500. It feels so ridiculous when you see how big the competitor's lenses in this class are in comparison to the Canons. If you're hiking into the woods and want a light, compact telephoto, Canon is really going to look like a sweet deal right now.


I’d love to see an rf 70-300L at some point.


----------



## lexptr (Oct 29, 2020)

The RF 70-200 f2.8 is the number one RF lens in my list, when I'll finally get the R5, and nothing can rival it. But good cola-can-sized f4 can be a good addition for lite travel in the future. Hope it will be as good as f2.8 IQ-wise and have a good magnification too.


----------



## J9canon (Oct 29, 2020)

Going by the patent, the nifty fifty will be smaller than the EF version but not quite as small as the 40mm pancake. Looking forward to this.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 29, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Adding to teh wish list: 10-24L/4 lens and 100-400L/4-5.6 lens as well... maybe 400-800/8-11? or I am asking for too much. Just thinking about the choice to go from 10 to 800 with just four lenses.. 10-24 24-105 100-400 400-800...


----------



## AlP (Oct 29, 2020)

J9canon said:


> Going by the patent, the nifty fifty will be smaller than the EF version but not quite as small as the 40mm pancake. Looking forward to this.



You might be right about this.  
Here's an image of the lens (Source: Nokishita). Looks very compact, significantly smaller than the RF 35 mm f/1.8. And it looks like it doesn't have macro capability.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

AlP said:


> And it looks like it doesn't have macro capability.


Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.


----------



## dolina (Oct 29, 2020)

These two lenses will sell like hotcakes.

Speaking of which when will they offer a pancake lens?


----------



## Traveler (Oct 29, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Soon the complainers from that other forum for that other brand are going to lose the argument that the other brand beats Canon on # of lenses in the ecosystem. Then, they have nothing. Nothing. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on this cold 48 degree day in Dallas, Texas. Yeah, I'm gloating.


I think it works the other way too. The systems are getting close. With their new cameras they’re gonna get the ergonomics of the A7Siii so it’s gonna be usable. And over few years there are gonna be just minor differences.


----------



## Joules (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.


Well, it does not say macro in it. The RF 35 mm 1.8 and 85 mm 2.0 both have the word macro printed before the STM.


----------



## AlP (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.



Where? There's a filter thread on the inside of the (likely) extending inner barrel, very similar to the EF-M 22 mm, and a hood bayonet on the outside. Plus, all other macro lenses have "macro" written on the side of the barrel or on the front of the lens. This one doesn't.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

AlP said:


> Where? There's a filter thread on the inside of the (likely) extending inner barrel,


In front of the control/focus ring. This part has a smaller diameter and outside the typical profil. The RF 35 has the same and inside a filter thread.


----------



## Joules (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> In front of the control/focus ring. This part has a smaller diameter and outside the typical profil. The RF 35 has the same and inside a filter thread.


I'm pretty sure you are talking about the attachment base for the lens hood.

As mentioned previously, this lens does not say macro in the position you would expect it to be printed on. So it is not a macro lens like the 35 mm 1.8 and 85 mm 2.0. Maybe it has some close focus capability, but not as close as those two. And looking at that tiny size, I don't think you should expect to much in terms of aditional features beyond decent IQ, fast aperture and low-ish prices (my guess is 250) for a very compact lens like this.


----------



## AlP (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> In front of the control/focus ring. This part has a smaller diameter and outside the typical profil. The RF 35 has the same and inside a filter thread.



The RF35 has that, and the hood is attached to the filter holder (from what I can tell without having the lens). The EW-52 model designation for the RF35 hood indicates that it has the same diameter as the filter thread (52 mm)
The RF50 has a "normal" hood fixture, you can see a sort of flap which is part of the bayonet locking mechanism. Also, the hood for the RF50 is apparently an "ES-65B" model, which indicates a larger diameter than that of the RF 35. Since the filter thread of the RF 50 mm cannot be that large as the lens has even a smaller diameter than the RF35, the hood has to be attached to the external part of the lens, not the inner barrel.


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2020)

RF 50/1.8 STM image leaked


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> I'm pretty sure you are talking about the attachment base for the lens hood.


Maybe it can be used for both being useful even without "real" macro. ;-)



AlP said:


> The RF35 has that, and the hood is attached to the filter holder (from what I can tell without having the lens). The EW-52 model designation for the RF35 hood indicates that it has the same diameter as the filter thread (52 mm)


I own the RF 35 and use it a lot. The lens hood is allways screwed in the thread even with a MT 24 attached.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

Supplement:

It would be not be easy to use a macro flash with such a short lens. You would touch the right flash head with your right hand.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 29, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> What's better?
> If the F4 follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8, it has the size of a coke (pepsi) can.
> Otherwise I appreciate the internal zoom of the EF, it represent a very rock solid lens.
> 
> Compatibility with extenders?



I would also rather choose the internal zoom construction of the EF. Its pretty small lens anyway.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, it does not say macro in it. The RF 35 mm 1.8 and 85 mm 2.0 both have the word macro printed before the STM.



The 35mm and 85mm also have 'IS' printed on them, so no IS for this 50mm. I hope that means good things for the price


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 29, 2020)

So next year the 24 1.8 is coming. Will be a nice set of affordable primes.


----------



## mangobutter (Oct 29, 2020)

Besisika said:


> If it is indeed that small (size of a coke can), I might be interested. With the size of R5, you can sneak the pair, and security won't bother you with this "you are a pro nonsense".



R5? Forget that. RP. Then you'd really be under the radar.


----------



## GrunRad (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.


Zooming into this image shows that this is not ring (going all around) but a bayonet type lens attachment feature.


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 29, 2020)

i have the ef 50mm 1.4. it seems, the 1.8 is better in terms of image quality, is it?


----------



## degos (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it.



Of course they had, just at the lower end of the market.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

GrunRad said:


> Zooming into this image shows that this is not ring (going all around) but a bayonet type lens attachment feature.


Yes indeed! Looking now with a desktop and not with a mobile I have to say I was wrong. 
Sorry for the confusion!


----------



## cwabramowicz (Oct 29, 2020)

When they say the 70-200 F4 is the size of a can of coke, I can only imagine that they mean the length, not the width. I have the rf 24-105 F4, and it's definitely stout on the width, and would think that the have a 200 reach at F4 would be a bit wider physically than 105, but sometimes optics can be crazy as far as what they can manage.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

cwabramowicz said:


> and would think that the have a 200 reach at F4 would be a bit wider physically than 105,


It is easy to calculate: 
105mm :4= 26,25mm
200mm :4 = 50mm

So there could be space to design a 70-200 f/4 smaller then a 24-105 f/4.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> It is easy to calculate:
> 105mm :4= 26,25mm
> 200mm :4 = 50mm
> 
> So there could be space to design a 70-200 f/4 smaller then a 24-105 f/4.



The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm. 

When you really look at the EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II, it's really striking how much of a skinny drainpipe it looks like, in comparison to the extending RF 70-200.



Looking back, it's been long overdue that a lens as compact as this gets an external zoom to really make it able to minimize space for those who would be choosing this over the F/2.8 anyway.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Oct 29, 2020)

Not only that, but the previous 70-200/4L's (both the non-IS and the first IS version) had 67mm filter threads. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for E-mount is also a 67mm thread, so you can do some pretty crazy things with the right design.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 29, 2020)

Yes, I agree. But the absolut limit would be the physical size of the aperture.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 193657
> 
> 
> I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.
> ...


Surely the diet can is smaller than a regular can


----------



## danfaz (Oct 29, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> R5? Forget that. RP. Then you'd really be under the radar.


Yep, I took an RP w/ the 24-105 f/4 into an event...no questions asked!


----------



## danfaz (Oct 29, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> Not only that, but the previous 70-200/4L's (both the non-IS and the first IS version) had 67mm filter threads. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for E-mount is also a 67mm thread, so you can do some pretty crazy things with the right design.





H. Jones said:


> The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.



Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Oct 30, 2020)

danfaz said:


> Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread.


I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 30, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.



The RF70-200 f/2.8 does get a lot wider right after the filter thread, the picture on page2 shows it quite nicely.


----------



## Kiton (Oct 30, 2020)

I will get both, this is great news, now Canon, keep it up and bring us 28 f2 please!!!


----------



## Kiton (Oct 30, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 193657
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It that a typo? The wallet is thinner BECAUSE of the R5??


----------



## danfaz (Oct 30, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.


I'm really curious. Hopefully we'll see it soon!


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 30, 2020)

I am definitely interested in it. I hope the price is reasonable. Like $1249 would be a good starting price. If it is $2k then I am going to rethink the whole RF system for me personally as they are not pricing the lenses reasonable. Every direct EF to RF replacement is extremely expensive.


----------



## AlP (Oct 30, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.
> 
> When you really look at the EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II, it's really striking how much of a skinny drainpipe it looks like, in comparison to the extending RF 70-200.
> View attachment 193684
> ...



And it looks like Canon did just that


(Source: Nokishita)


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 30, 2020)

Tweeted by Nokishita:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322300456874303489


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2020)

And as is my duty.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And as is my duty.


Man - you are good at doing that!

Wow the RF is small!


----------



## danfaz (Oct 31, 2020)

Nice, I want it! Thanks for the pics and comparisons!


----------



## Ziz (Oct 31, 2020)

p


dichterDichter said:


> will the 70-200 f4 have a black or white coating?


Please let it be black!


----------



## AlP (Oct 31, 2020)

No nice animation, but just to compare the 70-200 to another f/4 lens:



The 70-200 is barely larger than the 24-105, Impressive!


----------



## AlP (Oct 31, 2020)

And here a comparison to the 24-70 f/2.8:


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 31, 2020)

this will be a hard decission for me. r6 + 70-200 f4/f2.8. i mean, clearly the price will be an argument but i reall like shallow depth. im curious how big the difference will be.


----------



## canonmike (Oct 31, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I am glad that Canon continues to release "affordable" primes.
> 
> But I don't think that 349 will be enough for the MRSP of the RF 50 STM.
> Looking at the 85 STM price I'd add at least another 200.
> ...


As we've grown accustomed to fairly high pricing on most RF lenses, we have learned to cut Canon some slack on this front, knowing that they are releasing lenses that are not only state of the art but a cut above. Looking at reviews on some of these lenses, RF 85 1.2L, RF 28-70 F2L, etc, I find myself drooling over their sharpness. Even the moderately priced RF 24-105 F4L is getting great reviews. Eventually, as the RF line seasons, we'll see some sort of price breaks, albeit I don't expect any bargains any time soon, even for Black Friday. Come on Canon, Adorama, B&H, surprise and shock us.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 1, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.


So, it turns out that it really is almost as fat as the f/2.8. I don't really understand why it needs to be, but I never liked the long thin EF 70-200/4L/IS/ISII so I'm not complaining. If I was in the market for a 70-200 this could be a very attractive option.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 1, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> So, it turns out that it really is almost as fat as the f/2.8. I don't really understand why it needs to be, but I never liked the long thin EF 70-200/4L/IS/ISII so I'm not complaining. If I was in the market for a 70-200 this could be a very attractive option.



My guess is that the extension mechanism takes up a significant portion of the width. Or Canon follows the EF-M mantra with marketing based sizes and will only allow chunky L RF lenses.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 1, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> this will be a hard decission for me. r6 + 70-200 f4/f2.8. i mean, clearly the price will be an argument but i reall like shallow depth. im curious how big the difference will be.


DOF difference is not that huge. There will of course be cases, where you can see the difference, if the background is "close" enough. Check out the flickr 70-200mm f/4 pool and see if you think it will matter to you. Other will have a hard time deciding for you. I got the EF f/2.8 - but only because I needed the extra speed.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 2, 2020)

Nemorino said:


> Tweeted by Nokishita:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322300456874303489


Wow, just noticed how ugly it will look when you put on the shade. No wonder Canon is not showing us this.


----------

