# Industry News: Sony announces the completely redesigned Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 13, 2021)

> Sony’s Newest G Master Lens Features Superb Resolution and Bokeh with Next-generation AF Performance in the World’s Lightest Large-aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens
> 
> Constant aperture F2.8 70-200mm telephoto zoom
> Fast, precise quiet AF (autofocus) and continuous AF tracking capabilities
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## navastronia (Oct 13, 2021)

I'm happy for Canon to have the competition.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 13, 2021)

I'm guessing Sony will send Canon a Christmas card this year...pricing on the RF model seems to have allowed Sony to increase the price on this one. So the Sony lens cost advantage may erode over time. 

Now all we need is some 3rd party RF glass and competition will be alive again. 

Brian


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 13, 2021)

I hope for Sony users that this one is fantastic. It’s predecessor is quite abysmal by all accounts.


----------



## entoman (Oct 13, 2021)

As a Canon user I have to give it to Sony, that this looks to be a far nicer lens than the Canon RF equivalent. Very Impressed by the lack of bokeh artefacts (no onion rings, perfectly circular) and by the near absence of focus-breathing. I also particularly like the non-extending design, and the ability to take extenders. Well done Sony.


----------



## AJ (Oct 13, 2021)

How much? Sony's prices have been going up like crazy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 13, 2021)

Lately Sony seems to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses than Canon.
This lens is lighter and can still accept TCs while being internal zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Lately Sony seems to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses than Canon.
> This lens is lighter and can still accept TCs while being internal zoom.


How is the Sony internal zoom that is 200mm long smaller than the Canon lens that is 146mm long? Sure, the Canon lens extends as it zooms, but its shorter length means it fits vertically in a camera bag while the Sony must lay flat (like the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 lenses), taking up two 'slots' in the bag.


----------



## angelisland (Oct 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How is the Sony internal zoom that is 200mm long smaller than the Canon lens that is 146mm long? Sure, the Canon lens extends as it zooms, but its shorter length means it fits vertically in a camera bag while the Sony must lay flat (like the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 lenses), taking up two 'slots' in the bag.
> 
> View attachment 200752


I’m guessing that statement is in reference to lenses like the 50mm 1.2…


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2021)

angelisland said:


> I’m guessing that statement is in reference to lenses like the 50mm 1.2…


The Sony 50/1.2 is lighter, as is the new 70-200/2.8. The Sony 50/1.2 is the same length and 3mm (<4%) narrower in diameter. Not sure that qualifies as smaller in any meaningful way.

Sony’s FE 70-200mm f/4 is substantially longer and heavier than Canon’s RF version. Sony’s 24-240 is 3% shorter and 4% heavier than Canon’s.

The 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses have insignificant differences.

Sorry, but the data don’t support the conclusion that, “Sony seems to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses than Canon.” But then, some people on this forum think their opinions are fact, and don’t bother checking the actual, easily verified facts before posting their correspondingly easily discredited opinion.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I hope for Sony users that this one is fantastic. It’s predecessor is quite abysmal by all accounts.


It beats the old one in every single way except for price, plus the old one was I believe the very 1st GM lens alongside the 24-70mm so they were very overdue an upgrade as they both have well documented issues, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic all made superior mirrorless lenses/had better DSLR options and Sony's own high megapixel bodies need higher resolving lenses.

There was a rumour a while back that 2021 was the year that Sony was going to refresh its glass lineup by 1st - making GM/G versions of the old Zeiss options, so far we've had the below.

35mm f1.4 Distagon to 35mm f1.4 GM
50mm f1.4 Planar to 50mm f1.2 GM
35mm f2.8 Sonar to 40mm f2.5 G
Still left are the 16-35mm f4 Vario-Tessar, 24-70mm f4 Zeiss and 55mm f1.8 Sonar.

Secondly the 70-200mm f2.8 GM and 24-70mm f2.8 GM would both get MKII versions, so far that rumour is 50% true.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sony 50/1.2 is lighter



It's not quite exactly 50mm. Is is smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon, but compromises have to be made to make it so.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 13, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> It beats the old one in every single way except for price, plus the old one was I believe the very 1st GM lens alongside the 24-70mm so they were very overdue an upgrade as they both have well documented issues, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic all made superior mirrorless lenses/had better DSLR options and Sony's own high megapixel bodies need higher resolving lenses.
> 
> There was a rumour a while back that 2021 was the year that Sony was going to refresh its glass lineup by 1st - making GM/G versions of the old Zeiss options, so far we've had the below.
> 
> ...



Yep I seen some reviews of the new one, though it seems daft to think that the Tameron 70-180 f/2.8 was the more desirable option on Sony until now. I don't think price will matter much, those invested into a system aren't going to change because the lenses are a few hundred more than the competitors.


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2021)

Fantastic. And, I must say that when Sony started making cameras (Viao days), I did not think they would last this long. But they did and are making superb cameras and lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...lighter...as is the new 70-200/2.8...
> 
> Sorry, but the data don’t support the conclusion that, “Sony seems to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses than Canon.” But then, some people on this forum think their opinions are fact, and don’t bother checking the actual, easily verified facts before posting their correspondingly easily discredited opinion.


You are being generous here. The Sony is 25 grams lighter than the Canon. Less than an ounce.


----------



## ConanRumours (Oct 14, 2021)

IMO it's better to have an internal zoom rather than telescopic. The former eventually introduces dust no matter how much you baby your lens. Kudos to Sony for making this zoom have very minor focus breathing, much less than the RF counterpart and with the optical quality of the new Nikkor 70-200 f2.8!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> IMO it's better to have an internal zoom rather than telescopic. The former eventually introduces dust no matter how much you baby your lens.



Sorry to break it to you, but your internally zooming lenses and even your prime lenses have dust in them. Elements move, that moves air, lenses aren’t hermetically sealed, and air contains dust. Basic facts of life.

Dust in a lens. Horrible for people who love to look through one end of an unmounted lens and shine a flashlight/torch through the other end.

For those of us who prefer putting the lens on a camera and actually taking pictures, dust in a lens is not really a problem.









The Apocalypse of Lens Dust


Apocalypse (from the Greek apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation"): An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale. A disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind. How appropriate the word apocalypse is for this little article. At least...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## Jethro (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but your internally zooming lenses and even your prime lenses have dust in them. Elements move, that moves air, lenses aren’t hermetically sealed, and air contains dust. Basic facts of life.
> 
> Dust in a lens. Horrible for people who love look through one end of an unmounted lens and shine a flashlight/torch through the other end.
> 
> For those of us who prefer putting the lens on a camera and actually taking pictures, dust in a lens is not really a problem.


That's true in my limited experience - I've never had an issue with multiple externally extending lenses. But, I guess it depends on how *much* dust we're talking about. I recall people referring to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 as an 'air pump', and being actually disconcerting to use. Yet it was also meant to be an exceptionally good lens through-out the range.


----------



## Mahk43 (Oct 14, 2021)

As the tripod mount cannot be removed from the sony, the canon is way lighter when you dont need this item -> when the weight really count...


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2021)

Jethro said:


> That's true in my limited experience - I've never had an issue with multiple externally extending lenses. But, I guess it depends on how *much* dust we're talking about. I recall people referring to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 as an 'air pump', and being actually disconcerting to use. Yet it was also meant to be an exceptionally good lens through-out the range.


The 100-400 was a push-pull lens and there was a myth surrounding the lens that claimed that this design drew more dust in. It didn't, but myths don't need facts.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 14, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I hope for Sony users that this one is fantastic. It’s predecessor is quite abysmal by all accounts.


I cite Lensrental's take on the original OSS version:
---
Joey's Take​Senior Photo Tech

This is the top of the line 70-200 for Sony, but it’s unfortunately a little lackluster compared to other brands. If you absolutely need f/2.8, for sports and such, this is still your best option since native lenses always focus better than adapted lenses. Just don’t expect the same optical quality as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED AF-S VR. There’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, too. Just something to be aware of.
---


Now back to my own take: Lensrentals had also problems with bend lenses returning from customers and found out, that its too quite heavy parts were connected with a *flimsy soft aluminum plate*:









Completing the Teardown of the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS: Part II


You probably shouldn't read this article unless you've at least skimmed through Part 1. To summarize, we had a Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS lens that had been dropped and no longer would focus. We tore it down both to see if we could repair it and to see what-all was up inside there. In the [...]



www.lensrentals.com





Unbelievable, an over-engineered lens with such weak spots! So, we hope for Sony users that the new version will be a really professional tool that is technically and mechanically up to its premium price.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 14, 2021)

Mahk43 said:


> As the tripod mount cannot be removed from the sony, the canon is way lighter when you dont need this item -> when the weight really count...


Actually it can be removed just like the other Sony telephoto lenses both zooms and primes. Has the same mechanism as my 200-600 G which allows for a 3rd party Arca Swiss foot to be attached instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Actually it can be removed just like the other Sony telephoto lenses both zooms and primes. Has the same mechanism as my 200-600 G which allows for a 3rd party Arca Swiss foot to be attached instead.


The Canon mount is completely removable Like this:




The Sony 70-200 and 200-600 collars are not removable. The foot itself can be removed, but it leaves a mounting bracket sticking out (and since that bracket has a 1/4”-20 tripod socket, even with the foot removed the collar is still a tripod mount). 




Having a replaceable tripod foot on a non-removable collar is fine for a large lens like a 200-600, or a 600/4. IMO, the quick-release Sony uses is nice (assuming it doesn’t introduce vibration) but unnecessary. How often do you pop the foot off?

Canon provided two interchangeable feet for my 600/4 II’s non-removable collar (for tripod vs monopod use). I use the RRS foot instead, but I don’t think I’d ever want/need/be able to use the lens without a foot of some sort installed.




However, with a relatively small and light lens like the 70-200/2.8, the ability to completely remove the tripod mount is an advantage.


----------



## angelisland (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sony 50/1.2 is lighter, as is the new 70-200/2.8. The Sony 50/1.2 is the same length and 3mm (<4%) narrower in diameter. Not sure that qualifies as smaller in any meaningful way.
> 
> Sony’s FE 70-200mm f/4 is substantially longer and heavier than Canon’s RF version. Sony’s 24-240 is 3% shorter and 4% heavier than Canon’s.
> 
> ...



I have some RF lenses and an R5, but the fact that the Sony lenses are have IMO better bokeh, faster focusing, less focus breathing, etc. is great news. 
I shoot both Sony (A7r4) and Canon, R5 and the R.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Canon mount is completely removable Like this:
> 
> View attachment 200757
> 
> ...


The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.

The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 14, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.
> 
> The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.


I still don't know why Canon let the zoom throw distance get to such an abysmal state on the RF 70-200 2.8. While I love the lens, I'd trade it in in a heartbeat for a better throw, even if that returns the lens to an internal zoom and larger footprint. It seems like such a large oversight for a brand that normally prides itself in ergonomics for professional situations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.


Have to disagree with that. The Sony lenses have a collar, or else you could not rotate them around the attachment point. That collar may be integrated into the lens barrel, but it's functionally a collar. As you know, removing the Sony foot leaves a mounting bracket for the foot exposed and that bracket is part of the collar. The Canon tripod collar comes off completely, leaving nothing jutting out from the barrel. I think I probably put my EF 70-200/2.8 on a tripod two or three times, but with the internal zoom the lens was long enough that the tripod foot provided a better strap attachment point. The RF 70-200 is compact enough that a body attachment will work well, so I will likely leave the tripod collar off almost all the time. 



SNJ Ops said:


> The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.


Definitely agree, and those parameters are very user-dependent preferences. Personally, I prefer the extending zoom design and the correspondingly much more convenient packed length of the lens. 

For my EF 70-200/2.8, I had both the 1.4x and 2x TCs and I used a TC with the 70-200 for less than 1% of my images with the lens. So incompatibility with TCs is a non-issue for me, more than worth the 'sacrifice' for a shorter lens. 

I have no idea how the focus throw is a differentiator, on a Canon body the MF can be set to speed sensitive (default) or speed insensitive, but personally I so rarely use MF that it doesn't matter to me very much anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> I still don't know why Canon let the zoom throw distance get to such an abysmal state on the RF 70-200 2.8. While I love the lens, I'd trade it in in a heartbeat for a better throw, even if that returns the lens to an internal zoom and larger footprint. It seems like such a large oversight for a brand that normally prides itself in ergonomics for professional situations.


Presumably you mean the relatively long zoom rotation? I don't find 90° to be problematic. However, for the RF 100-500 I would prefer something closer to the 90° of the 70-200/2.8 or 100° of the EF 100-400 II, rather than the 100-500's 120° rotation.


----------



## George47 (Oct 14, 2021)

navastronia said:


> I'm happy for Canon to have the competition.


Let’s see: Sony’s lighter, faster, (probably sharper too) internal zooming and it takes teleconverters. Take that canon soon there will be more tests to confirm that. See the precedent of the 50 1.2…
BTW I shoot both systems..


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have to disagree with that. The Sony lenses have a collar, or else you could not rotate them around the attachment point. That collar may be integrated into the lens barrel, but it's functionally a collar. As you know, removing the Sony foot leaves a mounting bracket for the foot exposed and that bracket is part of the collar. The Canon tripod collar comes off completely, leaving nothing jutting out from the barrel. I think I probably put my EF 70-200/2.8 on a tripod two or three times, but with the internal zoom the lens was long enough that the tripod foot provided a better strap attachment point. The RF 70-200 is compact enough that a body attachment will work well, so I will likely leave the tripod collar off almost all the time.
> 
> 
> Definitely agree, and those parameters are very user-dependent preferences. Personally, I prefer the extending zoom design and the correspondingly much more convenient packed length of the lens.
> ...


When I said focus throw I meant the zoom ring has a much shorter throw on the Sony. A feature that comes from the 200-600.

As for no TCs that may not be an issue for you personally but A LOT of shooters where very disappointed when that was announced on the RF lens. Yes the Canon is more compact when being transported but the usability of any lens is how they are truly judged. Going by comments I’m seeing (anecdotal I know) most of them prefer the internal zoom and TC compatibility of the GM over the smaller (while in a bag) but less functional RF. On emount the Tamron is way to go for those that don’t want/need TC compatibility but its price reflects the lack of features.

Sports, Wildlife and landscape shooters I imagine would prefer the option of a TC as that could mean not having to bring a 100-400 to a shoot or perhaps not even buy one in the 1st place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

George47 said:


> Let’s see: Sony’s lighter, faster, (probably sharper too) internal zooming and it takes teleconverters. Take that canon soon there will be more tests to confirm that. See the precedent of the 50 1.2…
> BTW I shoot both systems..


Lighter by a functionally meaningless 25 g, assuming you leave the tripod mounts on both lenses. The full collar comes off the Canon lens, so the Canon would be lighter a functionally meaningless amount if you don't need a tripod attachment.

May be sharper, we shall see. The Canon lens certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of sharpness.

Internal zooming and TC compatibility, I have no doubt Canon could have designed the RF lens that way had they chosen to do so. I suspect their market research showed a preference for a shorter lens, and the Canon is a very significant 54mm / 2.1" shorter – enough that it fits 'vertically' in many camera bags whereas the Sony must lay flat and take two 'slots' in the bag instead of one. Similarly, they have market data on TC use with the EF 70-200/2.8 (e.g. how many owners of a 70-200/2.8 also have a TC, without other lenses for it), and that most likely supported omitting it from the RF version. Personally, <1% of my EF 70-200 shots were with a TC (I have both 1.4x and 2x); for comparison, most of my shots with the 600/4 II (~85%) are with one of the TCs on the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> When I said focus throw I meant the zoom ring has a much shorter throw on the Sony. A feature that comes from the 200-600.


The Canon EF 70-200mm lenses had a much shorter zoom rotation (~60°, IIRC). Not sure why it was increased with the RF versions of both the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500 (vs. 100-400 II); the 70-200/4 has a similar and shorter rotation for both EF and RF.



SNJ Ops said:


> As for no TCs that may not be an issue for you personally but A LOT of shooters where very disappointed when that was announced on the RF lens. Yes the Canon is more compact when being transported but the usability of any lens is how they are truly judged. Going by comments I’m seeing (anecdotal I know) most of them prefer the internal zoom and TC compatibility of the GM over the smaller (while in a bag) but less functional RF.


As I stated, that's a personal choice. Comments you've read are anecdotal, as you acknowledged...so are my opinions. But Canon clearly made a choice to change the design of the 70-200mm lenses to an extending zoom and make them incompatible with TCs. Unlike you and me, they have the ability to conduct real market research...and history suggests they do a generally good job at it. Given that, regardless of what you or I think, I suspect that Canon believes that 'most people' will prefer the smaller (while in a bag) RF version. 

I'm definitely in that camp that Canon likely considers the majority – if the RF version was pretty much the same as the EF version, I would not have bought the RF but rather just used the adapter with my EF 70-200/2.8 II.


----------



## Finn (Oct 14, 2021)

As a landscape guy, I’m not sure I miss the TC in the RF 70-200. I rarely use them on such a short focal length anyway.

The 100-500 is almost always the more useful choice if I want a longer telephoto zoom in my bag. I do however think the trade off for the smaller pack size is a much better trade off than internal zoom and TC support. The RF 70-200 is very well built and I don’t leave my lenses to soak in a downpour when you can easily just throw a $20 neoprene cloth overtop.


----------



## dlee13 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fact is you should always expect a new lens to be better, regardless of manufacturer. The Sony is newer than the Canon so in that sense it should be better.

As someone who used Sony for 3 years I can say for certain they have very nice lenses that are much more competitive but often have very flat rendering compared to the likes of Sigma and Canon.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 15, 2021)

R5 user but I'm sticking with the EF vIII. If I can't rotate the zoom easily with just my thumb then it's of no use to me.


----------



## George47 (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lighter by a functionally meaningless 25 g, assuming you leave the tripod mounts on both lenses. The full collar comes off the Canon lens, so the Canon would be lighter a functionally meaningless amount if you don't need a tripod attachment.
> 
> May be sharper, we shall see. The Canon lens certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of sharpness.
> 
> Internal zooming and TC compatibility, I have no doubt Canon could have designed the RF lens that way had they chosen to do so. I suspect their market research showed a preference for a shorter lens, and the Canon is a very significant 54mm / 2.1" shorter – enough that it fits 'vertically' in many camera bags whereas the Sony must lay flat and take two 'slots' in the bag instead of one. Similarly, they have market data on TC use with the EF 70-200/2.8 (e.g. how many owners of a 70-200/2.8 also have a TC, without other lenses for it), and that most likely supported omitting it from the RF version. Personally, <1% of my EF 70-200 shots were with a TC (I have both 1.4x and 2x); for comparison, most of my shots with the 600/4 II (~85%) are with one of the TCs on the lens.


Internal zooming and teleconverter is a big deal. Most likely canon didn’t go that route as the lens would have been gigantic since their large R mount.
Canon tried to keep the size small but ended up with a rather cheap feeling 70-200 f 2.8 lens. The 70-200 f4 is great for what it is and it could address that market wanting a small and light lens. but the 2.8 version doesn’t look and feel professional level lens for $2800


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

George47 said:


> Internal zooming and teleconverter is a big deal.


To some people, no doubt. To a majority of people? I am certain Canon knows more about that than either of us.



George47 said:


> Most likely canon didn’t go that route as the lens would have been gigantic since their large R mount.


Seriously? The EF and RF mounts have the same 54mm inner and 50.6mm throat diameters. Best to stop making claims in an area where you clearly lack knowledge.


----------



## George47 (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> To some people, no doubt. To a majority of people? I am certain Canon knows more about that than either of us.
> 
> 
> Seriously? The EF and RF mounts have the same 54mm inner and 50.6mm throat diameters. Best to stop making claims in an area where you clearly lack knowledge.


Yes I’m not an expert on lens design but there’s something with them not being able to make smaller girth lenses compared to Sony, that’s a fact! Maybe it has to do with their USM motors being bigger or something. My canon lenses, with less motors, are thicker and bulkier compared to my sony lenses that actually have twice or 4 times more linear motors. or maybe because Sony managed to use a slightly smaller mount, or probably a combination of all these things. Thicker is not always better


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

George47 said:


> There’s something with them not being able to make smaller girth lenses compared to Sony. Maybe it has to do with their USM motors being bigger or something. My canon lenses, with less linear motors, are thicker and bulkier compared to my sony lenses that actually have twice or 4 times more linear motors. or maybe because Sony managed to use a slightly smaller mount, or probably a combination of all these things.


Sony FE 50/1.2 is 2.8mm (3%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 50/1.2.
Sony FE 24-70/2.8 is 0.9mm (1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/2.8.
Sony FE 24-70/4 is 0.1mm (0.1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/24.
Sony FE 24-240/3.5-6.3 is 0.1mm (0.1%) largrer in diameter than the Canon RF 24-240/4-6.3.
Sony FE 70-200/2.8 II is 1.9mm (2%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 70-200/2.8.
Sony FE 70-200/4 is 3.5mm (4%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 70-200/4.

Those are the first 6 lenses I looked at that are equivalent between the systems, picked simply because they're popular lenses that existing in both, and there is effectively no difference in girth.

What Canon lenses do you have that are thicker and bulkier compared to their Sony counterparts? Obviously the mount end of the Canon lenses is going to be bigger, because the inner diameter of the RF mount is 54mm while the inner diameter of the FE mount is 46mm.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 15, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> Fact is you should always expect a new lens to be better, regardless of manufacturer. The Sony is newer than the Canon so in that sense it should be better.


I'll wait for the $299 Venus 70-200 then.


----------



## George47 (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sony FE 50/1.2 is 2.8mm (3%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 50/1.2.
> Sony FE 24-70/2.8 is 0.9mm (1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/2.8.
> Sony FE 24-70/4 is 0.1mm (0.1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/24.
> Sony FE 24-240/3.5-6.3 is 0.1mm (0.1%) largrer in diameter than the Canon RF 24-240/4-6.3.
> ...


Thanks for confirming Sony’s are also lighter, but don’t worry you don’t have to do all that math again.
i like both systems and use both and sometimes a like a lens better on the R mount, other times a lens on the FE mount. Some older lenses on the FE mount suck, and have no problem with acknowledging that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

George47 said:


> Thanks for confirming Sony’s are also lighter, but don’t worry you don’t have to do all that math again.
> i like both systems and use both and sometimes a like a lens better on the RF, other times a lens on the FE mount. Some older lenses on the FE mount suck, and have no problem with acknowledging that.


Lol, 0.1% to 4% differences. If you find that significant, there's not much else to say except that you really should have quit while you were behind.


----------



## George47 (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol, 0.1% to 4% differences. If you find that significant, there's not much else to say except that you really should have quit while you were behind.


Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..


----------



## mariosk1gr (Oct 15, 2021)

It's difficult to imagine how Canon took these decisions on their 70-200 really...
All these years you couldn't say a bad word about Canon's 70-200 versions until now!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2021)

Lenstip has just reviewed the lens. Its resolution is simply spectacular - unlike its second-rate predecessor.





Sony FE 70-200 mm f/2.8 GM OSS II review - Introduction - LensTip.com


Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.




www.lenstip.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

George47 said:


> Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..


Yes, I can apple-pick numbers, too . The Sony FE 70-200/4 is over 20% heavier than Canon’s RF 70-200/4. Not to mention over 5 cm / 2” longer. Did you have a point?


----------



## Neutral (Oct 15, 2021)

George47 said:


> Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..


As a matter of fact Sony made huge advances in lens design, before Canon and Nikon were considered to be the best in this area, but now new Sony lenses are better in many respects.
Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses? Just compare latest 50mm f1.2 from Sony and Canon. Huge difference in performace. Is this patent protected by Sony? Not sure as Fujifilm using the same in their latest GF lenses, providing high AF speed and accuracy which seemed before impossible for Medium Format lens systems ( e.g. GF 45-100 which focuses as fast so no one does feel any difference compared to FF systems). Also Fuji uses that in latest lenses for X system. May be they are cross patented as Fuji is a big customer for Sony sensors?
Would be interested to know why Canon still not using this approach and continue to use USM AF motors.

As for different design of Canon RF 70-200 and new Sony 70-200 (telescopic vs internal zoom) - both are good but I beleive they are aimed at slightly different groups of user. I think that Canon is more aimed at high end enthusiasts, event photographers, hikers, travellers where packaging size is important ( and this represents a huge user base), whereas Sony target audience is pro hybrid shooters where actual lens performance and conviniece for use both for photo and video is primary priority and portability is second or third one in the list of priorities. Also this is probaly showcase for latest Sony lens technology achievements - should be best of the best. I like second (Sony) approach better, especially ability to have accurate AF during zooming, and fast full range zoom using one finger. But if I need something more compact for events or travel - then Canon design would be better. But for this upcoming Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 might be even better and possibly ideal choice, interesting if Tamron do version of this for Canon RF system.

I still keep my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L m2 with 1DXm2 and this combo works perfectly well when I do not need big high res files fom Sony a7rIV, on which I mostly use 70-200 f/2.8 GM. I tested Canon 70-200 on a7r4 using Metabones adapter and optically they are practically the same, may by Sony bit better, especially at corners, but I have very good copy, had ability to select best one from several ones from different batches at dealer shop at the place where I stayed at that time.

And one more thing regarding DSLR and mirrorles - DSLR AF on PRO bodied is still better and faster when using single point AF in difficult light condition, mirrorles ( even sony A9 and A1) are sometimes still struggling with that, but this depends on lenses, on last generation high-resolution GM lenses this much better practically on par with 1DXm2. This is why I still sometimes prefer 1DXm2 to the latest MILS.
Excuse me for any typing errors, it is difficult to avoid them on mobile devices.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 15, 2021)

Neutral said:


> As a matter of fact Sony made huge advances in lens design, before Canon and Nikon were considered to be the best in this area, but now new Sony lenses are better in many respects.
> Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
> I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses?


Isn't it? Nano USM is a linear type.


----------



## Finn (Oct 15, 2021)

People arguing about differences in grams countable on our fingers and toes and a few mm hair length differences and saying it’s revolutionary technology that crushes X competitors Y.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 15, 2021)

Neutral said:


> And one more thing regarding DSLR and mirrorles - DSLR AF on PRO bodied is still better and faster when using single point AF in difficult light condition, mirrorles ( even sony A9 and A1) are sometimes still struggling with that, but this depends on lenses, on last generation high-resolution GM lenses this much better practically on par with 1DXm2. This is why I still sometimes prefer 1DXm2 to the latest MILS.
> Excuse me for any typing errors, it is difficult to avoid them on mobile devices.


I think this will probably be transitory. As more R&D is spent on mirrorless and less on DSLRs along with a dwindling consumer base, it will catch up and surpass those few areas where DSLRs still shine. I think battery life is still an achilles heel for some shooters, but adjusting to EVF vs OVF still depends on what MILC you shoot on. A rebel with a pentamirror may be dimmer than a prism, but it is still an OVF. A cheaper MILC body has terrible lag/color fidelity and blackout issues compared to $3000+ MILCs. Even with the newest bodies, you still need certain lenses to achieve their highest frame rate and AF performance.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 15, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Isn't it? Nano USM is a linear type.


Yes, you are right, nano USM is linear, just checked this:





Canon Training Articles - Tips & Tricks | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Looking for training articles on Canon Products? Join us here for articles ranging from beginning to advanced on all the best tips & tricks.




www.usa.canon.com




Did not look that for a long time, was thinking about old ring type USM,, which I have on my EF 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II, good that Canon now have nano USM

Then strange why Canon did not utilized that in the best way for RF 50 f1.2 lens.
Sony 50 f1.2 iGM s just amazing, as well as 135 f1.8 GM, love both.
As Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 is using linear nano USM then AF performance should be better than old EF mark II version.
Would be interesting to compare Canon RF and new Sony 70-200 af performance, Canon have two AF motors, Sony have 4 of them.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Canon mount is completely removable Like this:
> 
> View attachment 200757
> 
> ...



It really depends on the use case, but I prefer some form of quick disconnect for the tripod foot or a completely removable collar. I take the collars/feet off my long lenses all the time for video work and back on when I'm mainly shooting stills. The collar and/or feet get in the way of my 15mm rod system/matte box and makes lens changes a PITA which is also why I can never mount such a lens by its tripod collar. That being said, with a long lens, I'm always using a rod system lens support to minimize movement of the lens when operating my follow focus which also supports the weight of the lens so it doesn't strain the lens mount.


----------



## amorse (Oct 15, 2021)

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I love those collapsable RF 70-200's. I'm more than happy to tolerate the compromises to shave that length off and reduce the packed size of my kit. I honestly considered a complete kit overhaul to reduce size/weight and that 70-200 was a cornerstone the plan. I already have the EF 70-200 ii and the iii wasn't enough reason to upgrade. Would I be interested if they were able to shave the weight down as they did with the Sony? Probably. Would I be interested if they shaved the weight *and* size down like the Canon? Absolutely.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 15, 2021)

jayphotoworks said:


> I think this will probably be transitory. As more R&D is spent on mirrorless and less on DSLRs along with a dwindling consumer base, it will catch up and surpass those few areas where DSLRs still shine. I think battery life is still an achilles heel for some shooters, but adjusting to EVF vs OVF still depends on what MILC you shoot on. A rebel with a pentamirror may be dimmer than a prism, but it is still an OVF. A cheaper MILC body has terrible lag/color fidelity and blackout issues compared to $3000+ MILCs. Even with the newest bodies, you still need certain lenses to achieve their highest frame rate and AF performance.


As for EVF vs OVF I think Sony a1 came very close with their EVF - selecting high frame rate ( of course at the expense of resolution) gives almost same conviniece shooting fast erratically moving object as using OVF on 1DXm2, plus bonus of blackout free and ability to see well in very dim environment.
Sure, as all big players are investing more resources in R&D for MILS technology at some time MILCs will be outperforming DSLR in all aspects.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

Neutral said:


> Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
> I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses?


Innovative Sony has OSS lenses, why is Canon still using IS? That’s what you’re asking. A technology by any other name…

As @Kit. points out, Canon’s Nano USM is linear, high speed, precise, and quiet. 



Neutral said:


> Just compare latest 50mm f1.2 from Sony and Canon. Huge difference in performace.


The focus speed difference is due to lens design, not the speed of the focus motors. The Sony 50/1.2 has two small focusing groups, the Canon RF 50/1.2 has one large front focusing group comprising ~3/4 of the lens elements. It’s the same reason the EF 85L focuses slowly – a lot of heavy glass to move. But the end result is the same, the Sony lens focuses faster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I love those collapsable RF 70-200's. I'm more than happy to tolerate the compromises to shave that length off and reduce the packed size of my kit. I honestly considered a complete kit overhaul to reduce size/weight and that 70-200 was a cornerstone the plan. I already have the EF 70-200 ii and the iii wasn't enough reason to upgrade. Would I be interested if they were able to shave the weight down as they did with the Sony? Probably. Would I be interested if they shaved the weight *and* size down like the Canon? Absolutely.


I feel the same way. I suspect Canon believes we’re in the majority, which is why they designed the RF 70-200 zooms this way.

I don’t plan on a ‘complete overhaul’. Where RF lenses offer a significant advantage, I’ll swap as I swapped EF 70-200/2.8 IS II for the RF version. The 24-70/2.8 adds IS, that’s worth it to me. The 100L Macro adds 1.4x mag that I don’t need (I have the MP-E 65) and adds focus shift that I don’t want, so I’ll keep the EF 100L. Still on the fence about the 14-35, but leaning toward keeping the 16-35/4 IS.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The focus speed difference is due to lens design, not the speed of the focus motors. The Sony 50/1.2 has two small focusing groups, the Canon RF 50/1.2 has one large front focusing group comprising ~3/4 of the lens elements. It’s the same reason the EF 85L focuses slowly – a lot of heavy glass to move. But the end result is the same, the Sony lens focuses faster.


So I understand that we are in general agreement that Canon, Nikon and Sony have all the latest technological pieces ( optical and mechanical) availabe at their hands and the end results depends on their design approach and how they use these technology pieces.
From our (user end) we observe results and vote by our wallets
As Canon stated sometime ago (I remember some white paper) their larger mount diameter compared to some competitors would allow them for better and smaller lens design, as they could do front element smaller by using larger back element in lens. May be that was Nikon - do not remember exactly.
I do not see this happeng in reality and 50 f1.2 is perfect example of how overall lens design approach results in what we got at the end. I do not doubt that Canon could take different design approach for rf 50 f1.2 and have the same or even better overall results than Sony. May be this is thinking inertia, may be something else but end result is that Sony 50 f1.2 is hugely operationally outperforms Canon rf 50 f1.2 ( not talking about resolution where both are excellent). Or Canon do not have enough processing power to handle simaltaneously two small focus groups inside the lens, I doubt that, or Sony solution patent protected ? Would be interesting to know.
Anyway it is good that there is much stronger competition in these areas, as result all brands customers getting better products faster and there no stagnation as it was about 10 years ago.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Presumably you mean the relatively long zoom rotation? I don't find 90° to be problematic. However, for the RF 100-500 I would prefer something closer to the 90° of the 70-200/2.8 or 100° of the EF 100-400 II, rather than the 100-500's 120° rotation.


Yeah thats what I was referring to. I know its really only an issue or concern of sports action to be able to throw that fast, but it was so enjoyable and ergonomic. The throw distance now changes how I hold the lens when shooting.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 15, 2021)

A lot of good discussion in here. I'm not sure on what Canon does and doesn't know from market research. Personal preference, but I never have and probably never will want to use a teleconverter from my 70-200, BUT I definitely see the why people want that ability. 

Back to my main issue and inability to understand the throw distance is that people will say that the size reduction for packing a bag is worth it. But that's the part I don't really get. If this is a lens for professionals, which I am not, then I don't see how packing a bag takes precedence over operability. I mean when I'm packing my 70-200, I'm planning on shooting something very specific and I often only use that lens on that specific shoot. So the size reduction doesn't really matter, and I'd rather have the throw distance back. So that's the part where I'm not sure on what feedback Canon got. This RF version of the 70-200 would seem more geared towards your weekend warrior, or enthusiast rather than a professional where packing the bag for an event isn't going to make or break their decision to take a lens.


----------



## amorse (Oct 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I feel the same way. I suspect Canon believes we’re in the majority, which is why they designed the RF 70-200 zooms this way.
> 
> I don’t plan on a ‘complete overhaul’. Where RF lenses offer a significant advantage, I’ll swap as I swapped EF 70-200/2.8 IS II for the RF version. The 24-70/2.8 adds IS, that’s worth it to me. The 100L Macro adds 1.4x mag that I don’t need (I have the MP-E 65) and adds focus shift that I don’t want, so I’ll keep the EF 100L. Still on the fence about the 14-35, but leaning toward keeping the 16-35/4 IS.


That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change. 

5DIV switch to R5
EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 with XPRO ball head switch for FLM CP30-S4 II with a RRS BH40

All in that was going to save me 4.2 lbs (or 28% of my previous kit weight), reduce packed size by a fair but, cut one lens out, while maintaining a very comparable zoom range, and maintaining or improving IQ. The issue was it was going to cost over $9K CAD. Piecemeal change it is!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> Back to my main issue and inability to understand the throw distance is that people will say that the size reduction for packing a bag is worth it. But that's the part I don't really get.


Another possibility to consider – the EF MkIII was a stellar lens, and the RF version needed to be differentiated. The MkII was stellar, and I saw no need to get the MkIII. How do you make an already excellent lens different if there's little room to make it better? Make it lighter and _much_ smaller.

For the other f/2.8 zoom trinity members, the 24-70 got IS, the 16-35 got wider and IS. The 70-200 got to be close in length to the other two.


----------



## derrald (Oct 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change.
> 
> 5DIV switch to R5
> EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
> ...


I built out an ef-m kit for this very purpose. M5, 11-22 ef-m, 28 macro, 55-200 ef-m. Granted, it wasn't as good as my 5DsR kit (11-24 f/4l + 100 f/2.8L macro + 100-400 ii), but as I got older I couldn't handle the weight and size anymore. I switched to the R5, 14-35 f/4l, etc., and while I really like the image quality, I went back up in weight and as you know in backcountry camping, every ounce counts. I ultimately decided to buy the M6 ii and a Laowa 9mm (I needed something wider) to round it out and I am extremely pleased with the combo. I am a bit disappointed that things are going RF and it looks like the EF-M line is being abandoned. Regardless, my cameras and lenses still work and that kit will probably continue to be my backcountry kit for years to come. Now, if only they could make a RF to EF-M adapter I would love to see that!


----------



## entoman (Oct 15, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> IMO it's better to have an internal zoom rather than telescopic. The former eventually introduces dust no matter how much you baby your lens. Kudos to Sony for making this zoom have very minor focus breathing, much less than the RF counterpart and with the optical quality of the new Nikkor 70-200 f2.8!





Jethro said:


> I've never had an issue with multiple externally extending lenses. But, I guess it depends on how *much* dust we're talking about. I recall people referring to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 as an 'air pump', and being actually disconcerting to use. Yet it was also meant to be an exceptionally good lens through-out the range.


In practice a bit of dust won’t make any difference to image quality, although it may affect resale value. Theoretically, extending lenses allow greater ingress of dust or moisture, but there seems to be no hard evidence that this is the case.

My experience is that focusing and zooming are smoother in non-extending lenses. With extending lenses the centre of gravity shifts as the lens extends - not a problem with a 70-200mm, but with a larger lens such as a Sigma 150-600mm it can be, if the lens is on a gimbal.

Another minor issue is that when an extending zoom is at or near maximum focal length, there can be a small degree of play or wobble, which can be disconcerting although it doesn’t seem to affect sharpness.

The compactness of extending lenses is advantageous when packing gear for travelling, but when in the field I usually work with just one or two lenses, so for me it’s not a factor.

I have a variety of extending and non-extending lenses, and I much prefer the non-extending designs, if all other aspects are equal (sharpness, weight, MFD, bokeh etc).


----------



## Finn (Oct 16, 2021)

entoman said:


> Another minor issue is that when an extending zoom is at or near maximum focal length, there can be a small degree of play or wobble


I would encourage you to read the Lensrentals.com tear down of the RF 70-200. It is very robustly built as is the 100-500.


entoman said:


> The compactness of extending lenses is advantageous when packing gear for travelling, but when in the field I usually work with just one or two lenses, so for me it’s not a factor.


If there is more room and weight budget in your bag (from carrying a smaller lens like the RF 70-200) you can choose to have a lighter kit or bring a prime that can do something your other lenses can't. Point is, you get a choice!


entoman said:


> In practice a bit of dust won’t make any difference to image quality, although it may affect resale value.


I think you have a good point here. Dust rarely if ever has a noticeable negative effect on quality of images...even on MFT tests. It's the resale value of "perceived" flaws that will probably be the worst drawback. Again, I would point people to Lensrentals.com that has an excellent article about a fly being stuck in a lens and it had an undetectable impact on the quality of images!


----------



## vjlex (Oct 16, 2021)

Pixel said:


> R5 user but I'm sticking with the EF vIII. If I can't rotate the zoom easily with just my thumb then it's of no use to me.


I'm in the same camp, but for the teleconverter and non-extending zoom reasons.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2021)

vjlex said:


> I'm in the same camp, but for the teleconverter and non-extending zoom reasons.


I get the TC incompatibility as a reason, even though it doesn’t matter to me. What’s the issue with an extending zoom? Most of them are…


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2021)

Finn said:


> I would encourage you to read the Lensrentals.com tear down of the RF 70-200. It is very robustly built as is the 100-500.
> 
> If there is more room and weight budget in your bag (from carrying a smaller lens like the RF 70-200) you can choose to have a lighter kit or bring a prime that can do something your other lenses can't. Point is, you get a choice!
> 
> I think you have a good point here. Dust rarely if ever has a noticeable negative effect on quality of images...even on MFT tests. It's the resale value of "perceived" flaws that will probably be the worst drawback. Again, I would point people to Lensrentals.com that has an excellent article about a fly being stuck in a lens and it had an undetectable impact on the quality of images!


That's not what the fly thought.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I get the TC incompatibility as a reason, even though it doesn’t matter to me. What’s the issue with an extending zoom? Most of them are…


As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.


----------



## George47 (Oct 16, 2021)

mariosk1gr said:


> It's difficult to imagine how Canon took these decisions on their 70-200 really...
> All these years you couldn't say a bad word about Canon's 70-200 versions until now!





neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, I can apple-pick numbers, too . The Sony FE 70-200/4 is over 20% heavier than Canon’s RF 70-200/4. Not to mention over 5 cm / 2” longer. Did you have a point?


Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was


----------



## vjlex (Oct 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> 5DIV switch to R5
> EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
> EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
> EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
> ...


Piecemeal is how I'm going about it too. I just broke up my EF trinity and replaced my EF 24-70mm with the RF. The 16-35mm is the next one, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I think it is one of my least used lens, but I still want an UWA. I'm really curious what the quality of the RF 16mm is going to be, but already wish there was an L version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2021)

vjlex said:


> As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.


I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2021)

George47 said:


> Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was


Lol. The EOS M came out before that, which is probably why Sony went to FF MILC – the 800 pound Canon gorilla entered the APS-C MILC market, and Sony was afraid they lose too much market share. That fear was justified, although it took ~5 years before Canon took the lead in APS-C MILCs. Canon is only in their third year of FF MILCs. I wonder where Sony can run to next?


----------



## MoonMadness (Oct 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> How much? Sony's prices have been going up like crazy.


Exactly as indicated in the article.


----------



## esglord (Oct 16, 2021)

Not sure another internal zoom rf 70-200 and an EOS R would’ve entice many people who already owned an ef 70-200 iii to move over to their mirrorless platform. The collapsable rf version offered something novel that could attract some users to try out the system. Anyway, that’s how I saw Canon’s strategy.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Oct 17, 2021)

8:36
What happened on the left?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.


In the dim and distant past, I bought in the 1990s a Canon EOS IX APS-C which was bundled with a 24-85mm zoom that was considered remarkable at the time. Separately, the lens was expensive but bundled it was cheap. It had awful lens creep.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Another possibility to consider – the EF MkIII was a stellar lens, and the RF version needed to be differentiated. The MkII was stellar, and I saw no need to get the MkIII. How do you make an already excellent lens different if there's little room to make it better? Make it lighter and _much_ smaller.
> 
> For the other f/2.8 zoom trinity members, the 24-70 got IS, the 16-35 got wider and IS. The 70-200 got to be close in length to the other two.


I've thought about that a lot too. It still would have been nice if they could have shaved a smaller amount of weight, length, and had a native mount.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 17, 2021)

vjlex said:


> As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.


Yup, deal with this on a weekly basis. I shoot my R5 and rf 70-200 in a sling carry, and it just extends out as I walk or wait for the next bit of action. It's not like I don't like the lens, but I still don't understand how the tradeoffs were deemed worth it for a "professional" lens, because the decisions seem the opposite.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 17, 2021)

amorse said:


> That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change.
> 
> 5DIV switch to R5
> EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
> ...


I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
For a backpacking kit where weight is very important, I would recommend considering the 14-35. The lower price is nice too.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 17, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> Yup, deal with this on a weekly basis. I shoot my R5 and rf 70-200 in a sling carry, and it just extends out as I walk or wait for the next bit of action. It's not like I don't like the lens, but I still don't understand how the tradeoffs were deemed worth it for a "professional" lens, because the decisions seem the opposite.


Is there no zoom lock on the RF 70-200 f2.8 to prevent this?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
> For a backpacking kit where weight is very important, I would recommend considering the 14-35. The lower price is nice too.


Do you really notice a ‘wider look’ going from a 15.45mm to a 14.80mm focal length?


----------



## ERHP (Oct 18, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Is there no zoom lock on the RF 70-200 f2.8 to prevent this?


Yes, on the right side of lens. (Figure this was rhetorical but just in case)


----------



## ConanRumours (Oct 18, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It's not quite exactly 50mm. Is is smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon, but compromises have to be made to make it so.


it's also sharper, focuses faster and has better contrast with better flare resistance! it outperformed the RF in basically all areas that matter.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 18, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> it's also sharper, focuses faster and has better contrast with better flare resistance! it outperformed the RF in basically all areas that matter.



It just isn't 50mm, and has a lot of focus breathing. The RF and S 50mm f/1.2 remain the better options.


----------



## ConanRumours (Oct 18, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It just isn't 50mm, and has a lot of focus breathing. The RF and S 50mm f/1.2 remain the better options.


Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too, I and my friend Dustin who has reviewed the RF seems to agree with me. If you own both systems the Sony is the clear winner period. https://dustinabbott.net/2021/09/sony-fe-50mm-f1-2-g-master-review/


----------



## Kit. (Oct 18, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> it's also sharper,


According to your friend, it's not.



ConanRumours said:


> Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too,


LoCA are less noticeable on a lens that is less sharp in the corners, that's true.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 18, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too, I and my friend Dustin who has reviewed the RF seems to agree with me. If you own both systems the Sony is the clear winner period. https://dustinabbott.net/2021/09/sony-fe-50mm-f1-2-g-master-review/



Sony only have 2 of the 8 lenses I need and no pro bodies so they aren't on my radar. Regardless, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 isn't a 50mm f/1.2, Nikon's and Canon's are. Sony will need to go replace their mount to catch up or try again to make a lens that is more usable. You can't cheat when making these lenses, Nikons is the largest because I has the most corrections and least focus breathing. The RF 50 f/1.2 compromises on some of the things the Nikon does well in order to make a lighter lens. Sony compromised on IQ, focal length, and focus breathing to make the lightest '50' mm f/1.2 they could on their old mount.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 18, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Is there no zoom lock on the RF 70-200 f2.8 to prevent this?


There is, but as the other post was saying it isn't really ideal to mess with that during an event. So I hate to use it other than for putting it in the bag.


----------



## ConanRumours (Oct 18, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Sony only have 2 of the 8 lenses I need and no pro bodies so they aren't on my radar. Regardless, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 isn't a 50mm f/1.2, Nikon's and Canon's are. Sony will need to go replace their mount to catch up or try again to make a lens that is more usable. You can't cheat when making these lenses, Nikons is the largest because I has the most corrections and least focus breathing. The RF 50 f/1.2 compromises on some of the things the Nikon does well in order to make a lighter lens. Sony compromised on IQ, focal length, and focus breathing to make the lightest '50' mm f/1.2 they could on their old mount.


The RF mount has the exact same diameter as the EF mount at 54mm, the only thing that changed is flange distance which is similar in all mirrorless systems. Although the RF 50mm is by all means a great lens, the fact is that it now sits at the bottom of the class with slightly inferior IQ (especially LOCA, flare resistance), noisier and slower AF motors & chunkier). The Nikkor S50 is great except for its size but at the moment there are no Nikon pro bodies that can make it focus reliably as shown by Jared Polin and other photographers that shoot all 3 systems. Although GM is shorter in FL (around 48-49mm) still outresolves the Canon. If you own canon, you get the rf, if you own Sony and Canon like I do, the Sony is the superior lens of the 2 period.


----------



## amorse (Oct 18, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
> For a backpacking kit where weight is very important, I would recommend considering the 14-35. The lower price is nice too.


That's true and it does look great, but I need the 15mm f/2.8 if I'm going to use that lens to replace my 14 f/2.8 and my 16-35 f/4 as I use the 14 almost exclusively for night sky/aurora photos. Other than the night sky use, I'd be completely happy with the 14 f/4 I think. With that said, I'm ok with sacrificing a bit of wideness for the f/2.8 as it will cut another lens out of my bag


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 19, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> The RF mount has the exact same diameter as the EF mount at 54mm, the only thing that changed is flange distance


Canon says the position and size of the electronic contacts has changed as well, so the RF has a bit more room inside the mount compared to the EF mount. Looking at the various EF and RF lenses I have, the RF contacts give about half a mm more radius to the light hole and the protective lip seems to be a bit smaller as well.
So I think Canon is technically correct with claiming the RF is 'wider', but practically speaking, they seem to have the same room inside.


----------



## ConanRumours (Oct 20, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Canon saus the position and size of the electronic contacts has changed as well, so the RF has a bit more room inside the mount compared to the EF mount. Looking at the various EF and RF lenses I have, the RF contacts give about half a mm more radius to the light hole and the protective lip seems to be a bit smaller as well.
> So I think Canon is technically correct with claiming the RF is 'wider', but practically speaking, they seem to have the same room inside.


The point is the so called "wider mount advantage" is marketing BS from Nikon and Canon. What matters is flange distance and new optical formulas using new types of glass elements. Remember when some people, including canon representatives mentioned that smaller mounts like the FE could not design fast lenses, even when Mitakon already had a manual f.95 lens (crap) like 5 years ago and Leica was producing probably the best lenses ever made for the m-mount. Anyways, this ain't a mount thread size discussion, the point is, if you happen to have cameras on more than one system it makes sense to get the best version possible for the money. (which is not the RF 70-200mm f2.8) (and now Sony also makes a slightly better 50mm f1.2).


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 20, 2021)

ConanRumours said:


> The point is the so called "wider mount advantage" is marketing BS from Nikon and Canon. What matters is flange distance and new optical formulas using new types of glass elements. Remember when some people, including canon representatives mentioned that smaller mounts like the FE could not design fast lenses, even when Mitakon already had a manual f.95 lens (crap) like 5 years ago and Leica was producing probably the best lenses ever made for the m-mount. Anyways, this ain't a mount thread size discussion, the point is, if you happen to have cameras on more than one system it makes sense to get the best version possible for the money. (which is not the RF 70-200mm f2.8) (and now Sony also makes a slightly better 50mm f1.2).


I haven’t seen an in depth head to head comparison between the RF and GM 50mm f1.2 lenses but I have seen the GM being used to shoot fast moving action on more than one occasion in reviews which in my opinion sets it apart from the competition. Saw an earlier comment that mentioned the 50mm f1.2 GM being compromised in its 
image quality, clearly that person hasn’t seen the results of it paired with the RIV’s 61 mp.

As for a 70-200mm f2.8 head to head once the GM lens and the Nikon Z9 are widely available I’m sure the big 3 will be compared against each other.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 21, 2021)

vjlex said:


> I'm in the same camp, but for the teleconverter and non-extending zoom reasons.


That too


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.


Both my 15-85 EF-S and my version I 24-105 EF had terrible zoom creep. I just learned to live with it.


----------

