# The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM begins shipping this week



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 25, 2021)

> I have just received word that the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will begin shipping from some retailers this week. I do not know what sort of allocation is being made available, or how long preorder lists are.
> The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is remarkably small and I’m sure it’ll be optically fantastic.
> Key Features
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Jan 25, 2021)

Well.. RF 70-200 2.8 is ******* then


----------



## dolina (Jan 26, 2021)

If you have little intention to sell your EF 70-200mm and want the lightest 70-200mm then this RF would be to buy.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 26, 2021)

This sounds like a great f4L lens for those wanting a smaller, lighter & less expensive version of the f2.8L version. They've increased the max magnification to 0.28x so you can still get some big background blur for close objects (like flowers) at 200mm. I'm looking forward to more RF lenses with big max. magnification, hopefully in some of the future long telephotos to come.


----------



## xwxw (Jan 26, 2021)

Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.


----------



## dwarven (Jan 26, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.



"xxx is *******" replies are *******.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 26, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.



Agreed... It's getting a bit long in the tooth... It's no better than "First!".

Edit...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2021)




----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 26, 2021)

So back to the topic...

Are any of us in the forum buying this soon? If so, is cost or size/weight your main reason to get this (or both)? Would you get this over or in addition to a 2.8?

For me, it's an odd duck. Would I want it, sure. Do I need it, not yet.

If I was starting new w/o lenses and wanted a 1st RF lens that could reach everything as cheap as possible, the 24-240 would be a prime candidate. So that leaves this user out for now.

But lets say I'm a bit pickier in glass, and I was starting new w/o lenses and had a bit more cash to throw at it, and had a desire to get good RF glass and want decent range... I would get a 24-105 & 70-200 F4 L's. However, if I was able to spend a bit more, wouldn't I be better suited with a 24-105 + 100-500 L's. The second lens would be a hard call... as I would have to factor weight vs range (as well as cost).

However, if I didn't need <70mm zoom... the decision might become a whole lot easier. And actually the 70-200 F4 L + 50 STM and/or 35 STM 1.8's would be a pretty lightweight & versatile kit (could even toss in a DO for good measure).

But not starting new... most have 2.8 in this range already. And the main advantage this has is size/weight (don't get me wrong, that itself is a good reason). Cost, although a factor in all buying decisions, however I don't see it as important in this case (for the 'want'). For these people it becomes a want of the reduced size/weight, factoring in 'how soon' one want's it over other glass (Pokemon for adults?).

It would make for a heck of a light (but high quality) kit piece in good/fair lighting. But I'm still building my collection and given a choice of a 2.8 vs 4, I would take the 2.8 zooms first (missing 1)... and lug around the extra weight.

After all this, I think I answered my own question (for myself) and it really comes down to wanting the reduced size/weight.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 26, 2021)

I would like to have it, it's so cute ...

On the other hand: The 4.0 70-200 IS mark i is a very good lens and I enjoy it on my M50 where it gives me a good range from 110---320mm.
The old one with APS-C gives me nearly the same image field like the new RF variant (effectively 0.33 max. reprod. ratio) but with twice the distance - I think the RF version has less focal length at close distance to gain the 0.28 max. reproduction ratio.
Another thing is the fact that I usually use this lens @200mm so during photographing the effective size will be the same.

But in a pure RF system this new lens seems to be a gorgeous tool!


----------



## Danglin52 (Jan 26, 2021)

I placed my pre-order for the RF 70-200 f4 L IS as soon as it was announced and available to order on B&H. While I really like the f2.8 lenses, I purchased the f4 version for size/weight cost was not an issue). My focus is wildlife and I like this lens on a second body in combination with my 100-500 (100-400 previously). I know there is overlap, but the lens is a litter wider/faster. After a trip to Africa in 2017 carrying 36lbs of gear, I decided it was time to lighten the load. I sold my 1dx II / 5dIV, 24-70 f2.8 L II, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, 100-400 L IS II and 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x TC to make the move to mirrorless. My pack has been reduced to roughly 22lbs with the move to mirrorless - R5 + grip, RF 24-105 f4 L IS, RF 70-200 f4 L IS, RF 100-500 f4.5 = f7.1 L IS and 1.4x extender. After shooting the new gear for 2 weeks in YNP/GTNP, the only thing I lost was the quality and versatility of the 200-400 f4. In my opinion, the other new gear is as good or better than the old setup and 14lbs lighter (8lbs with the 200-400).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 26, 2021)

I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? ) 
But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...


----------



## Joel C (Jan 26, 2021)

As of this point in 2021, the RF 15-35mm 2.8 and the 100-500 seem to cover the bases for doing video or stills. Not sure where this fits in at the 1500$ Price point. I think I would get this over the 2.8 version though considering you can still get the blur and for video this is actually a really nice range.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 26, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> So back to the topic...
> 
> Are any of us in the forum buying this soon? If so, is cost or size/weight your main reason to get this (or both)? Would you get this over or in addition to a 2.8?
> 
> ...



Just imagine a travel bag with the two cans of soda and a nice fat sandwich. Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS. Maybe you're a little worried you'll need a night time snack, so you throw a pack of cookies in the bag. Only the cookies are actually an RF 35 F1.8. 

One lusty, compact, lightweight situation you'd have going on there. For me, that's the draw of this lens. Smaller, lighter, better. I'm looking forward to the reviews. I have the 70-200 F4 L IS V1 and it is great. So if this is better, I may not be able to resist for too long. I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews hit. 

-Brian


----------



## jeanluc (Jan 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
> But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...


I think the amount of indoor sports you shoot is the factor. If you want the most versatility for that, the RF F2.8 70-200L is the way to go. If it is outdoor stuff in good light, then the decision is really between the small, light F4 70-200 and be reach-limited, or carry a bigger, heavier 100-4(5)00 around.

I have the RF 70-200, the EF 100-400II, and also the EF 70-300L. The 100-400 will be replaced soon by the RF100-500, but I use that for birds etc and the occasional car trip. The 70-200 is for indoors and low light.

I mainly shoot landscapes and travel by air, so for me, the decision is similar...whether to travel with the RF F2.8 70-200L for low light or the EF 70-300L for reach. The 70-300 is very sharp, not too big and sure has come in handy at times. I had thought about the RF 70-200 F4, but with that I lose both reach and very low light capability. So I suspect the 70-300L may be the last EF lens I keep (except for the 100L macro..).


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
> But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...


So many lenses, so little time (and money)!


----------



## lglass12189 (Jan 26, 2021)

Mine will be here on Friday. Got the call yesterday that they could ship it to me on Thursday. Can't wait !


----------



## degos (Jan 26, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS.



Not many soda cans are 82mm in diameter!


----------



## another_mikey (Jan 26, 2021)

This will sell very well, just as the excellent EF version sold very well. For me, with the RF 100-500 on backorder, it will come down strictly to how heavy my bag is on a daily basis with that lens. If I can carry it around without issues then I will probably put a purchase of this lens on hold. Otherwise, as a shooter who shoots both scenic and wildlife, I would consider this lens as the lens to bring for landscape shooting opportunities for sure. 

ML


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Jan 26, 2021)

My dealer is giving me a ready date of Feb 5th


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 26, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Just imagine a travel bag with the two cans of soda and a nice fat sandwich. Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS. Maybe you're a little worried you'll need a night time snack, so you throw a pack of cookies in the bag. Only the cookies are actually an RF 35 F1.8.
> 
> One lusty, compact, lightweight situation you'd have going on there. For me, that's the draw of this lens. Smaller, lighter, better. I'm looking forward to the reviews. I have the 70-200 F4 L IS V1 and it is great. So if this is better, I may not be able to resist for too long. I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews hit.
> 
> -Brian



Although not using a snack reference... I mentioned a similar loadout. For me the entire draw to it is size/weight/quality, and the cons are price and aperture (the aperture is reasonable for size, but I think they could have done a bit better on the price). However I don't know that I would want it over the 2.8 if I could only chose one. Then again, I might be self justifying holding off on it  .


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 26, 2021)

lglass12189 said:


> Mine will be here on Friday. Got the call yesterday that they could ship it to me on Thursday. Can't wait !



Congrats and enjoy!


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
> But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...


If I were you, I wouldn't want a RF 24-105 f4L, RF 70-200 f4L and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L. I'd see not enough benefit in carrying around the RF 70-200 f4L in that case. The difference between f4 and f4.5 (or slightly higher at 200mm) is (to me) negligible and I'd be quite happy with just the 24-105 and 100-500 alone to minimize lens changes. The 100-500 is my favorite lens and I wouldn't take it off to put on a 70-200 f4, but I would take it off (and indeed do so) to put on a 70-200 f2.8 as the f2.8 makes a big enough difference in background blur! 

Now if you want to go out with just the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 then I can see a benefit in having just 2 smaller & lighter lenses. But if you're already carrying around the 100-500 then I'd use it instead of the 70-200 f4.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> If I were you, I wouldn't want a RF 24-105 f4L, RF 70-200 f4L and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L. I'd see not enough benefit in carrying around the RF 70-200 f4L in that case. The difference between f4 and f4.5 (or slightly higher at 200mm) is (to me) negligible and I'd be quite happy with just the 24-105 and 100-500 alone to minimize lens changes. The 100-500 is my favorite lens and I wouldn't take it off to put on a 70-200 f4, but I would take it off (and indeed do so) to put on a 70-200 f2.8 as the f2.8 makes a big enough difference in background blur!
> 
> Now if you want to go out with just the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 then I can see a benefit in having just 2 smaller & lighter lenses. But if you're already carrying around the 100-500 then I'd use it instead of the 70-200 f4.



Good reasoning here.

I'm actually thinking about this 70-200 f/4 L to go with the 24-105 f/4 L. If I ever thought I'd want to go longer than 200, I'd take my (EF) 100-400 L II instead of the 70-200.

The big money option, of course, would be to get the the 24-70 and 70-200 in f/2.8 instead of this. (Edit: Apparently one of those is f/2.0. Nevertheless they seem to be a matched pair.)

But at the moment, I'll probably do nothing at all, and stick with what I have.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 27, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Just imagine a travel bag with the two cans of soda and a nice fat sandwich. Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS. Maybe you're a little worried you'll need a night time snack, so you throw a pack of cookies in the bag. Only the cookies are actually an RF 35 F1.8.
> 
> One lusty, compact, lightweight situation you'd have going on there. For me, that's the draw of this lens. Smaller, lighter, better. I'm looking forward to the reviews. I have the 70-200 F4 L IS V1 and it is great. So if this is better, I may not be able to resist for too long. I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews hit.
> 
> -Brian


I certainly see the attaction in the set up you are talking about. However, for a similar size and weight to your set up, and less money, you could have an A7III, a Sigma 24-70/2.8, Tamron 70-180/2.8 and Samyang 35/1.8. I realise that is talking about a totally different system, and obviously there are other factors to consider (such as build quality, ergonomics, how important 200mm verses 180mm is to you, how much you value f/2.8 over f/4, etc), but all the same I think it is worth being aware of, to keep what Canon is offering in perspective.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 27, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I certainly see the attaction in the set up you are talking about. However, for a similar size and weight to your set up, and less money, you could have an A7III, a Sigma 24-70/2.8, Tamron 70-180/2.8 and Samyang 35/1.8. I realise that is talking about a totally different system, and obviously there are other factors to consider (such as build quality, ergonomics, how important 200mm verses 180mm is to you, how much you value f/2.8 over f/4, etc), but all the same I think it is worth being aware of, to keep what Canon is offering in perspective.



And of course you have to deal with all the downsides (and upsides, depending on your perspective) of that kit as well. 

The point is, I believe Canon was thinking in this direction as they created these lenses. There are third party options for Canon starting to show up as well, and sounds like more on the way so in the future that will be an option as well. But as to the question of 'why this lens' aimed at the Canon 70-200 F4 L IS...I believe my original answer is one reason why. 

-Brian


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 27, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Although not using a snack reference... I mentioned a similar loadout. For me the entire draw to it is size/weight/quality, and the cons are price and aperture (the aperture is reasonable for size, but I think they could have done a bit better on the price). However I don't know that I would want it over the 2.8 if I could only chose one. Then again, I might be self justifying holding off on it  .



2.8 is nice for sure. But $$$ and weight are factors. Somehow over time I've ended up with a kit that mostly has F4 zooms, and the older I get the more I appreciate the weight savings. But I do have a couple of faster lenses, mostly primes, that I can go to when I want to do more subject isolation work. 

-Brian


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2021)

Lighter bags without IQ sacrifice is pure win.


----------



## dichterDichter (Jan 27, 2021)

its in stock now on canon Germany - just got an email.


----------



## Rivermist (Jan 27, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> If I were you, I wouldn't want a RF 24-105 f4L, RF 70-200 f4L and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L. I'd see not enough benefit in carrying around the RF 70-200 f4L in that case. The difference between f4 and f4.5 (or slightly higher at 200mm) is (to me) negligible and I'd be quite happy with just the 24-105 and 100-500 alone to minimize lens changes. The 100-500 is my favorite lens and I wouldn't take it off to put on a 70-200 f4, but I would take it off (and indeed do so) to put on a 70-200 f2.8 as the f2.8 makes a big enough difference in background blur!
> 
> Now if you want to go out with just the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 then I can see a benefit in having just 2 smaller & lighter lenses. But if you're already carrying around the 100-500 then I'd use it instead of the 70-200 f4.


I have the RF 24-105L and RF 100-500, together with legacy EF wide zooms. For travel, the 2 RF lenses + either the EF 16-35 f:4 or EF 11-24 (depending on the type of travel) comes along, together with the 35mm 1.8 for low-light or candid street pictures. I am eying the 70-200 for a different purpose, portrait photography mostly at or close to home. For that purpose the 24-105 always ends up being a bit short, and the 100-500 is both heavy and intimidating, and I find I often need to go below 100 mm. The only hesitation (apart from which bank to hold up to get the necessary funds) is between the f:2.8 and f:4 versions. I had the EF 70-200 f:2.8 IS for many years and it was my go-to portrait lens, will f:4 still provide the bokeh for occasional outdoor pictures, knowing that indoors with studio flash I shoot at f:5.6 anyway.


----------



## 01Spino94 (Jan 27, 2021)

I just picked mine up, but it's gray and dismal in the Washington DC area today. Saturday promises to be a nice, sunny, but chilly day so it should be a good time to test it out. I'm especially looking forward to using it on longer landscape shots--I did a lot of that with the EF version.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 27, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> I have the RF 24-105L and RF 100-500, together with legacy EF wide zooms. For travel, the 2 RF lenses + either the EF 16-35 f:4 or EF 11-24 (depending on the type of travel) comes along, together with the 35mm 1.8 for low-light or candid street pictures. I am eying the 70-200 for a different purpose, portrait photography mostly at or close to home. For that purpose the 24-105 always ends up being a bit short, and the 100-500 is both heavy and intimidating, and I find I often need to go below 100 mm. The only hesitation (apart from which bank to hold up to get the necessary funds) is between the f:2.8 and f:4 versions. I had the EF 70-200 f:2.8 IS for many years and it was my go-to portrait lens, will f:4 still provide the bokeh for occasional outdoor pictures, knowing that indoors with studio flash I shoot at f:5.6 anyway.


I have the RF 70-200 f2.8L and it is a wonderful lens. Also compact and relatively light. Since you want to add a 70-200 for *portrait use*, I would _*strongly*_ suggest you get the f2.8 version instead of the f4 version as that's the most useful reason IMHO to get the bigger aperture in that focal range. But if you shoot your indoor portraits at f5.6 then you won't be getting the f2.8 benefit. For anything outdoors where you do want a nice background blur, I'd strongly suggest the f2.8 version as well, but that's just my opinion. But if you mainly want outdoor landscape shots instead of portrait shots then the f4 version would be fine and more portable. Also f4 at 200mm will still give you enough background blur where you'd probably be happy, but just not as much as f2.8.


----------



## lglass12189 (Jan 29, 2021)

01Spino94 said:


> I just picked mine up, but it's gray and dismal in the Washington DC area today. Saturday promises to be a nice, sunny, but chilly day so it should be a good time to test it out. I'm especially looking forward to using it on longer landscape shots--I did a lot of that with the EF version.




A dealer broke the sales embargo?


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 29, 2021)

Some of my favorite and most grand photos have come from a 70-200 F4. They're so much fun and so versatile and so high quality (only the Canon versions)

I own the EF 70-200 F4L V2 (version II) and I'm seriously debating ordering the RF version. I know only I can decide yada yada... but what do you guys think... dumb decision? The EF V2 is already triple platinum in terms of optical quality. Nothing on this planet from any brand with same range and aperture touches it in any category whatsoever. nothing. So very excited to see how this RF version performs. Canon promises the same or better.


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 29, 2021)

EOS RP + 70-200 F4L Version II.


----------



## lglass12189 (Jan 29, 2021)

Just got mine, -20f wind chill is a little cold to venture out and try it.


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2021)

Like a LOT of Canon shooters, the OG 70-200 f/4 was my L glass gateway drug. Tremendous value. This was long before the whining about stabilization began and we just shot with solid gear and technique, not a reliance on wizardry( ok, it was film as well but that's neither here nor there). These lenses have continued to be in s special class, and let's not forget, 2.8 to 4 is only one stop. If it's not portraiture, it's a no brainer.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 30, 2021)

Why on earth Canon could not place the control ring the same way on the RF 70-200 f2.8? Something tells me, that the second edition will correct this design oversight ....

Well, I should be happy, just few hours ago, we have ordered R5, RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, but I already kind of hate its reversed design. This new 70-200 f4 speaks the RF lens language, not so f2.8. Once the version 2 is out and corrects that, I'll immediately exchange that!


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> Why on earth Canon could not place the control ring the same way on the RF 70-200 f2.8? Something tells me, that the second edition will correct this design oversight ....
> 
> Well, I should be happy, just few hours ago, we have ordered R5, RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, but I already kind of hate its reversed design. This new 70-200 f4 speaks the RF lens language, not so f2.8. Once the version 2 is out and corrects that, I'll immediately exchange that!


Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision green lit all the way through to production. I tried to set the control ring to a function I might want to change, and then found that it started changing that function when I didn't want it to since there are too many similar rings on a zoom that you can't help but occasionally mis-set it. I have set the control ring function to NONE - not only is it worthless to me, but it's worse than worthless as it just gets in the way.

Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous.

On the good side: The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L happens to be my favorite lens. Why? Because 1) it takes such beautiful photos and 2)  it covers the focal range (from 100) up to 500 and I use it for birding (or "cat-ing") almost always at 500mm. But on the bad side: The zoom is on the front of the long lens, where I don't want to support the weight of the long lens, and they make you have to release & re-position your hand to fully zoom between 100 to 500 - that's a lousy way to design a lens.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 30, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> Why on earth Canon could not place the control ring the same way on the RF 70-200 f2.8? Something tells me, that the second edition will correct this design oversight ....
> 
> Well, I should be happy, just few hours ago, we have ordered R5, RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, but I already kind of hate its reversed design. This new 70-200 f4 speaks the RF lens language, not so f2.8. Once the version 2 is out and corrects that, I'll immediately exchange that!





usern4cr said:


> Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision green lit all the way through to production. I tried to set the control ring to a function I might want to change, and then found that it started changing that function when I didn't want it to since there are too many similar rings on a zoom that you can't help but occasionally mis-set it. I have set the control ring function to NONE - not only is it worthless to me, but it's worse than worthless as it just gets in the way.
> 
> Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous.
> 
> On the good side: The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L happens to be my favorite lens. Why? Because 1) it takes such beautiful photos and 2)  it covers the focal range (from 100) up to 500 and I use it for birding (or "cat-ing") almost always at 500mm. But on the bad side: The zoom is on the front of the long lens, where I don't want to support the weight of the long lens, and they make you have to release & re-position your hand to fully zoom between 100 to 500 - that's a lousy way to design a lens.



This bugged me a bit too at first, but at first glance they are not consistent with the Zoom/Focus rings either (and the latter is not just on RF).
However I noticed that there is a consistency with the lenses up to this point (which helps me from being bugged by it, as it no longer seems random).

Lets assume all rings are place in their optimal spots according to the size & movement of the elements underneath to keep the overall size of the package as small as possible.
The 1 semi non-negotiable ring is the zoom ring, as that has a physical limitation of having to move elements... so lets say they place that first.
Next, the focus ring appears to be next to the zoom ring.
Last, the option ring appears next in line from the focus ring.

On most lenses the order from back to front is...
Zoom, Focus, Option... and without zoom it's Focus, Option.

On few of the zooms, they appear to switch it to...
Option, Focus, Zoom (so normal in reverse)
They appear to do this to keep the mechanical operation as close to the front zooming elements as possible, and I could see in this situation you really don't want the electronic rings to be in between the zoom ring and front element. Currently only the 70-200 F2.8 & 100-500 do it in reverse and I fully believe this is due to the long travel of the front element.

Last I pair the 70-200 F4 more with the 24-105 F4... which both match what appears to be their default ring layout (and are actually same size/shape to match). The 70-200 f2.8 was the outlier as described above and it would have been a shame to make the 70-200 f4 match it vs what they 'normally' do.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision green lit all the way through to production. I tried to set the control ring to a function I might want to change, and then found that it started changing that function when I didn't want it to since there are too many similar rings on a zoom that you can't help but occasionally mis-set it. I have set the control ring function to NONE - not only is it worthless to me, but it's worse than worthless as it just gets in the way.
> 
> Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous.
> 
> On the good side: The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L happens to be my favorite lens. Why? Because 1) it takes such beautiful photos and 2)  it covers the focal range (from 100) up to 500 and I use it for birding (or "cat-ing") almost always at 500mm. But on the bad side: The zoom is on the front of the long lens, where I don't want to support the weight of the long lens, and they make you have to release & re-position your hand to fully zoom between 100 to 500 - that's a lousy way to design a lens.



If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!


----------



## slclick (Jan 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!


Glass half full if you buy the adapter and use only EF glass. ALL of your control rings are in the same spot.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 30, 2021)

slclick said:


> Glass half full if you buy the adapter and use only EF glass. ALL of your control rings are in the same spot.



True...until you mount an RF lens. Then suddenly it's in the front...or maybe the middle, or the back, but not as far back.

As I am using a mix of lenses right now (and likely will be forever), this is a bit of an issue.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!


I never thought of that. An EF lens user could get used to using the adapter control ring as their normal ring, and when they choose to put on a RF lens (if they do) then they would now have only the RF control ring which could be in any of 3 friggin positions. So indeed there could be 4 positions to consider for them. Bravo, Canon!


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2021)

If you have so many RF lens that a slight change in a position of a ring is impossible to overcome then well...

A lens doesn’t have an “oversight” if you ever seen those videos or read articles about how gear is designed and made and thought out you know the lens you bu is the absolute best it can possibly be at the time it’s made .

everything has a reason. Everything is a compromise.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

Viggo said:


> If you have so many RF lens that a slight change in a position of a ring is impossible to overcome then well...
> 
> A lens doesn’t have an “oversight” if you ever seen those videos or read articles about how gear is designed and made and thought out you know the lens you bu is the absolute best it can possibly be at the time it’s made .
> 
> everything has a reason. Everything is a compromise.


Everything is a compromise? Well yes, _sometimes _...

... Canon chose _not_ to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them _nothing_. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses. 

Canon "_chose_" to not add that feature - there was no _compromise_ needed.


----------



## slclick (Jan 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> True...until you mount an RF lens. Then suddenly it's in the front...or maybe the middle, or the back, but not as far back.
> 
> As I am using a mix of lenses right now (and likely will be forever), this is a bit of an issue.


OK, so you had to take it back to where it all started with , well...what they started with which wasn't my point. It was a nonsensical full circle thing. Ok.....


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Everything is a compromise? Well yes, _sometimes _...
> 
> ... Canon chose _not_ to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them _nothing_. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses.
> 
> Canon "_chose_" to not add that feature - there was no _compromise_ needed.


Without knowing why they made the choice, I cannot comment on whether it was the right choice. But Canon are not know for catering to third party products and honestly it makes sense. On my 200 f2 I had one of those feet, where I could unscrew and replace the original Canon foot. Canon made it replaceable and it took one minute to change.

the sum of all Canon’s choices are why they are where they are today and why I enjoy their products. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Without knowing why they made the choice, I cannot comment on whether it was the right choice. But Canon are not know for catering to third party products and honestly it makes sense. On my 200 f2 I had one of those feet, where I could unscrew and replace the original Canon foot. Canon made it replaceable and it took one minute to change.
> 
> the sum of all Canon’s choices are why they are where they are today and why I enjoy their products. Your mileage may vary.


I'm not talking about unscrewing a foot and screwing in another foot you have to buy and lug around. All you have to do is to add two A.S. indentations to the bottom edges of the tripod foot you are already sending out with every long lens with a tripod foot - just like Olympus did. That's showing that you actually care about the photographer and choose to add significant value when there is absolutely no downside or extra cost. To ignore doing that is just showing you don't really care about making the user experience as good as it can possibly be. What's so hard to see about that? They're not perfect! But maybe if enough people bring things like to their attention then they can decide to be more considerate of their users in the future.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I'm not talking about unscrewing a foot and screwing in another foot you have to buy and lug around. All you have to do is to add two A.S. indentations to the bottom edges of the tripod foot you are already sending out with every long lens with a tripod foot - just like Olympus did. That's showing that you actually care about the photographer and choose to add significant value when there is absolutely no downside or extra cost. To ignore doing that is just showing you don't really care about making the user experience as good as it can possibly be. What's so hard to see about that? They're not perfect! But maybe if enough people bring things like to their attention then they can decide to be more considerate of their users in the future.



how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2021)

Viggo said:


> how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.


I just got a foot for my 100L Macro, I also need to buy a plate for it, something that in this day and age simply shouldn't be necessary, like windows in lens hoods to turn PL and variable ND filters, the bar has been raised and all new equipment should include these simple and obvious features.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Everything is a compromise? Well yes, _sometimes _...
> 
> ... Canon chose _not_ to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them _nothing_. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses.
> 
> Canon "_chose_" to not add that feature - there was no _compromise_ needed.


I'm not sure it would be nothing because for a big company like Canon to do it there might be a royalty or licensing fee as Arca Swiss do hold patents, but given the prices we pay, the Tripod Mount Ring D for the 100L Macro is $192, I am sure any licensing fee could be absorbed!


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

Viggo said:


> how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.


Well, a tiny 70-200 f4 shouldn't have a tripod foot in the first place! Does it come with one?

And as far as what lens people have when they put their camera on a tripod, I imagine people of all sorts and all lens types want to have the freedom to handhold their camera or put it on a tripod if they want to. So it will be a big deal for all those people who want to have the option to put their lens & camera on a tripod or not.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not sure it would be nothing because for a big company like Canon to do it there might be a royalty or licensing fee as Arca Swiss do hold patents, but given the prices we pay, the Tripod Mount Ring D for the 100L Macro is $192, I am sure any licensing fee could be absorbed!


It didn't occur to me that there might be a royalty fee. I guess that's possible - Thanks for the comment!

But if Olympus can do it on their long lenses (the 300mm f4 pro sells for a similar price as a RF 100-500L for example) then I don't see why Canon can't also do so. And if the royalty was really that much where it made a difference in the price of the lens, they could sell the lens without the tripod foot at a cheaper price and make the foot a separate purchase which then had the grooves (& royalty fee paid for) in it. I would have preferred that for the RF 70-200 f2.8L as I don't use the tripod foot anyway.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Well, a tiny 70-200 f4 shouldn't have a tripod foot in the first place! Does it come with one?
> 
> And as far as what lens people have when they put their camera on a tripod, I imagine people of all sorts and all lens types want to have the freedom to handhold their camera or put it on a tripod if they want to. So it will be a big deal for all those people who want to have the option to put their lens & camera on a tripod or not.


And what would be the issue mounting the RF 70-200 f4 with plate on the body?


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 31, 2021)

Viggo said:


> And what would be the issue mounting the RF 70-200 f4 with plate on the body?


Do you mean having the RF 70-200 f4 on the body, and the body with a A-S plate, which is mounted to the tripod with A-S clamp?
If so, then this is the normal way of doing it, since Canon (or all the others) has never put A-S grooves on the front & back edges of their camera bottom (which I also wish they would do, but that's for another day).

All of the above has nothing to do with the RF 70-200 f4L having it's own tripod collar and foot. Does it come with it in the box or not?! So what's your point?
If it doesn't come with one, then that lens has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which are the long lenses that DO come with a tripod collar & foot in the box, OK?


----------



## Fischer (Jan 31, 2021)

Saw a number of chart shoots comparing it with the latest EF model. At 70mm the EF was better. Both in the center and the corners. At 200m the RF was better. Both in the center and the corners. People typically use their long zooms most at the far end, so it better that way around. But do not expect and overall upgrade from the previous model (which I find surprising). Already have the RF 70-200mm 2.8 so no worry for me. But it would have been nice to be able to go lighter and smaller too. If this is confirmed I'm an unlikely buyer.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 31, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Do you mean having the RF 70-200 f4 on the body, and the body with a A-S plate, which is mounted to the tripod with A-S clamp?
> If so, then this is the normal way of doing it, since Canon (or all the others) has never put A-S grooves on the front & back edges of their camera bottom (which I also wish they would do, but that's for another day).
> 
> All of the above has nothing to do with the RF 70-200 f4L having it's own tripod collar and foot. Does it come with it in the box or not?! So what's your point?
> If it doesn't come with one, then that lens has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which are the long lenses that DO come with a tripod collar & foot in the box, OK?


And what was the title of this thread again?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 31, 2021)

I think one of a massive attractions with this new f4 lens and the recent f2.8 variant is the compressed size at the 70mm end. Sure it's a little slower in use than the ef versions with their constant size. However, both those EF lenses take up a lot of camera bag space when moving gear about. These two lenses aren't much bigger in a camera bag than a standard zoom and that's a massive consideration. I think that the RF mount has a few advantages for sure. I think the ability to use older EF lenses like a TS-e17L and mount a polariser or an ND filter in the EF to RF mount (optional) is another serious factor. However...the camera bodies and their apparent "still developing" AF system is the system's achilles heel at the moment.


----------



## Joules (Jan 31, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> But if Olympus can do it on their long lenses (the 300mm f4 pro sells for a similar price as a RF 100-500L for example) then I don't see why Canon can't also do so.


We don't know all the factors that contribute to Olympus fate and certainly there are many of them - but purely for the sake of argument pointing out that Olympus does something which Canon doesn't can't really be used as an argument for Canon to start doing it anymore.

I would also like to see an option for AS grooves on the collars, but the only long lens I own with a foot to begin with is my Sigma 150-600 mm C - which also does not have the grooves.

A few others things to think about:

My AS plates are getting some signs of wear from use with all the heavy equipment and some too hasty assemblies. I do prefer the optional attachment to wear down, rather than the first party accessory.

When brands like Sigma or Canon put a collar and foot in a lens, it likely weights more than a Olympus design with this feature. So the requirements for the manufacturing may be higher.

AS is not an official spec ( source) , it is just a rough dimension many accessories producers roughly target with their plates and clamps. But I don't think there even is an option to license it, so the height of this royalty isn't a factor. I rather believe Canon is not a fan of reverse engineering a spec that is not official and would prefer not to get in trouble if it turned out that their interpretation of the spec didn't match the one of some clamp manufacturer and gear was damaged due to incompatibility.

This lack of an official spec and license may also factor into considerations for marketing and legal documents. This could well contain aspects of Japanese law and copyright that we have no idea of, but Canon understands very well and believes the value added to certain customers is just not worth their perceived downsides.


----------



## Fischer (Jan 31, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision ...
> 
> Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous. ...



So true. I always check where the control ring is before I mount a lens, to avoid messing up.

Nitpicking, I am also no fan of the new lens and mount covers. Too difficult to set right without looking. They should have had some tactile guide like a small bump etc. Think the R 50mm came with an indent on the rear - not great btw but at least a try - so guessing Canon already knows its a bummer and will start addressing it.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 31, 2021)

Joules said:


> We don't know all the factors that contribute to Olympus fate and certainly there are many of them - but purely for the sake of argument pointing out that Olympus does something which Canon doesn't can't really be used as an argument for Canon to start doing it anymore.
> 
> I would also like to see an option for AS grooves on the collars, but the only long lens I own with a foot to begin with is my Sigma 150-600 mm C - which also does not have the grooves.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the thorough feedback. Maybe that's the reason they passed on putting A.S. grooves on their heavier lenses, and out of inertia they don't on their lighter weight lenses with a collar & foot.


----------



## mangobutter (Feb 2, 2021)

Still contemplating the RF 70-200 F4L. The small form factor and white hood are very tempting.

I'm hesitant, however, for the following reasons:

1) IQ. I saw a youtube review video online showing this lens to have weak 70mm performance wide open in the corners. 200mm looked good. I want to see more IQ tests.

2) IQ-2. I've found many times when Canon updates to an RF version of a similar EF lens, the RF version is sharper but has worse bokeh--such as the RF 85 Macro vs the 30-year old EF. The EF has noticeably smoother background. I'm hoping that isn't the case here. I've seen a couple review photos where the bokeh wasn't that smooth. Outlier, or just a really harsh BG, not sure. Will need to see more testing.

3) No teleconverter capability. I use my current EF 70-200 F4 Version 2 with a 1.4x and it gives nice results. Absolute bummer these lenses don't have TC capability. I know it's due to the size... but I'm losing out on essentially a 300mm lens. I was out shooting over the weekend and got shots I wouldn't have otherwise been able to get without 200mm+ capability. Yeah I thought of just keeping both lenses if I get the RF.

4) Price. $1600 is a hell of a lot (for an F4 zoom). So I'm contemplating at this point, why not spend the extra $1000 and get the 2.8 version.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 2, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> Still contemplating the RF 70-200 F4L. The small form factor and white hood are very tempting.
> 
> I'm hesitant, however, for the following reasons:
> 
> ...


If bokeh is a big concern of yours, and you can tolerate a bit more weight & size and the cost, I'd suggest you get the RF 70-200 f2.8L version. It's really great. But in all fairness, I have not used the f4L version and so YMMV.


----------



## mangobutter (Feb 2, 2021)

Yeah I am not really referring to amount of bokeh, but mostly quality of bokeh. I'm past the thin DOF bandwagon already. I just don't want harsh looking stuff. I understand it's an F4 zoom and it won't be winning any awards, but as long as it's not bad or distracting, I can live with it. My original cheapo 70-200 F4L (non IS) would take fantastic headshots at F4 with totally smooth BGs. If anyone can post samples up that would be great. not too many up yet


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 2, 2021)

So, I made a big list about why I may get the f4's _*at some point*_ and that was for lightweight travel. However I think I have another reason to get the f4 trinity. And that is specifically for travel in areas where I don't want to draw attention. I am a bit worried that the 2.8's draw a little too much attention (good thing I don't have the 28-70 ) and the 100-500 is a head turner. So may use the f4's to keep good quality w/ a smaller form factor. The recent robbery post has me thinking about that. It's not like I didn't need a good excuse to get the f4's.

[Edit] - Crap, forgot it was white. Why did they do that... it would have been a perfect sleeper paired with the other f4.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 3, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I have the RF 70-200 f2.8L and it is a wonderful lens. Also compact and relatively light. Since you want to add a 70-200 for *portrait use*, I would _*strongly*_ suggest you get the f2.8 version instead of the f4 version as that's the most useful reason IMHO to get the bigger aperture in that focal range. But if you shoot your indoor portraits at f5.6 then you won't be getting the f2.8 benefit. For anything outdoors where you do want a nice background blur, I'd strongly suggest the f2.8 version as well, but that's just my opinion. But if you mainly want outdoor landscape shots instead of portrait shots then the f4 version would be fine and more portable. Also f4 at 200mm will still give you enough background blur where you'd probably be happy, but just not as much as f2.8.


In a perfect world you are right, the 2.8 is a gem and as said my EF 2.8 IS mk1 was a trusted companion in studio and outdoors for over 10 years. I later tried the EF 4.0 L IS mk2 but it was disappointing in that while it was much lighter it was barely more compact. The RF offering adds an element of compactness to the f:4 design, 26mm (1 inch) shorter and 7mm less in diameter. The humbling truth is that the metric that may matter most to me is the price differential, $1,000, between excellent and perfect.


----------



## GMAX (Feb 4, 2021)

Received mine today. Tiny little thing for special usecases (Travel, street, landscape) Will keep my EF 2.8 II, but this one is just amazing (by size) Hope picture quality will stand on par, not yet tested


----------



## JoeDavid (Feb 4, 2021)

GMAX said:


> Received mine today. Tiny little thing for special usecases (Travel, street, landscape) Will keep my EF 2.8 II, but this one is just amazing (by size) Hope picture quality will stand on par, not yet tested



I received one today as well. I won't get to do too much with it until the weekend but I did take a couple of shots with it on an R5. It looks like it is sharp wide open like the other RF L lenses and the lighter weight is very nice compared to the f2.8 version. If I don't need the extra stop, this looks like the "go to" 70-200mm but I'll have to do more comparisons first. One thing to note is that Adobe doesn't have a lens profile for it yet. There appeared to be some vignetting at 70 but from around 100 on up there was very little to none.


----------



## filmmakerken (Feb 7, 2021)

Mine arrived today. It's beautiful. 
It's only slightly bigger and heavier than the EF 17-40mm f4...about the same when I put the EF to RF adapter on the 17-40.
I haven't put it through any real testing yet.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Feb 12, 2021)

I got mine too, super sharp, super fast, portable. Frankly the bokeh is very pleasing. Frankly a major step forward in technology. Will fully test next week in a three days shooting. But I am not into wedding, or my work is not involving often portraits, so need for me to get the 2.8


----------



## hawkjody (Feb 13, 2021)

Got mine - WOW - this lens is Very light and portable - only a few mm longer the an the 24-105. But lighter - very good feel in the hand - ( attended to my R5) - have left it attached all week shooting random scenes as well as some test patterns at different focal lengths and F-stops to evaluate sharpness - - Looking Pretty Da__n Good ! The animal tracking (photographing the dog in the yard running around) is spot on. Since I’m 90+% a landscape photographer don’t miss the F2.8 at all -


----------

