# Here are the Canon RF 1.4x and Canon RF 2.0x teleconverter specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 6, 2020)

> Canon announced the development of the RF 1.4x and RF 2.0x teleconverters alongside the EOS R5 a few months ago and will be officially announced on Thursday.
> *Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter specifications:*
> 
> 7 elements in 4 groups
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 6, 2020)

So not compatible with all RF lenses as previously rumored? Well that did seem to good to be true.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 6, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> So not compatible with all RF lenses as previously rumored? Well that did seem to good to be true.



I don’t think that was even a CR0 worthy rumor. Just pure wishful thinking by some people.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

I did hope they would somehow work with the 70-200 F2.8!


----------



## Fast351 (Jul 6, 2020)

I wonder if these will work with EF lenses by putting the RF-EF adapter on the teleconverter instead of the body.


----------



## Stuart (Jul 6, 2020)

2x the RF 800mm f/11 - 1600mm - wow, but for how much £ but f22 ?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I did hope they would somehow work with the 70-200 F2.8!




I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible.

It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.

We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible. 

(edit: the above was soundly corrected by everyone below -- I haven't had a good look at that RF 70-200 yet.) 

No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?

- A


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible. It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.
> 
> We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible. No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?



Looking at the rearmost element of the RF70-200 and the frontmost element of the RF extenders doesn't make me think "That's possible!". Unless you drill a 2cm hole in the RF70-200.


----------



## swblackwood (Jul 6, 2020)

So can we assume that on the super telephoto lenses, it fill be MF only?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Looking at the rearmost element of the RF70-200 and the frontmost element of the RF extenders doesn't make me think "That's possible!". Unless you drill a 2cm hole in the RF70-200.




Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste. 

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?

- A


----------



## Besisika (Jul 6, 2020)

Stuart said:


> 2x the RF 800mm f/11 - 1600mm - wow, but for how much £ but f22 ?


can you still autofocus at f22?
Interesting concept. It is small enough for handheld shooting, but at 1600mm and f22, you will still need a tripod at midday.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

swblackwood said:


> So can we assume that on the super telephoto lenses, it fill be MF only?



Well, Canon did put in STM motors, it would be sad if they sat there unconnected.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.
> 
> Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?



I don't know the why or the how, just saying that with a lens that has an element sticking *into* the body and an extender with an element sticking *out* of the body, hoping for compatibility takes some serious blind faith.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.
> 
> Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?
> 
> - A



We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.
> 
> Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?



Allowing large rear elements close to the sensor is one of the primary selling points of the RF mount design, and the 70-200mm is designed to exploit that. Evidently Canon believes that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage of being incompatible with extenders.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 6, 2020)

Here's me hoping that the 100-500 and the 1.4 performs as well as the 100-400 and 1.4 currently living on my EOS-R.

Here's even more hoping that the new 2.0 is better than the last one.


----------



## CJudge (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.
> 
> Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?
> 
> - A


The only way I can see the RF 70-200 2.8 working with a TC is if they release an alternate version of the TCs designed to work with lenses that have rear elements closer to the sensor. But I don't really imagine that happening...


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.


There are some disadvantages beyond simple cost. For instance, I personally take photos of wildlife and, to a lesser extent, landscapes. I often go on long hikes with lots of climbing, which sometimes means making a tough choice regarding which of my lenses to bring with me for the day if I can't bring them all. Back in the olden days (pre-COVID), when travel was allowed, I also brought my equipment on small planes with (ridiculously) small size and weight luggage allowances (thank goodness for travel photo vests with large pockets ).
When having to make choices regarding which equipment to bring, a 70-200 with TCs is a very strong contender against a 100-400 or 100-500, as the ability to not use the TCs opens up the benefits for low light and shallow DOF, and the ability to use them helps with reach when needed (which is often). Not having that TC option makes the applications of the two lenses completely different, meaning you are more likely to "need" both. Totally fine when size and weight (and money) are not an issue, but arguably a major drawback for those of us who are carrying gear around for hours on end and who are sick of arguing with airport check in staff about why we refuse to put items made of glass in our checked luggage.


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

Just took a look at the rear element on the RF70-200. Assuming this photo of the teleconverters is accurate, I'm going to assume, these aren't compatible.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.




I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).

- A


----------



## dichterDichter (Jul 6, 2020)

is the rear element of the 70-200 RF fixed or is it moving when zooming?


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> is the rear element of the 70-200 RF fixed or is it moving when zooming?



Fixed


----------



## TheJanster (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible. It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.
> 
> We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible. No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?
> 
> - A


That would be a major disappointment! A big part of the attractiveness of a 2.8 telezoom is to be extendable. Anyway that was a fixed consideration / the planned next investment step for my 70-200.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 6, 2020)

I'm intrigued by the 800mm lens. I've never had success with the 2.0x TC, so with a 1.4x, we're at f/16, right? Paint me skeptical, but I've gotten very few acceptable shots at f/22, but f/16 has worked for me. The other, perhaps bigger concern, is locking on to an image at 1120mm. When I put my 2x onto my 100-400 (or my 1.4x onto my 200-600mm), I often struggle to find my target in the vf an this is at 800-840mm. BIF is even harder. Now pushing out to 1120mm (I'm not thinking about 1600mm), it strikes me that BIF photography will take skill why beyond my abilities even if the IQ is good. 

If the reviews are positive, I will probably hold off on TCs until I've mastered 800mm and then think about whether increasing my reach will provide enough of a gain to justify the purchase of a TC.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Fixed



It may not move when zooming, but doesn’t the rear group move when focusing? If so, they could limit the MFD in firmware when the TCs are attached. If not, then I guess we’re SOL (short of an unlikely collapsing TC design).


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).
> 
> - A



I swung the opposite way. The 100-400 II made using the 70-200 with TCs obsolete. The 100-400 II is lighter and handles easier than the 70-200 + TCs, and prevented a lot of TC swaps.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

On average for a 50 Mpx sensor, decreasing the aperture from f/11 to f/22 decreases MTF50 and higher values by ~40%. So doubling the focal lengths of the f/11 lens by adding a 2xTC will double the resolution due to length and then halve it by diffraction and image degradation by the TC. In other words, more pixels on target but no increase in resolution.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Fixed


I just tested it. It moves.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> There are some disadvantages beyond simple cost. For instance, I personally take photos of wildlife and, to a lesser extent, landscapes. I often go on long hikes with lots of climbing, which sometimes means making a tough choice regarding which of my lenses to bring with me for the day if I can't bring them all. Back in the olden days (pre-COVID), when travel was allowed, I also brought my equipment on small planes with (ridiculously) small size and weight luggage allowances (thank goodness for travel photo vests with large pockets ).
> When having to make choices regarding which equipment to bring, a 70-200 with TCs is a very strong contender against a 100-400 or 100-500, as the ability to not use the TCs opens up the benefits for low light and shallow DOF, and the ability to use them helps with reach when needed (which is often). Not having that TC option makes the applications of the two lenses completely different, meaning you are more likely to "need" both. Totally fine when size and weight (and money) are not an issue, but arguably a major drawback for those of us who are carrying gear around for hours on end and who are sick of arguing with airport check in staff about why we refuse to put items made of glass in our checked luggage.



Lucky for you, you still have that choice. RF adapter + EF TCs + EF 70-200. I never traveled with both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I chose one or the other. For indoor events or portraits 70-200, but when I traveled or shot outdoor sports, the 100-400 won out every time.

The 70-200 III is about 8 in and 3.5 lb. The 2x TC brings adds 0.8 lb and about 2 in and the 1.4x TC adds 0.5 and about 1 in. So you'd be carrying 4.8 lb instead of the new RF 100-500, which is 3 lb and gives you an additional 100mm at the long end. I'd much prefer lugging the RF 100-500 on hikes rather than a 70-200 with TCs. When only the original 100-400 was available, I stuck with the 70-200 and the TCs and skipped the 100-400, but the 100-400 II had much better IQ, weighed less, required less swapping and handled a lot better than the 70-200 + TCs ever did. If weight was a primary driver and I wanted to get to 400mm or more, then the 100-400/100-500 would win every time. So yes, I think the primary differentiator is cost for most travel scenarios. 15-35 or 16-35, a midrange zoom or a 50mm prime, and a telephoto (100-400/100-500) is about as a light as you get while covering a huge focal length range.

Personally, my experience with the 70-200 with TCs was that 1.4x was OK, but I avoided the 2x. It was comparable to the original 100-400 but couldn't match the 100-400 II. From time to time, I'd use the 1.4x with the 100-400 II, but again, I avoided the 2x. The 2x seems to perform "better" on the great whites which are even sharper than the 70-200/100-400 zooms. If Canon were to retain compatibility with the TCs for the 70-200, then I think the RF version would have been similar in size and weight to the EF 70-200 III or the Sony 70-200 GM. The distinguishing features of the RF 100-500 are its extended range and its weight relative to the its EF counterpart. The distinguishing features of the RF 70-200 are its reduced size and weight. For event/sport photographers using multiple lenses and bodies at the same time, the compact nature of and reduced weight of the RF 70-200 outweighs its incompatibility with TCs. If one travels with both 70-200 and 100-400, then again the RF solution wins in size and weight. The scenario where RF doesn't win outright is the one you picked, but that option still remains to you on the R system if you use adapted EF glass.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I just tested it. It moves.



Technically, the TCs could be used on the 70-300L but only at the longer focal lengths. I tried it for the novelty of it, but it's not a good solution worrying about marking/damaging the rear element of the lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 6, 2020)

Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Technically, the TCs could be used on the 70-300L but only at the longer focal lengths. I tried it for the novelty of it, but it's not a good solution worrying about marking/damaging the rear element of the lens.


Yeah, it leaves the door open for the RF 70-200 to work with the TC's, but I'm done speculating. Just wait til Thursday when all will be set in stone. I kinda went on a rollercoaster hoping to use TC's with the RF 70-200, then seeing the initial leaked images which ruled out that configuration. That got me lusting for the 100-500. Then we get a rumor saying they will work with all lenses which got my hopes up again. Now I'm back to mentally preparing myself to save up for the 100-500.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 6, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


I think it goes without saying it wouldn't be as good. It's for those who don't have the budget or want to spend another ~$3K, but would like to have extra reach.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

Anyone else notice that the installed lengths of the RF TCs are shorter than the EF TCs? RF 2x TC saves about 1 cm, and RF 1.4x saves about 0.5 cm.... Not huge, but welcome. Too bad the weight didn't decrease...

I am curious as to why the 2x is being released now. Does Canon really expect people to use it with the 100-500 or the f/11 lenses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to release the TCs with the supertelephoto primes?


----------



## filmmakerken (Jul 6, 2020)

Are we sure these photos are accurate? They're the same photos as we got with the original rumor some months ago. They may be an artist rendering based on assumptions about the RF mount. Shallower protrusions would enable use with RF 70-200mm.
Look at the EF 1.4X. That protrusion looks shallow enough. A similar form factor in the RF model should work with most RF lenses.



Canon would be crazy to introduce teleconverters that only work with some lenses.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 6, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.



I'm not complaining about the lack of TC compatibility with the new RF 70-200, but I will say that you could get some decent shots with the EF 70-200 II while magnified. Here's a couple, one with the 2x, and one with the 1.4x. In the case of the nuthatch at 2x, I needed to use my 100-400 II on something else, and this was handy to be able to install the 70-200 + 2x III as a remote unit on an intervalometer. In the case of the squirrel, it was shot by hand with the 1.4x TC III (and therefor I got to choose the focus point). 

I always preferred my 100-400 II in these cases, but there were reasons why having the option were useful occasionally.

https://adobe.ly/3fhMnb7


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Anyone else notice that the installed lengths of the RF TCs are shorter than the EF TCs? RF 2x TC saves about 1 cm, and RF 1.4x saves about 0.5 cm.... Not huge, but welcome. Too bad the weight didn't decrease...
> 
> I am curious as to why the 2x is being released now. Does Canon really expect people to use it with the 100-500 or the f/11 lenses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to release the TCs with the supertelephoto primes?



Yeah, but then it would have made sense to release the 5-series-level body with the pro lenses last year too, no? 

I think often the release timing has more to do when things are ready with Canon of late. I doubt there is a business school professor somewhere using Canon's release schedule as a case study in exemplary system roll-out.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Yeah, but then it would have made sense to release the 5-series-level body with the pro lenses last year too, no?
> 
> I think often the release timing has more to do when things are ready with Canon of late. I doubt there is a business school professor somewhere using Canon's release schedule as a case study in exemplary system roll-out.



Agreed. I just wonder how many question Canon is going to field for people complaining about performance when attaching the new TCs to the f/11 lenses. I would have just liked to see another RF lens or two rather than the TCs.


----------



## snappy604 (Jul 6, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


Great is always subjective  .. as others indicated, sometimes when you travel and space is an issue 70-200 + TC is a better option than two large lenses. Correct the quality isn't same, but getting a shot is better than not at all because you left you other lens at home. This was a decent example with 70-200 2.8 v1 and 1.4x tc v1. Had to downsample to upload here. This is 280mm on a Canon 80D (so also 1.6x)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).
> 
> - A



You see? Good marketing decision from Canon. Now you will be forced to buy the 100-500


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 6, 2020)

I was planning on getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 because it was such an awesomely reviewed lens (including the teardown of it) and good for portraits as well as landscapes. But I'd also like to get the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for long telephoto and hopefully the RF 70-135 f2 in the future for even better portraits. But this gets me wondering if I would be better off just getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 and waiting for the RF 70-135 f2 and not getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 at all? Any suggestions regarding this?

I know that the size & weight of the 70-135 f2 are not known, but I'm hoping the weight of it is under 1,100 g. Is that hoping for too much?


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


I'm not complaining, but as a hobbyist I've appreciated being able to shoot at 400mm without putting my marriage through the stress of buying another piece of L glass. It's not the best tool for the job, but if I'm willing to accept some compromises related to autofocus and wide open sharpness, I can get good enough results. Are there shots I can't get with this combo? Of course. Do I wish I had a 500mm f4L? Other than the fact that I couldn't stick it in my everyday camera messenger bag, yes. Yes I do. But my kids can't eat camera lenses. And I do find it very convenient that by adding a little thing to my camera bag that shares a lens slot with a few other smaller items, I can add 400mm to the ability to shoot 70-200mm at f2.8.

Canon 7D w/ EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM ii + 2xiii, 400mm, f/11, 1/13s, ISO100


Canon 7D w/ EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM ii + 2xiii, 400mm, f/8, 1/40s, ISO100


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> I wonder if these will work with EF lenses by putting the RF-EF adapter on the teleconverter instead of the body.


It sure looks like it there would be space in the adapter for the protruding front elements.


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I did hope they would somehow work with the 70-200 F2.8!


Me too


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 6, 2020)

Thanks to those who did post some shots of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8 with an extender. Personally, I tried it with a 1.4 III but had pretty poor results. Hard to tell from what has been posted here, but they look better than I got.

Still, it isn't a heartbreaker for me.

On the other hand, official specs might delight those who are disappointed.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Lucky for you, you still have that choice.


Not if I prefer to use native glass, with all of its benefits... But yes, I could buy a bigger and heavier EF lens with the intent of only using it adapted on an RF body so that I preserve TC compatibility, even though the lens that I would much prefer to own already exists in RF mount. But it seems like a shame to do so when I know the RF lens would have been the perfect lens for me, if only it could take a TC.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


Why would the performance of an EF lens and EF teleconverter on an EF body be any indication of the performance we can expect out of a completely redesigned RF lens with new RF teleconverter on the latest and greatest RF body?
Given that the previously released 70-200 F/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. all take a TC, it's perfectly reasonable to hope that the new Canon lens will preserve this additional benefit and flexibility. Definitely not a dealbreaker for most, but something that some will consider when evaluating the pros and cons of each lens on offer in the RF system.


----------



## padam (Jul 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I know that the size & weight of the 70-135 f2 are not known, but I'm hoping the weight of it is under 1,100 g. Is that hoping for too much?


There is no patent anywhere at the moment, so it is questionable if they are making it at all.
There is a 70-130mm f2 patent for Sony mirrorless and that one looks massive, it can easily reach 2000g. It surely isn't going to be as 'light' as the 28-70 f2.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2020)

Let’s hope for outstanding lens quality! A new reference for converters!


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 7, 2020)

padam said:


> There is no patent anywhere at the moment, so it is questionable if they are making it at all.
> There is a 70-130mm f2 patent for Sony mirrorless and that one looks massive, it can easily reach 2000g. It surely isn't going to be as 'light' as the 28-70 f2.


Thanks for the feedback. It looks I'll probably want the RF 70-200 f2.8 and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1, and I guess if the 70-135 f2 is that heavy (and that sounds reasonable) then I doubt if I'd want it - I know I have a limit on lens weight and beyond a certain point I just won't bother to use it.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 7, 2020)

filmmakerken said:


> Are we sure these photos are accurate? They're the same photos as we got with the original rumor some months ago. They may be an artist rendering based on assumptions about the RF mount. Shallower protrusions would enable use with RF 70-200mm.
> Look at the EF 1.4X. That protrusion looks shallow enough. A similar form factor in the RF model should work with most RF lenses.
> View attachment 191154
> View attachment 191153
> ...


The RF TC photos are official photos that have been on Canon's own websites for months now...people need to just get it in their heads that these don't work with the RF70-200/2.8. In order to make the compact design they had to forgo TC use. 
Canon will happily sell you an EF 70-200/2.8 IS III, EF 1.4TCIII and an EF-RF adapter if you need TCs on your 70-200/2.8 lens....


----------



## Eclipsed (Jul 7, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Why would the performance of an EF lens and EF teleconverter on an EF body be any indication of the performance we can expect out of a completely redesigned RF lens with new RF teleconverter on the latest and greatest RF body?
> Given that the previously released 70-200 F/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. all take a TC, it's perfectly reasonable to hope that the new Canon lens will preserve this additional benefit and flexibility. Definitely not a dealbreaker for most, but something that some will consider when evaluating the pros and cons of each lens on offer in the RF system.


It seems that Canon have us a design miracle in the RF70-200. But not a second miracle for TC adaptability.


----------



## degos (Jul 7, 2020)

Billybob said:


> The other, perhaps bigger concern, is locking on to an image at 1120mm. When I put my 2x onto my 100-400 (or my 1.4x onto my 200-600mm), I often struggle to find my target in the vf an this is at 800-840mm.



It's easy enough with practise using a technique from the binocular / scoping community, which is to keep tracking the target by eye and raise the viewfinder into the line of sight without taking your eye off the target. Works reliably at silly magnifications.

Instead of finding the target with the lens you're aligning the lens with the target.

Alternatively you can buy red-dot finders for the hotshoe mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.


Yeah, I never got anything good with the 2X and my EF 70-200, no matter how hard I worked and hours of AFMA. The 1.4x was probably much better, but I never had one.


----------



## jurci2 (Jul 7, 2020)

Considering the fact that the TC's are white (and the 600/800 @f11 are not) we might expect tele lenses (with wide aperture) in a white lineup. Now the only white lens is the 100-500 that would be color-matching?


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2020)

jurci2 said:


> Considering the fact that the TC's are white (and the 600/800 @f11 are not) we might expect tele lenses (with wide aperture) in a white lineup. Now the only white lens is the 100-500 that would be color-matching?


Hopefully some DO primes and zoom lenses! But yes they will be new primes with RF!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 7, 2020)

Apparently these are the UK prices, including VAT:

100-500: £2,899
600mm: £699 
800mm: £929 
85 macro: £649


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 7, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Apparently these are the UK prices, including VAT:
> 
> 100-500: £2,899
> 600mm: £699
> ...



The f/11 lenses are a lot cheaper than I expected, the 100-500 is what I expected, the RF85 is 100 currencies more expensive than I thought.
But as my wife just pointed out "Cheap is not a good enough reason to buy an 800mm lens".


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 7, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Allowing large rear elements close to the sensor is one of the primary selling points of the RF mount design, and the 70-200mm is designed to exploit that. Evidently Canon believes that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage of being incompatible with extenders.



I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. I bought a 2x TC for the rare occasions I need 400mm, which means I'm not going to spend $2K+ on an RF 100-400mm lens. Not having a 70-200mm compatible with TCs puts me in an inconvenient position. At best, Canon is going to lose a TC sale I planned on.


----------



## Joules (Jul 7, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Apparently these are the UK prices, including VAT:
> 
> 100-500: £2,899
> 600mm: £699
> ...


Sweet. So much for those folks who would not believe my rational that the STM implies a sub 1000 € price for the primes.

For those wondering, the source is Nokishita. So CR4


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 7, 2020)

Might be tempted to buy either the 600 or the 800 mm, but ONLY if IQ is really good !


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 7, 2020)

CJudge said:


> The only way I can see the RF 70-200 2.8 working with a TC is if they release an alternate version of the TCs designed to work with lenses that have rear elements closer to the sensor. But I don't really imagine that happening...



The Sigma APO Teleconverter 1.4x EX DG hardly sticks beyond the mount, and Sony made teleconverters that didn't stick either.


----------



## CJudge (Jul 7, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The Sigma APO Teleconverter 1.4x EX DG hardly sticks beyond the mount, and Sony made teleconverters that didn't stick either.



I wasn't doubting the ability to create such a teleconverter, more just the impetus. How likely is Canon to release TWO sets of teleconverters, each compatible with different lenses?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 7, 2020)

CJudge said:


> I wasn't doubting the ability to create such a teleconverter, more just the impetus. How likely is Canon to release TWO sets of teleconverters, each compatible with different lenses?



Sounds reasonable enough. By the same logic, Canon is not likely to make another RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that is compatible with tele extenders.

Is the combo rare enough for Canon to pass? Weird.


----------



## Mike the cat (Jul 7, 2020)

I'm excited to see if the RF teleconverters have a noticeable improvement over their EF counterparts as far as IQ is concerned.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 9, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The Sigma APO Teleconverter 1.4x EX DG hardly sticks beyond the mount, and Sony made teleconverters that didn't stick either.


There were EF teleconverters that worked with any EF lens also. I have one. The image quality is dreadful.


----------



## fabao (Jul 9, 2020)

Oh, these teleconverters will only partially work with the new 100-500. Only from 300 mm and up. What a let down...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 9, 2020)

fabao said:


> Oh, these teleconverters will only partially work with the new 100-500. Only from 300 mm and up. What a let down...


I mean, even if you could, why would you use a TC on the lower range when all it would do is decrease image quality?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 9, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I mean, even if you could, why would you use a TC on the lower range when all it would do is decrease image quality?



Because it was easier to store without removing the TC every time you wanted to carry the camera/lens in your bag. If the situation is not convenient (or environmentally friendly to change lenses) because I might miss a shot, the TC stayed on.


----------



## fabao (Jul 9, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I mean, even if you could, why would you use a TC on the lower range when all it would do is decrease image quality?


You have an interesting point. But if the subject of interest moves closer to you, there may be no time to remove the TC. I was looking for flexibility. And I found the 1.4TC to not really degrade the image quality much, as opposed to the 2X one.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 10, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> There were EF teleconverters that worked with any EF lens also. I have one. The image quality is dreadful.



A) I don't know whether teleconverters that don't extend into the lens are, in general, dreadful.

B) Not having a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS that is compatible with teleconverters is a weird choice. A lens longer than 200mm will be bigger, heavier, and >4x the price of a 2x TC, and I'm not going to buy one.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 10, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A) I don't know whether teleconverters that don't extend into the lens are, in general, dreadful.
> 
> B) Not having a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS that is compatible with teleconverters is a weird choice. A lens longer than 200mm will be bigger, heavier, and >4x the price of a 2x TC, and I'm not going to buy one.



I think you can assume by the fact that Canon didn't do the new TCs in a way that works with the RF 70-200 that to do so would have been an unacceptable compromise.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 10, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I think you can assume by the fact that Canon didn't do the new TCs in a way that works with the RF 70-200 that to do so would have been an unacceptable compromise.



Unacceptable to whom? At this stage, I'm waiting to see if Nikon's Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S will accept TCs or not.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 11, 2020)

All I want is the new 1.4X teleconverter to be equal to or better than the one I currently own that is perma-mounted to my 100-400L II. 

I have delusions that I could buy the 100-500L and slap on the 1.4X or (gasp) the 2.0X and have instant relatively cheap REACH which birders can never have enough of..


----------



## Eclipsed (Jul 11, 2020)

jurci2 said:


> Considering the fact that the TC's are white (and the 600/800 @f11 are not) we might expect tele lenses (with wide aperture) in a white lineup. Now the only white lens is the 100-500 that would be color-matching?


Not exactly. The R bodies have a brushed silver mount ring as does the rear of the 100-500 for a perfect match. The TCs don’t have this color so don’t match either.


----------

