# Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 3, 2020)

> Here are the full specifications for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, I expect this lens to be announced later tonight.
> *Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM:*
> 
> 16 elements in 11 groups (including 4 UD elements)
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Rocksthaman (Nov 3, 2020)

We still sticking with $1299?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 3, 2020)

Size: 83.5mm / 3.28″ x 119mm / 4.68″
Weight: 695g / 1.53lbs

That's really impressing for such a lens.


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 3, 2020)

this will be my next buy. R6 + 70-200 f4 + EF/RF Adapter. i can't wait.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 3, 2020)

That lens is seriously light and decent mag ratio to go along as well.


----------



## speg (Nov 3, 2020)

Rocksthaman said:


> We still sticking with $1299?



nokishita vs. CanonRumors, let's gooo!


----------



## lethiferous (Nov 3, 2020)

It's not uncommon to get a 70-200 2.8 RF used for 2400 USA model. For reputable Grey market stores 2200-2300 isn't uncommon either. At 1600 for a wise shopper its a bit too much of an ask. I think 1400 would of been a better price point. I have the 100-500 but debating on a 70-200 pick up. At 1600, I will glady go buy a used RF 2.8 or just get a grey market 2.8


----------



## leadin2 (Nov 3, 2020)

This is impressive! I bought the RF f/2.8 version because of the reduced weight and size, and now this came out. Though I really like the f/2.8 but at 700g with that price tag, it is really tempting.
I am *******!


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 3, 2020)

> Minimum focusing distance: 0.6m



Thats nice! My old one had 1,2m I think.
Only 700g too!

Price tip: 1500€ or near to 1700€ Not those 1300$ here...
~1500€ would be around 50% of the f2.8


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 3, 2020)

Rocksthaman said:


> We still sticking with $1299?



I have corrected the post. I'm sorry about that.


----------



## Traveler (Nov 3, 2020)

The lens is incredible but I'm not the right customer since the price tag is 1600. I'll hope for a cheap telephoto for myself


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 3, 2020)

lethiferous said:


> It's not uncommon to get a 70-200 2.8 RF used for 2400 USA model. For reputable Grey market stores 2200-2300 isn't uncommon either. At 1600 for a wise shopper its a bit too much of an ask. I think 1400 would of been a better price point. I have the 100-500 but debating on a 70-200 pick up. At 1600, I will glady go buy a used RF 2.8 or just get a grey market 2.8



I agree about the price but i think most of the people will get the F4 version because it's smaller and lighter. 
Altough i expected the weight to be closer to 500g than 700. Its not that much lighter than the 2.8 version.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 3, 2020)

My current go to small telephoto lens is the EF 70-300L. This is smaller and lighter with the 70-300L at 1,050 g, 3.5" x 5.6". 

Well, fortunately, I am not traveling any place any time soon, but when I start traveling again, this may be too tempting as a second telephoto lens when traveling with a supertelephoto or just trying to travel light.


----------



## Joules (Nov 3, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Altough i expected the weight to be closer to 500g than 700. Its not that much lighter than the 2.8 version.


695 g vs 1070 g is quite a difference. The f/4.0 is only 65 % the weight of the f/2.8.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

LOVE that MFD! I could see just keeping mostly this on my R for travel, fun, family, plus put my "old" ef 35mm in a bag for wider. Wow!
But, with that price, and all the moves to mirrorless this past year, I can wait for another year, for NEXT black Friday. And just keep the 24-105 on the R for now!


----------



## Bruce Taylor (Nov 3, 2020)

What is the easiest route to take in securing the purchase of this product when it is released for sale? Back orders seem to be the order of the day.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 3, 2020)

I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 3, 2020)

Bruce Taylor said:


> What is the easiest route to take in securing the purchase of this product when it is released for sale? Back orders seem to be the order of the day.



When we tracked R5 shipments, B&H was among the slowest for fulfilling pre-orders. Adorama was much quicker in average delivery for some reason (they also had a fraction of the B&H orders reported, which might have been the key factor, if they both got similar inventory in). The Canon store did well, not as quick as Adorama at first, but was faster for later on-backorder orders. Not to say it'll be different this time.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

The specs seem to be terrific, pricing is yet again a pain in my wallet :/
At the moment, I own the absolute magnificent EF 100-400mm II and I'm going to keep it until the backorders have cleared and the MSRP´s drop. It'll probably take till 2022, but at one point I have to decide:

1. keep EF 100-400mm
2. get the RF 100-500mm (sell: EF 100-400mm)
3. get the RF 70-200mm (sell: EF 100-400mm)
4. get the RF 70-200mm and the RF 100-500mm Kind a love that option but my wallet hates it


----------



## JordanCS13 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joules said:


> 695 g vs 1070 g is quite a difference. The f/4.0 is only 65 % the weight of the f/2.8.


Yeah, but the EF 70-200/4 IS II is 52% the weight of the f/2.8 version. A similar size reduction would yield a weight of 565g... Still, it's a fairly lightweight lens.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> LOVE that MFD!...



Yup, same as the 2.8 version. Glad they did not compromise the MFD! Also keeping the 77mm filter thread bodes well for vignetting to match the 2.8 version stopped down to f4. Now here's hoping that they didn't need to use a large amount of software distortion correction – the 2.8 already has quite a bit.


----------



## lethiferous (Nov 3, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The specs seem to be terrific, pricing is yet again a pain in my wallet :/
> At the moment, I own the absolute magnificent EF 100-400mm II and I'm going to keep it until the backorders have cleared and the MSRP´s drop. It'll probably take till 2022, but at one point I have to decide:
> 
> 1. keep EF 100-400mm
> ...



Around May I bought a 100-400 II new from a private seller who got it from Adorama and never even took it out the box. I bought as I decided to get into birding. I sold it 2 weeks ago for 1500s locally (the copy was not even 1 year old by date code) because I got the 100-500. Expensive upgrade and I could of waited. However, I think EF glass prices will just go down, and RF glass prices aren't going to change much. As more people dump their EF glass to move to RF, there will be more on the market. All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so. Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.


----------



## HikeBike (Nov 3, 2020)

I'm not in a rush, but both of these will eventually join my gear set.


----------



## kaitlyn2004 (Nov 3, 2020)

Am I missing something? How come this lens is so much more expensive than the EF counterpart?


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 3, 2020)

Rocksthaman said:


> We still sticking with $1299?


I reckon £1400 and will it take or not take Canon's RF TC's ?


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 3, 2020)

kaitlyn2004 said:


> Am I missing something? How come this lens is so much more expensive than the EF counterpart?


It is shorter, has a stop or two more IS, and all the RF glass is more expensive because its new and popular. 

Assuming IQ is about the same as the EFs, but we won't know for sure until they hit the streets. I believe it also has a larger front element (or at least filter size), which may mean good things for the level of correction. The big thing for me was seeing the size comparisons posted in one of the other threads. Its basically the size of a 24-105 lens. So small! Amazingly small and very light. If I read the specs right, when fully collapsed it will be almost 3" shorter than my 70-200F4L IS V1 EF lens. Astounding. 

-Brian


----------



## felipeolveram (Nov 3, 2020)

$1599 is a little steep...


----------



## MiJax (Nov 3, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I reckon £1400 and will it take or not take Canon's RF TC's ?


Not a chance in.... well you know what I mean.


----------



## hawkjody (Nov 3, 2020)

Will the RF 1.4 and/or 2.0x extenders fit / work on the lens?


----------



## Hagar (Nov 3, 2020)

Pre ordered!


----------



## chasingrealness (Nov 3, 2020)

Ouch - I guess this makes sense since RF = requires financing.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Ouch - I guess this makes sense since RF = requires financing.



I resemble that remark, as I was debt-free before the R5 came out. Then I had to go buy a 15-35mm on top of that, and on top of THAT I bought a refurb 24-105 L (which came with an RP as an accessory). OK, gotta cool it now. Just hope the car doesn't break down (again) before I can pay it all off.


----------



## Swerky (Nov 3, 2020)

Photography is my hobby. I definitely don't need those beige L lenses. One time I had the crazy opportunity of picking up a used and very clean EF 70-200 f4 IS for 400$. That was a bargain. Used clean it still goes for 650 at least. Crazy sharp lens. But turned out to be a pain to bring along and carry around. Bought a large holster bag just for it. Finally sold it. Now this turns up. A compact RF version with half the close focusing distance and even lighter. 1600$. Canon should release an RF 24-70 f4 IS to go with it. I might go crazy when that happens.


----------



## mrfig (Nov 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


I'm pretty sure that they went with an external zoom to make it more compact. To have it be internal zoom the overall size would have to be at least the same as when this lens is fully extended at 200mm.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 3, 2020)

So almost the same as the 24-70 - Nice balanced set if running two bodies.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

lethiferous said:


> Around May I bought a 100-400 II new from a private seller who got it from Adorama and never even took it out the box. I bought as I decided to get into birding. I sold it 2 weeks ago for 1500s locally (the copy was not even 1 year old by date code) because I got the 100-500. Expensive upgrade and I could of waited. However, I think EF glass prices will just go down, and RF glass prices aren't going to change much. As more people dump their EF glass to move to RF, there will be more on the market. All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so. Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.


Be careful! Three years ago I almost got run out of town for saying this would happen _within five years._ 

And I never said it would be suddenly, like the prices going over a cliff. But it freaks people out who are holding EF glass, especially L glass, and who are sitting on the fence. (And that's why I started posting my concerns, because I had a brief panic, but fortunately the great majority of members here patiently put me at ease. Then I felt even better when I finally got my hands on an R and fell in love with Canon mirrorless.)

I still have a few EF lenses. The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 135mm f/2, and the ef 100mm L macro, which all work nicely on the Rf mount; and the original 70-200mm f/4, which I'm keeping for the 80D my kids will soon learn how to use. Plus I have an ef-s 24mm pancake for them. I don't plan to sell any of these, just use them until they can't be used anymore.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 3, 2020)

docsmith said:


> My current go to small telephoto lens is the EF 70-300L. This is smaller and lighter with the 70-300L at 1,050 g, 3.5" x 5.6".
> 
> Well, fortunately, I am not traveling any place any time soon, but when I start traveling again, this may be too tempting as a second telephoto lens when traveling with a supertelephoto or just trying to travel light.


I'm in the same situation. Maybe when I have more of a need for this lens it will be part of a rebate offer. Though giving up 100mm of reach won't be fun.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Be careful! Three years ago I almost got run out of town for saying this would happen _within five years._
> 
> And I never said it would be suddenly, like the prices going over a cliff. But it freaks people out who are holding EF glass, especially L glass, and who are sitting on the fence. (And that's why I started posting my concerns, because I had a brief panic, but fortunately the great majority of members here patiently put me at ease. Then I felt even better when I finally got my hands on an R and fell in love with Canon mirrorless.)
> 
> I still have a few EF lenses. The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 135mm f/2, and the ef 100mm L macro, which all work nicely on the Rf mount; and the original 70-200mm f/4, which I'm keeping for the 80D my kids will soon learn how to use. Plus I have an ef-s 24mm pancake for them. I don't plan to sell any of these, just use them until they can't be used anymore.


Used prices always march down. I suppose you could say Canon did us a favor by pricing the new stuff higher - that will have kept EF prices afloat somewhat. 

-Brian


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 3, 2020)

Swerky said:


> ... EF 70-200 f4 IS for 400$... ... A compact RF version with half the close focusing distance and even lighter. 1600$.


Half the focusing distance but not twice the magnification. It's very common for modern zooms to exhibit serious 'focus breathing', and that's definitely the case here. The EF 70-200/4L IS - MFD 1.2 m, 0.21x; RF 70-200/4L IS - MFD 0.6 m, 0.28x. I haven't done the full calculation but the RF lens is losing more than a third of its focal length at MFD. But that's the new normal - the EF 100-400L II is even worse, and so is the RF 100-500L. Does it matter? Only when getting physically closer is a problem, such as for certain wildlife. Otherwise just judge by the magnification and ignore the MFD.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

lethiferous said:


> All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so.


You're right about that! I was barely able to sell my EF 16-35 F4 for a decent price...BTW: that's why I am eagerly waiting on the RF 14-35mm F4 or anything similar. 



lethiferous said:


> Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.


 At the moment, I only use the EF 100-400mm with an adapter, so I never take it of and it doesn't bother me.

Jumping of board the EF glass and getting RF glass needs to happen in near future in order to get value for my equipment. But my question is this:

I bought the EF 100-400mm in 2019 for 1.520 € brand-new, out of the box. Getting the RF 100-500mm would mean an _*additional cost of 1.500*_ € at the moment (plus the money I lose on my sale...). 1.500 € plus X for just 100mm extra range? Yikes...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> You're right about that! I was barely able to sell my EF 16-35 F4 for a decent price...BTW: that's why I am eagerly waiting on the RF 14-35mm F4 or anything similar.
> 
> 
> At the moment, I only use the EF 100-400mm with an adapter, so I never take it of and it doesn't bother me.
> ...


I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.

While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE!


----------



## docsmith (Nov 3, 2020)

Dantana said:


> I'm in the same situation. Maybe when I have more of a need for this lens it will be part of a rebate offer. Though giving up 100mm of reach won't be fun.


True....I also wonder if, in a year or two, if we see a RF 70-300L that is also smaller and lighter. Then it goes back to the battle of extra stop of aperture vs extra 100 of focal length.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

docsmith said:


> True....I also wonder if, in a year or two, if we see a RF 70-300L that is also smaller and lighter. Then it goes back to the battle of extra stop of aperture vs extra 100 of focal length.


Are we going to see a 150 or 200mm-600mm f/4.5-5.g type of lens from Canon? I wonder if Sigma has an updated Rf version in the works? Or Tamron.


----------



## lethiferous (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.
> 
> I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.
> 
> While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE!


You forget the 100-500 also focus faster quite a bit on the long end and is sharper on the r5. I was not the only one who noticed this from those who moved up. I had both lenses for a while (2 weeks) and sold the 100-400.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Be careful! Three years ago I almost got run out of town for saying this would happen _within five years._
> 
> And I never said it would be suddenly, like the prices going over a cliff. But it freaks people out who are holding EF glass, especially L glass, and who are sitting on the fence. (And that's why I started posting my concerns, because I had a brief panic, but fortunately the great majority of members here patiently put me at ease. Then I felt even better when I finally got my hands on an R and fell in love with Canon mirrorless.)
> 
> I still have a few EF lenses. The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 135mm f/2, and the ef 100mm L macro, which all work nicely on the Rf mount; and the original 70-200mm f/4, which I'm keeping for the 80D my kids will soon learn how to use. Plus I have an ef-s 24mm pancake for them. I don't plan to sell any of these, just use them until they can't be used anymore.


If it follows what happened to FDn glass, EF glass will take a good hit, then the prices will firm up, then they will get expensive and even overtake some older RF glass.

I paid more for my last (secondhand) FDn 20-35 than I paid for my first EF 16-35 new. It’s all down to supply and demand, currently as buyers are seduced by new shiny things the supply of EF glass outstrips the demand, but it will even up again.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.


That's exactly what I am afraid of! 



YuengLinger said:


> I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm.


The EF 100-400mm balances perfectly with EOS R and BG. Without the BG its slightly too heavy up front. So far, no complaints from my side though. 



YuengLinger said:


> 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.


I am definitely not going to buy the extenders for RF Mount. It doesn't work on most lens and a 300-1000mm lens just seems useful for safaris only! What's the minimum focus distance on a 300mm plus lense anyway...

I am thinking about getting the extender for 100-400mm though to make up for the "missing 100mm" in comparison to the RF lese.



YuengLinger said:


> ...consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...


That's what I actually do/ use on my R. I works quite fine although the 10,7MP imagine lack some details imho. Probably have to compare pics taken with an extender vs. crop-mode.


----------



## zim (Nov 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


I agree for the RF f/2.8 (and it should have been able to take extenders) but I think they got the f/4 perfect!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

lethiferous said:


> You forget the 100-500 also focus faster quite a bit on the long end and is sharper on the r5. I was not the only one who noticed this from those who moved up. I had both lenses for a while (2 weeks) and sold the 100-400.


But is "quite a bit" worth an 1.500 $ upgrade? For professionals, no doubt, it is! But I'm more like an enthusiasts who will never earn his base salary by selling images or teaching the art of photography.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.
> 
> I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.
> 
> While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE!


Remember though, the crop mode doesn't actually increase the pixel density in any way. Its just cutting out a portion of the frame, giving you a smaller MP image. So there is no effective 'extra reach' - just a pre-cropped image for you to view. The APSc reach thing works because there are more pixels in the same area (the pixels are smaller than FF pixels). So when you display that image at 300dpi there are more pixels on that bird and it appears larger. When you crop the R5 or the R6, it will appear the same size as it would in the uncropped image, there is just less image around it. At the point at which FF pixel density equals that of APSc pixel density (getting close with the R5/7DII), the 'reach' advantage is gone from APSc. 

-Brian


----------



## lexptr (Nov 3, 2020)

Specs looks as great, as the lens itself! MFD is a bit of a bummer, as with f2.8 version. It is much shorter, than EF version has, but magnification just tad better. At least it is still better and not the same or worse. I guess such focus breathing is a characteristic of this external-zoom design. Any ways, overall it looks so cool (assuming IQ will not let down) that I want this lens without thinking whether I really need it  Going to get R5 and f2.8 version first and then try to think rationally about this one


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 3, 2020)

mrfig said:


> I'm pretty sure that they went with an external zoom to make it more compact. To have it be internal zoom the overall size would have to be at least the same as when this lens is fully extended at 200mm.


Of course you are correct, but I still prefer the other way. The weight doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Are we going to see a 150 or 200mm-600mm f/4.5-5.g type of lens from Canon? I wonder if Sigma has an updated Rf version in the works? Or Tamron.


With the 100-500L out, I don't think we will see anything like that from Canon, at least not for a while. There will be the lower end 100-400 that keeps coming up to replace the 70-300 non L EF lenses, but I doubt a 200-600 any time soon. I'm sure Tamron and Sigma are both reverse engineering the mount as we speak.

For me, the 100-300L is such a great size for what you get out of it. I'd consider an RF version if one comes out, but I'm not holding my breath. The fact that I can get it into both of my backpacks without taking up space lengthwise is a huge plus for me (even with the adapter, just barely). I know everyone's priorities are different. I almost bought the 100-400LII for a trip I was going on, but ended with the 100-300L and a Kenko 1.4 because of portability and my bank account.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Of course you are correct, but I still prefer the other way. The weight doesn't matter to me.


With 3 85's out, it wouldn't shock me if a fixed length 70-200 2.8 came out that could also use the new extenders. Maybe even slightly faster than 2.8, because size wouldn't be as much of an issue with the current version out there.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 3, 2020)

Bruce Taylor said:


> What is the easiest route to take in securing the purchase of this product when it is released for sale? Back orders seem to be the order of the day.


If you can figure out when the pre-release is and when the vendors will take preorders, then set your alarm clock and order the instant preorders open. I was lucky to get my R5 out of the first batch released and placed my order when preorders were started at 5am PST. They quickly sold out and it's been onesie twosies ever since. I got my RF 28-35mm f2.8 on Canon Camera Watch, no sales tax and shipped from Canada free with no import duties. Came with a full Canon warranty. If you have a B&H credit card, they will refund the sales tax assuming you pay it off the first month.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 3, 2020)

I don't see how anyone could conscience the $1599 price tag on this lens when you can get brand-new, recently released 1st and 3rd party EF glass (with equivalent specs) for $1299. Sure, you have to use an adapter, but if you went with Tamron or Sigma, you could even get f/2.8 _and_ IS for less than $1400.

Anyway, I'm not the audience for this one because I don't need my lens to be this small or lightweight, and I need more light-gathering than f/4 because I want to be able to easily shoot indoors.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

Dantana said:


> With 3 85's out, it wouldn't shock me if a fixed length 70-200 2.8 came out that could also use the new extenders. Maybe even slightly faster than 2.8, because size wouldn't be as much of an issue with the current version out there.



I like that thought. Maybe even a F2.0 Version with a little less reach? 70-170mm? I know that there is a rumors about a 70-135mm F2, but I have no clue (not an engineer) whether they could manage giving it more reach towards 150mm or 170mm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


Why? The teardown by Roger Cicala of the RF70-200m shows the engineering for both the weather proofing and image quality throughout the range. I am impressed with the shortness when storing/ travelling with it. The weight could have been slightly lower with an internal zoom but maybe not as the external shell would have needed to be longer. THe width is wider than an internally zoomed lens.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

hawkjody said:


> Will the RF 1.4 and/or 2.0x extenders fit / work on the lens?


I believe that they won't due to the external zoom design - similar to the RF70-200mm/2.8 lens that has its rear element close to the sensor. It is the only downside for the RF70-200mm/2.8 for me compared to the EF version where I had both ED1.4 and 2x TCs. I bought the RF100-500m and am very happy with the only regret being my hip pocket.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 3, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I don't see how anyone could conscience the $1599 price tag on this lens when you can get brand-new, recently released 1st and 3rd party EF glass (with equivalent specs) for $1299. Sure, you have to use an adapter, but if you went with Tamron or Sigma, you could even get f/2.8 _and_ IS for less than $1400.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not the audience for this one because I don't need my lens to be this small or lightweight, and I need more light-gathering than f/4 because I want to be able to easily shoot indoors.


I guess it's all a matter of opinion and what matters to you. I don't think $300 at release is that big of a premium to pay over the EF III. I don't have to use an adapter with it so that can stay on one of my other lenses, and I do need my glass to be small. I don't have the cash for this right now, but it's definitely on my list.

Luckily, there are lots of 70-200's out there if you count the Canon RF and EF versions, and 3rd party EF, so you have a lot to choose from and will most likely have more to choose from in the future, as more RF lenses roll out.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.
> 
> I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.
> 
> While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE!


With EF you have the choice of 100-400mm, 140-560 or 200-800mm with EF TCs and R mount adapter
With RF you have the choice of 100-500, 420-700, 600-1000mm with RF TCs
RF has a (almost) better native range than the EF version with/without 1.4TC. It is a 5 times zoom with great image IQ, and including the R mount adapter is shorter and much lighter
I don't really see the point of using the RF1.4x TC from a focal length perspective but with RF2x TC you go can go from 100-1000mm. I am sure that image IQ and focus speed will be different between RF1.4 and RF2x TCs though.
The crop mode doesn't increase pixel density - only cropability
I don't use the crop mode with my R5. I crop in post to give more composition choices. APS-C crop is around 17mp
A second hand EF100-400mm ii was hard to find in Australia and their pricing is still high. People are hanging on to them. The price difference of a new one including a EF 1.4x TC vs a discounted new RF100-500mm was a no-brainer for me.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> That's what I actually do/ use on my R. I works quite fine although the 10,7MP imagine lack some details imho. Probably have to compare pics taken with an extender vs. crop-mode.



Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?

Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?

Thanks! I'd like to know before I start using crop mode.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?
> 
> Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?
> 
> Thanks! I'd like to know before I start using crop mode.



To compute megapixels left after a crop factor, you have to square the crop factor.

For example, let's say the crop factor is exactly 2. You lose half the height and half the width; if your camera is 6000x4000, your cropped photo will be 3000x2000. The first number is 24 MP, the second is 6, you needed to divide by four (2x2), not 2.

But I am sure you knew this, I know you've been here a while, so what is it you were really asking?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> To compute megapixels left after a crop factor, you have to square the crop factor.
> 
> For example, let's say the crop factor is exactly 2. You lose half the height and half the width; if your camera is 6000x4000, your cropped photo will be 3000x2000. The first number is 24 MP, the second is 6, you needed to divide by four (2x2), not 2.
> 
> But I am sure you knew this, I know you've been here a while, so what is it you were really asking?


In fact I've been doing it wrong for a while. That's why I'm asking! I never paid attention to anything about crop factor when I owned the 5DIV and its predecessor!


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> If you can figure out when the pre-release is and when the vendors will take preorders, then set your alarm clock and order the instant preorders open. I was lucky to get my R5 out of the first batch released and placed my order when preorders were started at 5am PST. They quickly sold out and it's been onesie twosies ever since. I got my RF 28-35mm f2.8 on Canon Camera Watch, no sales tax and shipped from Canada free with no import duties. Came with a full Canon warranty. If you have a B&H credit card, they will refund the sales tax assuming you pay it off the first month.



If you can get to a brick and mortar shop sometimes they'll take a preorder before the official announcement if you put money down. That's how I got my R5 the first day.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If you can get to a brick and mortar shop sometimes they'll take a preorder before the official announcement if you put money down. That's how I got my R5 the first day.


I've found that stores will only do this if the product has already been formally announced.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> With EF you have the choice of 100-400mm, 140-560 or 200-800mm with EF TCs and R mount adapter
> With RF you have the choice of 100-500, 420-700, 600-1000mm with RF TCs
> RF has a (almost) better native range than the EF version with/without 1.4TC. It is a 5 times zoom with great image IQ, and including the R mount adapter is shorter and much lighter
> I don't really see the point of using the RF1.4x TC from a focal length perspective but with RF2x TC you go can go from 100-1000mm. I am sure that image IQ and focus speed will be different between RF1.4 and RF2x TCs though.
> ...


Ok, I'm wrong about the actual result of using crop mode. It is not an advantage, granted.

However, if I still had my 100-400mm I'd glady use it with the 1.4 extender I still own and be happy. It would not be worth selling to upgrade, in my opinion.

But I don't have any lens over 200mm at the moment, so I'm looking carefully at where to go from here. Something about the weight, AF, and IQ of the Sigma and Tamron keep me from going with one of them. The price of the new extender plus the Rf 100-500mm, and not being able to stow the lens as usual with the extender attached, or use it at less than 300mm, really bugs me. So I'll just keep thinking about it.


----------



## dominic_siu (Nov 3, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> You're right about that! I was barely able to sell my EF 16-35 F4 for a decent price...BTW: that's why I am eagerly waiting on the RF 14-35mm F4 or anything similar.
> 
> 
> At the moment, I only use the EF 100-400mm with an adapter, so I never take it of and it doesn't bother me.
> ...


Sad but true, EF definitely will end some time in the future, since I changed to EOS R 2 years ago I sold all the EF lenses and went for RF lenses. And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, I'm wrong about the actual result of using crop mode. It is not an advantage, granted.
> 
> However, if I still had my 100-400mm I'd glady use it with the 1.4 extender I still own and be happy. It would not be worth selling to upgrade, in my opinion.
> 
> But I don't have any lens over 200mm at the moment, so I'm looking carefully at where to go from here. Something about the weight, AF, and IQ of the Sigma and Tamron keep me from going with one of them. The price of the new extender plus the Rf 100-500mm, and not being able to stow the lens as usual with the extender attached, or use it at less than 300mm, really bugs me. So I'll just keep thinking about it.


Agreed that there is no compelling reason to sell your EF100-400mm which is why there are so few of them on the second hand market at anywhere near a reasonable price.
My RF70-200mm can't accept TCs so I didn't really have a choice except to get the RF100-500mm (we all have choices - but you know  )
The RF TCs are way overpriced. Similarish pricing to get a RF800/11 rather than add a RF1.4 TC and would be close to the same aperture. The RF1.4x TC would be smaller if stored separately from the RF100-500mm compared to a separate RF800 though.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Sad but true, EF definitely will end some time in the future, since I changed to EOS R 2 years ago I sold all the EF lenses and went for RF lenses. And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses


why not "fun"? I am really glad I can still use my EF lenses with my R5. There are no RF equivalents except the RF24-105mm. I haven't been caught out without my R mount adapter so far


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Nov 4, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I don't see how anyone could conscience the $1599 price tag on this lens when you can get brand-new, recently released 1st and 3rd party EF glass (with equivalent specs) for $1299. Sure, you have to use an adapter, but if you went with Tamron or Sigma, you could even get f/2.8 _and_ IS for less than $1400.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not the audience for this one because I don't need my lens to be this small or lightweight, and I need more light-gathering than f/4 because I want to be able to easily shoot indoors.



But it's not equivalent specs. Minimum Focus Distance, compact size, and possibly the 77mm filter size to match plenty of my other lenses, would all be reasons to get the RF version over the Canon EF version. Focus speed perhaps we don't know anything about it. Image stabilization? No desire to buy an adapter are possible other reasons where they are not the same spec wise.

As for Sigma and Tamron, Sigma and Tamron versions are always cheaper than Canon versions, so I feel like that cheaper price comparison decision doesn't work that well here. It already applied to their lenses vs the EF versions, and just continues to apply to the RF versions, and people have their reasons for sticking to the more expensive Canon versions, such as differences in image quality, focus speed, weight, and reversed zoom rings.


----------



## lethiferous (Nov 4, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> But is "quite a bit" worth an 1.500 $ upgrade? For professionals, no doubt, it is! But I'm more like an enthusiasts who will never earn his base salary by selling images or teaching the art of photography.


I'm not a professional, I am hobbyist. The 100-400 was the last piece of EF glass I had, so getting rid of the adapter and the 1.4x i had. So all in all my upgrade was really more in the 700 range after selling those 3 items.


----------



## CvH (Nov 4, 2020)

Both lenses have been announced on the Canon Australia website.









Canon brings two of its most popular lenses to the RF family


Continuing its commitment to providing mirrorless solutions for all photographers, Canon Australia is today pleased to announce that two of its most-loved EF lenses will now be available in RF form – the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.




www.canon.com.au


----------



## dominic_siu (Nov 4, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> why not "fun"? I am really glad I can still use my EF lenses with my R5. There are no RF equivalents except the RF24-105mm. I haven't been caught out without my R mount adapter so far


When I used EF 24-70 II on R before I got the RF28-70, although the EF2470 is very compact but when using adapter it protruded quite a lot and make it imbalance


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> When I used EF 24-70 II on R before I got the RF28-70, although the EF2470 is very compact but when using adapter it protruded quite a lot and make it imbalance


No doubt that mirrorless' size reduction hasn't helped ergonomic balance (or thermal transfer).


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2020)

Lenses have been announced on Canon Australia's website and Digidirect has the 50mm for AUD349 and the RF70-200mm/f4 for AUD2699. The latter cheaper than the AUD3k that others had predicted. ~USD220 and USD1700 respectively ex tax. 
https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm-lens
https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8-stm-lens
Canon Australia's RRP (recommended retail price) is AUD 389 and AUD3079 respectively.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 4, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?
> 
> Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?



I took the information from the Canon.de site in Germany, although I remembered the number incorrect. It is stated that in Crop Mode the EOS R produces 11.6 MP pics. 

Here is a quote from imaging-resource in English. I couldn't the equivalent text on the US Canon site at a fast glimpse. 
"The Canon R has a 1.6x crop mode which produces 11.6-megapixel files and supports JPEG, RAW and C-RAW capture."
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-r/canon-eos-rA.HTM 

I don't actually know how one calculates the size of crop pictures but I was told by a canon academy photographer that one cannot exactly calculate them because the pixels aren't evenly distributed over the entire sensor. So there is no linear calculations. The example he provided was a comparison between the crop-mode EOS R (11.6 MP in crop, 30.3 MP in full-frame mode) and the Sony 7RIV (26 MP crop, 61 MP full frame) If you calculate the pixels of the cropped image from one camera and transfer the formula to the next camera, the calculation won't match the actual pixel size of the cropped image.

Maybe there's somewhere here who can give you a detailed explanation. I unfortunately can't.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 4, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses



That's why I sold my EF 16-35mm F4...


----------



## Joules (Nov 4, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I was told by a canon academy photographer that one cannot exactly calculate them because the pixels aren't evenly distributed over the entire sensor. So there is no linear calculations.


I think something must have caused a misunderstanding in that exchange. The formula for calculating the resolution of a cropped section is not linear, that is correct.

Total resolution / (crop factor^2)

But it would be news to me if the pixels weren't evenly distributed across the sensor (Unless you want to consider the missing ones in Sony sensors). Also, the example doesn't seem to relate to this aspect. What may of course be relevant when comparing different cameras is the actual sensor size. Or what 'crop mode' means exactly in bodies from different manufacturers. On a Canon, I would expect it to mean 1.6 crop, on a Sony 1.5 for example (that is just my expectation, haven't looked this up).


----------



## Viggo (Nov 4, 2020)

I see videos of Vanessa Joy playing with the 70-200 and it has been announced and nothing nowhere? What’s up?


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 4, 2020)

this lens is cool but the Price difference looks different in Europe. 1.755€ for the f4 and 2777€ for the f2.8. currently you get cashback for the 2.8 so after cashback its 2547€. A price around 1300€ would have been awesome, 1500/1600€ woul be ok but that tends to be expensive. I thought about getting the f4 and a 85mm but now im thinking about getting only the 2.8.


----------



## Nigel95 (Nov 4, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> That's why I sold my EF 16-35mm F4...


Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 4, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.



The lens works really well with an adapter, no doubt about it. Image quality is great, it is sharp and only noticed difference in image quality when I shot the night sky (Milky Way) and compared the pictures with some taken with the RF 24-105mm. Autofocus was very reliable. 

What bother me was: 
When the lense was attached to the adapter it didn't fit in its designated pocket in my backpack (mind shift Backlight 26l) so had I to take it off every single time. Furthermore, I hated switching the adapter between two lenses (actually three at that time) so I decided to keep only one EF lense. 

Last but not least: 
The EF 16-35mm is moderately compact imho, but with the adapter it just lost that kind of feeling for me. On the EF 100-400mm I really don't notice having it attached to the adapter. 

So, to sum up: 
Selling the lense was just based on personal feelings on how to handle the equipment, not based on performance issues of the EF 16-35mm


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 4, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don't actually know how one calculates the size of crop pictures but I was told by a canon academy photographer that one cannot exactly calculate them because the pixels aren't evenly distributed over the entire sensor.


Well, that's just not true.



Exploreshootshare said:


> So there is no linear calculations. The example he provided was a comparison between the crop-mode EOS R (11.6 MP in crop, 30.3 MP in full-frame mode) and the Sony 7RIV (26 MP crop, 61 MP full frame) If you calculate the pixels of the cropped image from one camera and transfer the formula to the next camera, the calculation won't match the actual pixel size of the cropped image.


Maybe what he was trying to explain was that Canon's crop factor is 1.6x, but Sony's is 1.5x (same as Nikon), so the same MP full frame sensor would have a different MP count in crop mode.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Well, that's just not true. [..]



If the Canon person was talking about the bands of masked pixels, he was right. AIUI the left and bottom sides have masked pixels used for calibration, which is where the "32MP, 31.2 effective MP" bits come from. You 'gain' a few pixels when cropping, since there are no masked pixels inside the cropped frame.

Practically speaking: that makes no difference, just divide by 1.6² and be happy


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 4, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> You're right about that! I was barely able to sell my EF 16-35 F4 for a decent price...BTW: that's why I am eagerly waiting on the RF 14-35mm F4 or anything similar.


A friend has recently sold three EF lenses to raise funds for an R5, and got a fair price for all three. Reasonably quickly too.



Exploreshootshare said:


> At the moment, I only use the EF 100-400mm with an adapter, so I never take it of and it doesn't bother me.
> 
> Jumping of board the EF glass and getting RF glass needs to happen in near future in order to get value for my equipment. But my question is this:
> 
> I bought the EF 100-400mm in 2019 for 1.520 € brand-new, out of the box. Getting the RF 100-500mm would mean an _*additional cost of 1.500*_ € at the moment (plus the money I lose on my sale...). 1.500 € plus X for just 100mm extra range? Yikes...


Taken together, the cost of upgrading from my 5D4 + 100-400 to the R5 plus 100-500 was huge, but the benefits are pretty big too. 25% more optical reach, plus about 22% more (linear) sensor resolution, which multiplies up to more than *2.3x* the number of 'pixels per bird'. That vastly increases the usefulness of the combination and gives me a real alternative to carrying a big white prime for many situations. And if that's still not enough, the combination is a full pound (450 g) lighter! It's hard to imagine how different that feels until you have them side by side to compare.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> If the Canon person was talking about the bands of masked pixels, he was right. AIUI the left and bottom sides have masked pixels used for calibration, which is where the "32MP, 31.2 effective MP" bits come from. You 'gain' a few pixels when cropping, since there are no masked pixels inside the cropped frame.


That is also not true. The crop factor is applied _after _the masking of pixels outside the effective sensor area is taken into account - so it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> That is also not true. The crop factor is applied _after _the masking of pixels outside the effective sensor area is taken into account - so it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.



In that case I have no idea what the Canon person was talking about.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> In that case I have no idea what the Canon person was talking about.


Nor do I


----------



## Tony Bennett (Nov 4, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.


I don't have this lens but have the 16-35 L III and it works exactly as expected on my R and R5 with the adapter.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Practically speaking: that makes no difference, just divide by 1.6² and be happy



Thx, now I finally know how to calculate the pixel on crop mode  That's been driving me nuts ever since I got the R last year. I couldn't read it up anywhere and apparently even the Canon guy was wrong.


----------



## mpeeps (Nov 4, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> With EF you have the choice of 100-400mm, 140-560 or 200-800mm with EF TCs and R mount adapter
> With RF you have the choice of 100-500, 420-700, 600-1000mm with RF TCs
> RF has a (almost) better native range than the EF version with/without 1.4TC. It is a 5 times zoom with great image IQ, and including the R mount adapter is shorter and much lighter
> I don't really see the point of using the RF1.4x TC from a focal length perspective but with RF2x TC you go can go from 100-1000mm. I am sure that image IQ and focus speed will be different between RF1.4 and RF2x TCs though.
> ...


With RF2X you will get 600-1000, although you said that earlier. Can't mount to lens below 300mm from my understanding.


YuengLinger said:


> Ok, I'm wrong about the actual result of using crop mode. It is not an advantage, granted.
> 
> However, if I still had my 100-400mm I'd glady use it with the 1.4 extender I still own and be happy. It would not be worth selling to upgrade, in my opinion.
> 
> But I don't have any lens over 200mm at the moment, so I'm looking carefully at where to go from here. Something about the weight, AF, and IQ of the Sigma and Tamron keep me from going with one of them. The price of the new extender plus the Rf 100-500mm, and not being able to stow the lens as usual with the extender attached, or use it at less than 300mm, really bugs me. So I'll just keep thinking about it.


I've never been a fan of the extenders. When I got the 100-400ii, I paired it with the 5dsr and found that cropping produced fabulous results, better than the extended version in my opinion. I'm sure others would disagree. Now that I have the R5, I will sell the 100-400 and get the 100-500 when it becomes available. That said, I'm retired and want to spend some of my savings!! So far, the 100-400 looks great on the R5 with the EF-RF adapter.


----------



## rightslot (Nov 4, 2020)

I am thrilled that this new 70-200 f4 is available. Hopefully we (I) can take Canon's word--and the few early testers on Youtube that the imaging is as good/better than the f4 EF version. 

As far back as I remember the EF version was always considered a great bargain, same focal length and possibly_ better_ sharpness. 

I usually don't do this, but ordered from B&H first thing this morning. And...sent back/canceled an order for the 2.8 version from Amazon. Never took delivery of it. For the most part, I need the length outdoors. However, with the super excellent ISO of the R5 the f/4 selected shots indoors shouldn't be a huge problem. 

Supposedly delivered 1 or second week of December. We'll see.


----------

