# Patent: Inner zoom RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200mm f/4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 31, 2020)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent with optical formulas for an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. What’s interesting about this patent is that both designs are for inner zoom lenses, which is different than the current RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM which as you know has an external zoo, which does help keep the lens compact when in your bag and in your hand.
> It would be pretty cool if Canon gave photographers a choice of which design they’d prefer to buy, but I think the chances of that are quite slim.
> *Canon RF 70-200mm f/4.0L *
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Justhandguns (Jan 31, 2020)

I will pick the internal zoom all day long!


----------



## Pape (Jan 31, 2020)

Please canon ,stop listening peoples whining dont be like sony: 
Extending zoom is just fine


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 31, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



External *"ZOO"* is unlikely what you meant to write, but it's fun to ponder even for fun ! Cheers, M. D. Vaden / www.mdvaden.com/redwoods.shtml


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 31, 2020)

I'll take "things that will never be released" for $200....


----------



## Treyarnon (Jan 31, 2020)

My personal preference would be for an internal zoom - but its not that big of a deal; designing and making two radically different 70-200 F2.8's would be a bit mad.


----------



## Laslen (Jan 31, 2020)

Giving your customers more choices is always a smart thing to do, within reason.

As an outdoor/wildlife photographer, I would prefer an inner zoom version. I haven't bought the RF partly for this reason.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 31, 2020)

Laslen said:


> As an outdoor/wildlife photographer, I would prefer an inner zoom version.


Depends on how far outdoor your wildlife is. External zoom is easier to pack in carry-on.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 31, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Depends on how far outdoor your wildlife is. External zoom is easier to pack in carry-on.



Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that. If it were one or two more inches shorter, it would be equal in my bag. But I'd probably opt for the one less pound.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 31, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that. If it were one or two more inches shorter, it would be equal in my bag. But I'd probably opt for the one less pound.


I will say that the rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS handles much better for me than its ef counterpart; however, I could not find a lens case for it! I ended up using the smallest camera bag I could find that fits it with its lens hood and lens collar. And that takes up more space than the ef's included accessory lens case.

The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.

Here's what I ended up with:









Ruggard Onyx 45 Camera/Camcorder Shoulder Bag


Buy Ruggard Onyx 45 Camera/Camcorder Shoulder Bag featuring For Camera or Camcorder 9.5" in Length, Additional Room For Multiple Accessories, Weather-Resistant Nylon Shell, Three Touch-Connect Padded Dividers, Two Zippered Side Pockets for Batteries, Front Slip Pocket for Slim Accessories, Four...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## Viggo (Jan 31, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> .
> 
> The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.


It does?? Not the nice padded casing like the old ones? What a shame... that’s actually a real bummer, because like you describe, what are one going to carry it in then?


----------



## brad-man (Jan 31, 2020)

I value the half pound weight reduction more than the shorter length, but I'll take both...


----------



## Kit. (Jan 31, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Not for everybody, unless referring to weight. My thinner 70-200mm 2.8 zoom allows other batteries, flash units, etc., to rest on top of the lens in the compartment. Whereas the fatter RF model would prevent that.


Weight too. But the RF model can be oriented along the smallest dimension of the largest cabin size bag, and the EF model cannot, unless your bag has no padding at all.


----------



## mjg79 (Jan 31, 2020)

I really hope we get a 70-200/4 L which also has the extending design. The f4 model is a very nice half way house with top level build quality, optics and AF, a still quite wide aperture but much less weight than the 2.8. In the ef lenses the f4 was so long (though narrower and lighter) that it really offered little size advantage over the 2.8.

An RF 70-200/4L would be great for hiking, landscapes etc.

It actually wouldn't shock me that much if Canon did give an RF 70-200/2.8L that was non-extending. Canon has been doing lots of unprecedented things recently and moreover has always, always focused like a laser on professionals and the 70-200/2.8 as a key product. If professionals say they want the non-extending version then it would be very easy to do - the optical design could stay identical it just would sit in a different outer body. A fixed lens will likely be a bit more robust and better weather sealed no matter what - the RF appears excellent in these ways too but ultimately you can't beat physics. For travel and casual use the extending design looks great, indeed a revelation for a 70-200/2.8, but I could imagine pros preferring the fixed model.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 31, 2020)

Viggo said:


> It does?? Not the nice padded casing like the old ones? What a shame... that’s actually a real bummer, because like you describe, what are one going to carry it in then?



Maybe the person who designed the case for the EF lenses retired, and Canon had nobody to create one for the short and chubby new model. So they tossed in a pouch, just to be generous.  Hey, times are tough for the camera industry!

Come to think of it...I'm surprised Fro-Knows-Photo, who is usually detail-oriented, didn't mention this in his review!


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 1, 2020)

I think they might make one but not for 3-4 years. Make an “update” that is different then the external zoom. Bc I would bet they are getting pretty close to maximum resolution on the EF style lens. Maybe the RF might change that but I don’t think so.


----------



## photographer (Feb 1, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I will say that the rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS handles much better for me than its ef counterpart; however, I could not find a lens case for it! I ended up using the smallest camera bag I could find that fits it with its lens hood and lens collar. And that takes up more space than the ef's included accessory lens case.
> 
> The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.
> 
> ...




I don't have this lens, but what about this? 14 cm will be tight, but should fit. They also do 11 x 18 cm. I don't know how wide the lens hood is.









Lens Case 11 x 14cm


You invest hundreds (even thousands) of dollars in lenses. Carry them in premium Lens Cases from Lowepro, specially designed to protect those investments.




www.lowepro.com


----------



## Traveler (Feb 1, 2020)

Where’s the benefit of the RF mount? It seems like both of those new lenses would be almost the same length as they EF counterparts with adapters on them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 1, 2020)

photographer said:


> I don't have this lens, but what about this? 14 cm will be tight, but should fit. They also do 11 x 18 cm. I don't know how wide the lens hood is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. I tried this one because it was recommended on the accessory page. The very wide lens-hood barely squeezes in, then is extremely difficult to pull back out. I didn't think this would get easier with use: It was just too tight and felt like it was putting too much tension on the hood's threads and the lens itself. Furthermore, the tripod collar/foot won't fit in at all, so if you like having that along it has to be stored separately with this case.

It did not work and I told B&H's customer service. Now there are only wraps associated with the lens as accessories, no cases yet.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 1, 2020)

Traveler said:


> Where’s the benefit of the RF mount? It seems like both of those new lenses would be almost the same length as they EF counterparts with adapters on them.


It doesn't matter. Canon just released the RF 70-200. They won't be releasing another...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 1, 2020)

mjg79 said:


> I really hope we get a 70-200/4 L which also has the extending design. The f4 model is a very nice half way house with top level build quality, optics and AF, a still quite wide aperture but much less weight than the 2.8. In the ef lenses the f4 was so long (though narrower and lighter) that it really offered little size advantage over the 2.8.
> 
> An RF 70-200/4L would be great for hiking, landscapes etc.
> 
> It actually wouldn't shock me that much if Canon did give an RF 70-200/2.8L that was non-extending. Canon has been doing lots of unprecedented things recently and moreover has always, always focused like a laser on professionals and the 70-200/2.8 as a key product. If professionals say they want the non-extending version then it would be very easy to do - the optical design could stay identical it just would sit in a different outer body. A fixed lens will likely be a bit more robust and better weather sealed no matter what - the RF appears excellent in these ways too but ultimately you can't beat physics. For travel and casual use the extending design looks great, indeed a revelation for a 70-200/2.8, but I could imagine pros preferring the fixed model.



It couldn't stay identical because the telescoping - or lack thereof - is factored into the optics. The only way they could do what you suggest would be to essentially wrap the existing lens in another lens body with gearing that manipulated the telescoping, while the outer body stayed fixed. That would be a wide lens indeed!


----------



## Franklyok (Feb 1, 2020)

Any focus breathing change???


----------



## gdanmitchell (Feb 1, 2020)

Pape said:


> Please canon ,stop listening peoples whining dont be like sony:
> Extending zoom is just fine



Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.

I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.


----------



## djkraq (Feb 1, 2020)

Interesting that these are non IS versions.....


----------



## Dragon (Feb 1, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> My personal preference would be for an internal zoom - but its not that big of a deal; designing and making two radically different 70-200 F2.8's would be a bit mad.


If you look at B&H, there are currently 11 different 70-200s for EF and 7 of them are from Canon. A couple more for RF is probably not overkill. At the end of the day, it is about price and positioning. The first RF version is a little pricey for some folks and others don't like the external zoom. Personally, I really like the EF 70-300 and would like to see a version of that find its way into the RF line.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 1, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I will say that the rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS handles much better for me than its ef counterpart; however, I could not find a lens case for it! I ended up using the smallest camera bag I could find that fits it with its lens hood and lens collar. And that takes up more space than the ef's included accessory lens case.
> 
> The rf comes with a gray flannel pouch only.
> 
> ...


I used this for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS and it fit perfect. They are not available at this time, but maybe they will make one for the RF. I found it to be very nice and rugged. It is semi-hard shell and very reasonably priced.





Amazon.com : for Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L F2.8 is II USM Digital LSR DSLR Camera Telephoto Zoom Lens Hood EVA Hard Travel Storage Carrying Case Cover Bag by Hermitshell : Electronics


Amazon.com : for Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L F2.8 is II USM Digital LSR DSLR Camera Telephoto Zoom Lens Hood EVA Hard Travel Storage Carrying Case Cover Bag by Hermitshell : Electronics



www.amazon.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 1, 2020)

Viggo said:


> It does?? Not the nice padded casing like the old ones? What a shame... that’s actually a real bummer, because like you describe, what are one going to carry it in then?



I have never used the lens case for these lenses. That is why I have a camera/lens bag.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 1, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.
> 
> I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.


If you shoot in sandy conditions, such as the beach, it's a little more of a problem. Sure, I try to keep sand off of any lens or body, but I did have a grain of sand get into one L with an extending design, only to hear crunching the next day. CPS cleaned it out. It's not a myth, but it is a compromise we choose.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 1, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> Having owned and used both designs, I think there is actually a stronger argument for the extending zooms than the "internal" zooms these days. Both have proven themselves in terms of optical quality and construction, but the extending designs have the advantage of being smaller when packed away in the bag.
> 
> I've been a photographer long enough to carry that residual notion that extending zooms are a cheaper design. That may have been true in the past, but it is no longer correct to make that assumption.



1. I don't know what the stronger argument could be other than storage size... which matters to some and not to others.
2. I think that the notion internal zooms cost more to mfg. is a better assumption than the idea that they are equal.

As this man says:


YuengLinger said:


> If you shoot in sandy conditions, such as the beach, it's a little more of a problem. Sure, I try to keep sand off of any lens or body, but I did have a grain of sand get into one L with an extending design, only to hear crunching the next day. CPS cleaned it out. It's not a myth, but it is a compromise we choose.


I used to live in the middle of the desert where it was windy much of the time with a sand haze in the air. I'd prefer an internal for beach or desert conditions, thank you.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 1, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> External *"ZOO"* is unlikely what you meant to write, but it's fun to ponder even for fun ! Cheers, M. D. Vaden / www.mdvaden.com/redwoods.shtml
> 
> View attachment 188472


Nice picture !


----------



## djkraq (Feb 1, 2020)

Traveler said:


> Where’s the benefit of the RF mount? It seems like both of those new lenses would be almost the same length as they EF counterparts with adapters on them.


Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 2, 2020)

I just ordered my external zoom. the internal zoom is not only annoying on the eos r, I think it puts a little strain on the mount EF mount. I constantly get errors only with that lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 2, 2020)

djkraq said:


> Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.


Word is IBIS doesnt work as well with telephotos. Also since canon is combining IS with IBIS, i dont see why they would get rid of IS, especially in zooms that are used for all purpose shooting including sports.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 2, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> Word is IBIS doesnt work as well with telephotos. Also since canon is combining IS with IBIS, i dont see why they would get right of IS, especially in zooms that are used for all purpose shooting including sports.


They wouldn't get rid of IS in lenses. Canon is upping its game and the thought of them removing features from L lenses is ludicrous. "We don't need 7 or 8 stops of correction, 4 or 5 will do" just isn't going to happen. The only thing they're removing is my cash...


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 2, 2020)

Dragon said:


> If you look at B&H, there are currently 11 different 70-200s for EF and 7 of them are from Canon.



Seven from Canon? AFAIK that works only if B&H carries discontinued versions of those lenses.


----------



## Traveler (Feb 2, 2020)

djkraq said:


> Just like I was saying. What they will do is make the new 70-200 sharper I assume as they will remove IS and focus on quality of the lens design since the new EOS R5 will have IBIS. So technically it can be a bit smaller or it can be the same size but sharper quality.


So your version is that there’s gonna be RF70-200 with IS (the current one) and then another one without IS? But the versions without IS aren’t much smaller and definitely not shorter. Canon will still release lenses with IS since “it’s always better than IBIS” (I quote canon). 
And the length of the lens is given in the patent


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Feb 2, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Maybe the person who designed the case for the EF lenses retired, and Canon had nobody to create one for the short and chubby new model. So they tossed in a pouch, just to be generous.  Hey, times are tough for the camera industry!
> 
> Come to think of it...I'm surprised Fro-Knows-Photo, who is usually detail-oriented, didn't mention this in his review!


I’m not surprised he would t mention it. He tends to put them to one side. I don’t use them either as I need to get lenses out of my bag fast. Bags in bags gets tedious.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Feb 2, 2020)

Traveler said:


> So your version is that there’s gonna be RF70-200 with IS (the current one) and then another one without IS? But the versions without IS aren’t much smaller and definitely not shorter. Canon will still release lenses with IS since “it’s always better than IBIS” (I quote canon).
> And the length of the lens is given in the patent



Well, as djkraq stated, this particular patent we are discussing does not have IS groups in the lens design. The problem they claim to be solving with this design is "
[Problem]
To obtain a zoom lens which is easy in high-speed focusing, small in aberration variation in focusing, and easily obtains high optical performance throughout an object distance. "


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 2, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> I’m not surprised he would t mention it. He tends to put them to one side. I don’t use them either as I need to get lenses out of my bag fast. Bags in bags gets tedious.


We're not necessarily talking bags in bags. I like to keep my lenses well padded while stored--just in case something gets knocked over. Not sure JP has kids. But we do!!!

Besides, the point isn't whether you or JP personally prefer a padded bag, such as Sigma includes...It's that Canon did with this class of lens for decades, then, with a significantly higher priced model, stopped. That's news. That's a point that deserves coverage in a thoughtful review. Of course not too many folk have accused him of producing thoughtful reviews.


----------



## erader (Feb 2, 2020)

everyone complained about push/pull with canon 100-400L I and when 100-400L II they complained about twist


----------



## Dragon (Feb 2, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> Seven from Canon? AFAIK that works only if B&H carries discontinued versions of those lenses.


FWIW Between Canon US and Canon Europe, at least 6 appear to be current. F/4 non-IS, F/2.8 IS, F/4 IS, F/4 IS II, F/2.8 IS II, and F/4 IS III. The only on that seems to be actually discontinued is the first version of the F/2.8 IS and it is still widely available. Not saying this is all the sensible, but I can see the sense in extending and non extending versions. Note also, that all those 70-200s are L series lenses, whereas at 70-300, we have one L and 3 non-L versions that seem to be current. Sony is the poster boy for introducing new cameras and not discontinuing the old one, but Canon does quite a bit of the same thing with lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 2, 2020)

Maybe the RF 70-200/4L will be internal zoom. Could be cheaper to make than external zoom and would balance the R mount as it is slimmer/lighter. No IS option may be balanced somewhat by IBIS.


----------



## vjlex (Feb 3, 2020)

Still wishing for a black version of the 70-200mm... Guess I'm the only one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 3, 2020)

erader said:


> everyone complained about push/pull with canon 100-400L I and when 100-400L II they complained about twist



Actually quite a few people wrote and spoke positively about both lenses. Version II might have been the best designed L series lens ever. But to consider the pros and cons, and the compromises we make constantly in photography is just part of assessing gear.

Saying "everybody" complained might be a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## DJP (Feb 3, 2020)

How about an internal zoom *RF* 70-200 f/4L *DO* IS USM? Small size and weight


----------



## thejaysellers (Feb 3, 2020)

The external zoom fits in my bag just nicely. Not giving it another thought.


----------



## digito23 (Feb 3, 2020)

I have the external RF 70-200mm and I love it! However, I'm waiting for a 15-35mm 2.8 internal focusing because this thing will be going with me to extreme weather conditions.


----------



## erader (Feb 4, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Actually quite a few people wrote and spoke positively about both lenses. Version II might have been the best designed L series lens ever. But to consider the pros and cons, and the compromises we make constantly in photography is just part of assessing gear.
> 
> Saying "everybody" complained might be a bit of an exaggeration.



no shit. my point is people complain no matter what. push/pull. twist. it doesn't matter to me. I adjust.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> FWIW Between Canon US and Canon Europe, at least 6 appear to be current. F/4 non-IS, F/2.8 IS, F/4 IS, F/4 IS II, F/2.8 IS II, and F/4 IS III. The only on that seems to be actually discontinued is the first version of the F/2.8 IS and it is still widely available.



My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM broke last year. Fixing it was so expensive, I said I'd rather buy a new one. The store didn't have one in stock, and the store manager said he was unsure if & when would another copy be available. So I bought a mkIII.

I wonder whether the older models are listed as current because they're still in production, or because stock didn't run out yet. IIRC, it was said the EOS 1V was listed as current until it ran out of stock, though production stopped years prior.


----------



## freejay (Feb 4, 2020)

shunsai said:


> Still wishing for a black version of the 70-200mm... Guess I'm the only one.


No, you're not.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII USM broke last year. Fixing it was so expensive, I said I'd rather buy a new one. The store didn't have one in stock, and the store manager said he was unsure if & when would another copy be available. So I bought a mkIII.
> 
> I wonder whether the older models are listed as current because they're still in production, or because stock didn't run out yet. IIRC, it was said the EOS 1V was listed as current until it ran out of stock, though production stopped years prior.


Not much doubt that production has stopped on some of those, but production stopped and "discontinued" are two different things. Also lenses tend to be built in lots, so most lenses are not "currently" in production, but another lot will be started when inventory gets low enough. I am disinclined to believe that any of the camera manufacturers sit on years of inventory, so when you find a good deal on what appears to be a "discontinued" item, maybe, just maybe they decided to build another batch to fill a perceived hole in the market. When Canon puts out an announcement that support has ended because parts are no longer available, then I would take that as true discontinuance.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 5, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Not much doubt that production has stopped on some of those, but production stopped and "discontinued" are two different things. Also lenses tend to be built in lots, so most lenses are not "currently" in production, but another lot will be started when inventory gets low enough. I am disinclined to believe that any of the camera manufacturers sit on years of inventory, so when you find a good deal on what appears to be a "discontinued" item, maybe, just maybe they decided to build another batch to fill a perceived hole in the market. When Canon puts out an announcement that support has ended because parts are no longer available, then I would take that as true discontinuance.



I've heard lenses are made in batches, and see your point, but doubt Canon makes batches of mkX lenses after mkX+1 was released. I think the likely explanation is once mkX+1 lens is released

A) Sales of mkX lens drop sharply, which allows stock to last a while.

B) Stores don't announce a lens is unavailable until Canon announces it is discontinued *and* the store's stock runs out.

So B&H might list older models as available either because they have a couple of copies available or think / know Canon has some in stock until it announces the lens discontinued.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 5, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> I've heard lenses are made in batches, and see your point, but doubt Canon makes batches of mkX lenses after mkX+1 was released. I think the likely explanation is once mkX+1 lens is released
> 
> A) Sales of mkX lens drop sharply, which allows stock to last a while.
> 
> ...


You may be correct re Canon, but I have seen Panasonic P&S cameras in Costco two models back for a pretty compelling price. These were custom packaged for Costco, so not likely old stock and no way Costco sat on the inventory. The only logical explanation is a custom build of an otherwise obsolete camera that Costco thought was a good value. Sony keeps 5 years of models current just to play the price tier game. Canon is harder to guess, because they appear to flush old models when they release a replacement, but that is cameras. Lenses are harder to read because older models periodically seem to be in abundant supply.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2020)

So... now that we know the current RF 70-200mm L lens does not take teleconverters, does the likelihood that there will be another RF 70-200mm F2.8 lens increase? The differentiating factor being TC compatibility?


----------



## brad-man (Sep 1, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> So... now that we know the current RF 70-200mm L lens does not take teleconverters, does the likelihood that there will be another RF 70-200mm F2.8 lens increase? The differentiating factor being TC compatibility?


It is entirely plausible that in the future Canon will introduce something like an RF 70-200 f/2 with internal zoom and compatible with the teleconverters, though I doubt it will happen any time soon.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 1, 2020)

I think they are purposefully segmenting the market, saying if you really want that length, you'll shoot the 100-500 which you can put extenders on. If you want speed, you'll put the 70-200 on the R5 and crop if you need to, if you want both you'll buy both ($$$$). 

I wonder - what is the resolution difference on the R5 between cropping the RF 70-200 vs. using the EF 70-200 III + 2.0x III? A 50% crop in theory would still be higher res than the R6/1DX III.


----------

