# Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 2020)

> Canon will be announcing the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM alongside the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8, which leaked earlier this week.
> For scale, here is a size comparison between the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and it’s big brother, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## AlP (Oct 31, 2020)

And here (copied from the lenses Forum) two size comparisons, one with the 24-105 f/4 and the other with the 24-70 f/2.8:



This will be a fantastic hiking or trekking lens! Curious about the price though...


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?


----------



## JordanCS13 (Oct 31, 2020)

Image quality will likely be similar, based on the EF 70-200 lenses. It's the same choice as always between f/2.8 and f/4 zooms...a larger, more expensive lens with one stop larger aperture, or a smaller, less expensive lens with a slower aperture. Take your pick.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 31, 2020)

AlP said:


> And here (copied from the lenses Forum) two size comparisons, one with the 24-105 f/4 and the other with the 24-70 f/2.8:
> View attachment 193716
> View attachment 193717
> 
> This will be a fantastic hiking or trekking lens! Curious about the price though...


Waiting for more details esp close focus capabilities. That is one seriously small lens.


----------



## Mahk43 (Oct 31, 2020)

Woha this is sexy, I have the RF 70-200 2.8 but if image quality is good enough and price very low, I could consider to switch to this one to save money for another one good lens! I have to analyze the shoots I did under f4


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> Take your pick.


Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.


----------



## DTibor (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
> Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 set on f/4 or native f/4?



Probably it will be the "little sibling" like the EF 70-200 F4 L. That old EF lens has great image quality. All RF lenses are very sharp, so probably this new one will be great too in all aspects. The main decision should be other factors like budget and use case.


----------



## Joules (Oct 31, 2020)

Edit: I should have read the other thread before wasting space here  PBD did a better job already at comparing it to the RF 70-200 mm 2.8:





Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon


I am definitely interested in it. I hope the price is reasonable. Like $1249 would be a good starting price. If it is $2k then I am going to rethink the whole RF system for me personally as they are not pricing the lenses reasonable. Every direct EF to RF replacement is extremely expensive.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

Mahk43 said:


> Woha this is sexy, I have the RF 70-200 2.8 but if image quality is good enough and price very low, I could consider to switch to this one to save money for another one good lens! I have to analyze the shoots I did under f4


I wouldn't expect to save a lot of money by selling an f/2.8 and buying an f/4, considering that you'd sell at lower price and would pay taxes on the new one...


----------



## DTibor (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.



I guess you never took a hike with you F2.8 collection. The EF F4 L lenses were built with the same quality but half price and half weigth. I would not expect this to be any different.


----------



## Mahk43 (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> I wouldn't expect to save a lot of money by selling an f/2.8 and buying an f/4, considering that you'd sell at lower price and woul'll pay taxes on the new one...


Yes but not now, next year.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 31, 2020)

DTibor said:


> I guess you never took a hike with you F2.8 collection. The EF F4 L lenses were built with the same quality but half price and half weigth. I would not expect this to be any different.


I have the 2.8 version, non IS. Great lens, but bulky and heavy (I think something like 3.2 lbs.) so very seldom carry far from the car in the field. This f4 lens would suit me fine, if I were able to afford a mirrorless body in the first place.


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

DTibor said:


> I guess you never took a hike with you F2.8 collection. The EF F4 L lenses were built with the same quality but half price and half weigth. I would not expect this to be any different.


You are absolutely right about hiking: I never walk too far from my car.  I am just wondering how much this stop might save money and/or weight and whether it's worth it from image quality perspective. We'll see.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 31, 2020)

A f/4 70-200 would be a great lens to get into the Canon R but it is disappointing that'll mean no TC support. I don't know about a 2.8 vs 4.0 now, the new RF 2.8 is quite light so I canny imagine people owning both a f/4.0 and f/2.8 like I know a few did on EF (The f/4.0 being the preferred 'outside' lens).


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> no TC support.



The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...


----------



## Joules (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...


Well, not a Canon one at least. Physically, TCs don't fit on the RF 70-200 2.8 if they portrude at all into the lens. And I don't see why this would be different for this cheaper, more compact one.


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, not a Canon one at least. Physically, TCs don't fit on the RF 70-200 2.8 if they portrude at all into the lens. And I don't see why this would be different for this cheaper, more compact one.


Indeed, it is very disappointing (I've just read an article about that: I'm still using EF mount body so I don't have this problem yet).


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Indeed, it is very disappointing (I've just read an article about that: I'm still using EF mount body so I don't have this problem yet).


Presumably they decided the size and weight reduction was more important than the ability to mount a TC.


----------



## filmmakerken (Oct 31, 2020)

I'm excited about this lens. 

When I bought my EOS R I also bought the RF28-70mm f/2, a simply gorgeous lens (if a bit heavy). I like the idea of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, it seems like the natural complement to the 28-70. But I just can't justify spending $2600 (or more) for every lens. I'm thinking that with the IS and the ISO capabilities of the EOS R this lens will suit my needs...assuming it sells for about $1000 less than the f/2.8.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 31, 2020)

I expect a price around $1499 or max. $1799.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...



It isn’t about the AF. You can AF at f/22on these bodies. It looks like it is built like the f/2.8 which means they’ll be no room for a TC. One of the reasons my 70-200 might be Nikon is that I can shove a 1.4x and 2x converter on it as they went for a ‘old’ design. The Canons are giving that up for shorter in the bag and lighter to carry lenses. So you would need this and a RF 100-500. Instead of just shoving a TC on.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 31, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I expect a price around $1499 or max. $1799.



Thats a bit steep. $1299 would be more inline with my expectations. It has 3 EF versions to compete with, one of which costs less than I spent on coffee last month.


----------



## goldenhusky (Oct 31, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> It isn’t about the AF. You can AF at f/22on these bodies. It looks like it is built like the f/2.8 which means they’ll be no room for a TC. One of the reasons my 70-200 might be Nikon is that I can shove a 1.4x and 2x converter on it as they went for a ‘old’ design. The Canons are giving that up for shorter in the bag and lighter to carry lenses. So you would need this and a RF 100-500. Instead of just shoving a TC on.



Interesting. I did not know until now that the RF 70-200 is not compatible with the RF extenders. While I never used extender on my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I may have to stick to that for longer I guess. I may upgrade to the III.


----------



## danfaz (Oct 31, 2020)

It looks so cool, only a few mms taller than the 24-105L! Gonna have to grab this!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 31, 2020)

I am about to purchase the RF 70-200 f/2.8L...and then I see this! Man...Canon keeps delivering some incredible lenses for this system!


----------



## goldenhusky (Oct 31, 2020)

AlP said:


> And here (copied from the lenses Forum) two size comparisons, one with the 24-105 f/4 and the other with the 24-70 f/2.8:
> This will be a fantastic hiking or trekking lens! Curious about the price though...



The size of the lens is definitely tempting but I do not think I will get this 70-200 f/4 ever.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 31, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


That is one nice-looking lens. It will probably end up in my bag instead of the f/2.8 version. I'll just keep my old EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS around. It's the oldest version and wouldn't gather a lot of money anyway if I sold it.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 31, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Interesting. I did not know until now that the RF 70-200 is not compatible with the RF extenders. While I never used extender on my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I may have to stick to that for longer I guess. I may upgrade to the III.



Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.


----------



## EOSR FAN (Oct 31, 2020)

Beautiful looking and compact lens. My GAS is really wanting to kick in. If I hadn't just bought EF70-200 f4 ii last year I'd be all over it. I can't imagine it will be any sharper but just look better with size, control ring and no adapter.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 31, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.


 
I can agree with this. My 70-200L II f2.8 is one of my least used lenses...


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 31, 2020)

So many new cuties to buy (or to dream of buying...)
I bitterly need a money-press.


----------



## armd (Oct 31, 2020)

Interesting lens to be sure, though I am waiting for the "great whites". Hopefully, the price will be reasonable as the cost of RF lenses has compelled me to keep and use my excellent EF glass. I understand the start up costs, need to recoup investment, declining sales volumes etc. however it still doesn't eliminate the pain for the rest of us.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Oct 31, 2020)

I never liked the EF Version of the 70-200mm... too big, too bulky for so I'd always opt for the EF 100-400mm because it is only slighter heavier. The RF 70-200mm was already a game changer, but for an amateur shooter just not within the budget. If this one has the right pricing I'll preorder it asap and use it as a new hiking lense  This one might weigh less the 1 KG!!! And, I could easily pack a wide-angle lens, the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm and the 100-400mm in my backpack  Sooooooo excited


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 31, 2020)

Hmmmmmm
It's so cute ... but on the other hand I have the mark i incarnation of the image stabilized f/4 lens which is gorgous
and works with my M50 and RP extremely well for photo and video.
Maybe if my EF version dies and I own a C70 or C50 ...


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 31, 2020)

This looks fantastic. My EF version is history.

And for all those sweating "How sharp will this be?" take a deep breath! I's an L lens. A professional lens. Stop worrying about pixels and take photos.


----------



## Ale_F (Oct 31, 2020)

looking at the first image comparison it was identical to 24-105.
Fantastic


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Oct 31, 2020)

Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 31, 2020)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.


So it is 333g of weight? ;-)

I hope its 550g or so.


----------



## AlP (Oct 31, 2020)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.



Here you are:


Sorry, no can available.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 31, 2020)

Very impressive mechanical design.
Let's hope the IQ will be as so.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 31, 2020)

wow..I want to know the price. I have the EF version 1 and love it. I feel like I'd bring this along more though, since its much smaller looking. I"m just worried they're going to price it at $2kUSD. At that point I might just upgrade my EF f4 version, to the f2.8 EF version, which can be had for less than $1500, and would give me some portrait capability. 

-Brian


----------



## stevelee (Oct 31, 2020)

AlP said:


> Sorry, no can available.


"No can do."


----------



## dwarven (Oct 31, 2020)

Having a 70-200 f/2.8 already it would be hard to justify buying this. But it's so compact and will probably be really light. Ugh, I'd have so much more money saved if I hadn't gotten into photography ,_,


----------



## AlP (Oct 31, 2020)

And here a comparison with the EF lens, although no surprises here:


----------



## danfaz (Oct 31, 2020)

AlP said:


> And here a comparison with the EF lens, although no surprises here:
> View attachment 193721


These are so cool. Thank you!


----------



## danfaz (Oct 31, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Having a 70-200 f/2.8 already it would be hard to justify buying this. But it's so compact and will probably be really light. Ugh, I'd have so much more money saved if I hadn't gotten into photography ,_,


I reckon I might sell my 2.8 for this, if the price differential is great enough. Even though the RF is lighter and smaller than the EF version when collapsed, I still use it very seldomly, as it's still a bit unwieldy on the smaller R bodies.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 31, 2020)

AlP said:


> And here a comparison with the EF lens, although no surprises here:


Though you gotta include an EF adapter for the comparison to be apples to apples. The RF is _really_ compact!


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.


Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflaky 

We could call it "buy cheap, pay twice" just to show respect for those who cannot afford it and have no other option but the "cheap" one.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Oct 31, 2020)

cutie one


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 31, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
> Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?



I would guarantee the f/2.8 would be better because at f/4 it's stopped down. That said, it's probably minimal, probably mostly vignetting not resolution, and the lens correction probably fixes that either way. "Weight" and "do you actually need f/2.8" are much bigger considerations in this case.


----------



## slclick (Oct 31, 2020)

It looks nice. I have no problems with the f/4L trinity, if I was in the R ecosystem I might go that direction.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 31, 2020)

What's crazy is, I've always referred to the RF 70-200 F/2.8 as "turning the 70-200 into more of just a 24-70." The F/4 version takes that a bit too literally! Looks almost odd to see the white paint on an identical chasis to the 24-105/24-70, but what an impressive, amazing lens. 

This will be an absolutely perfect travel lens for most people. I am always madly in love with my F/2.8 version, and I can't imagine how light and easy this will be for most people.


----------



## Ziz (Oct 31, 2020)

I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon 
1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8

And from a personal pov...
1. Is the white even needed on such a small lens?
2. The white is so eye-catching that is more easily spottable by both wildlife and thieves 

Maybe Canon will be really clever and release a Limited Edition black one later


----------



## Fotofriend (Oct 31, 2020)

On addition to expectable superior image quality, especially the compact size (and weight probably) makes this a great representative of a mirror less system IMO, which shouldn’t consist of mainly bulky lenses. I highly appreciate portability and my best pics often were made with the note compact equipment I carried with me... 
really looking forward to this lens and the new RF 50 1.8 (and hopefully moderate prices...)


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 31, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflaky
> 
> We could call it "buy cheap, pay twice" just to show respect for those who cannot afford it and have no other option but the "cheap" one.



It is my own personal rule based on my own (bad) experience and everyone is free to have his own ones. 

I personally prefer to delay my purchase if I really cannot afford it, instead of buying something cheaper and regretting my choice every single time while I'll be using it.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.


These two lenses historically have been nearly identical in image quality. The only reason the f4 is cheaper is because it's smaller and has the slower aperture. Other than that, it's L quality through and through. And now, it seems every L is just stupid sharp, so I'm pretty sure this one will be, too.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 1, 2020)

Now that we have such good IS in lenses and maybe even IBIS on top of that and sensors handle high ISOs so well, it would seem that an extra stop is rarely worth the extra money, weight, and size. With the extra money, you could buy a faster prime for portraits and such rather than relying on the zoom as a poor substitute. YMMV, of course, but I think that would be true for a lot of us.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 1, 2020)

This looks pretty great. It would be a very nice, compact travel/hiking lens. I tend to buy when I have a need (or something is on a drastic discount), so not sure I’ll be getting one soon but it’s definitely on my list. 

Currently, I’m using an adapted 70-300L for telephoto needs (also have a 200 prime that rarely sees the light). The Kenko 1.4x extender I have for it is not bad. Curious if they will come out with RF versions of their extenders.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 1, 2020)

Ziz said:


> I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
> 1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
> 2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8
> 
> ...



Lenscoat already makes covers for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, including black, so that's an option.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 1, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Looking good Canon for No 1 spot in ML world, hopefully this lens 70-200 F4 can be used with the RF teleconvertors.


----------



## AJ (Nov 1, 2020)

The EF 70-200/4L mk2 currently sells for about $1100-1200, and if I remember correctly it lauched at $1300. So for the RF I'm going to guess $1500 at launch, settling at $1300-1400 at some point in the future.


----------



## sanj (Nov 1, 2020)

Ziz said:


> I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
> 1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
> 2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8
> 
> ...


Please do not take my comment wrong but it makes ZERO difference to wildlife if a lens is white or black. Nor does it to a petty thief. Please.


----------



## sanj (Nov 1, 2020)

Just because it is small does not make it a 'travel' or 'hiking' lens. This is an all-purpose lens including money work.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 1, 2020)

Can anyone make out the diameter? Is it 77mm?


----------



## RAKaye (Nov 1, 2020)

Looking carefully at the superimposed lens comparisons, it’s definitely a 77mm filter diameter.


----------



## steen-ag (Nov 1, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Interesting. I did not know until now that the RF 70-200 is not compatible with the RF extenders. While I never used extender on my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I may have to stick to that for longer I guess. I may upgrade to the III.
> [/QUOTE


----------



## erader (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
> Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?



are you not familiar with canon ef lenses?


----------



## Mike9129 (Nov 1, 2020)

To all the people talking about size and weight of the rf 70-200 2.8 when it comes to hiking - it's an absolute pleasure compared to the old EF versions.

Still a little on the heavy side, but its size makes things so easy in a backpack compared to the older EF glass.

An f4 version can only improve this further!


----------



## navastronia (Nov 1, 2020)

sanj said:


> Just because it is small does not make it a 'travel' or 'hiking' lens. This is an all-purpose lens including money work.



I mean, it being small _does_ help people travel and hike with it.

RE: all-purpose and money making: For indoor work, most photographers don't like to be limited to f/4. Because many events take place indoors (under normal, non-COVID circumstances), this lens might not be such a great investment for someone who shoots weddings, speaking engagements, etc. Just my two cents!


----------



## Eowhiskass (Nov 1, 2020)

Sooo, 85, you have to wait)


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 1, 2020)

since the 2.8 is really expensive - especially when this is just a hobby - im thinking about the f4 and maybe another prime. i loved my 50mm 1.4 on my apsc. but would 1.8 make a big difference ti 2.8? im wondering if i should spend the money for the 2.8 instead of two lenses. arhg!


----------



## Darecinema (Nov 1, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I can agree with this. My 70-200L II f2.8 is one of my least used lenses...


What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 1, 2020)

Loved the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L when I had it. Not sure I can get along without the extra stop @f/2.8, but is the quality is there I am sure it will be a great lens for many users. The bokeh of the f/4 will be better than for the f/2.8 when shooting both @f/4. So its really about how much light you need. Also like that (at least) the bothersome extending lens barrel is short compared to the faster zoom.


----------



## Rpaulsen (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...



AF on the R series cameras can continue to work with an aperture as small as f/22. The only reason the f/2.8 70-200 is because that lens’ back element is right at the bayonet, and the teleconverters extend into the lens barrel. Until we see where the back element is, we won’t be able to tell if they will be compatible.


----------



## Bert63 (Nov 1, 2020)

Darecinema said:


> What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.




Wildlife. Almost exclusively.


----------



## Kiton (Nov 1, 2020)

Ziz said:


> I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
> 
> 
> Maybe Canon will be really clever and release a Limited Edition black one later




Canon was black back in the film days. They moved to white so they would stand out in the crowd at the Olympics, World Cup, F1 car racing etc etc, I can't see them ever going back on that. Better place your hopes in a limited edition black version. At one point they used the white as an advantage to prevent over heating at long outdoor sports assignments etc. At the time they were the only major maker that was white.


----------



## armd (Nov 1, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I never liked the EF Version of the 70-200mm... too big, too bulky for so I'd always opt for the EF 100-400mm because it is only slighter heavier. The RF 70-200mm was already a game changer, but for an amateur shooter just not within the budget. If this one has the right pricing I'll preorder it asap and use it as a new hiking lense  This one might weigh less the 1 KG!!! And, I could easily pack a wide-angle lens, the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm and the 100-400mm in my backpack  Sooooooo excited


If you have the RF 24-105 and EF 100-200, I don’t see what the RF 70-200 f/4 really adds for you? Perhaps you might consider selling your existing 100-400 and adding a 100-500 instead?


----------



## zim (Nov 1, 2020)

Rpaulsen said:


> Until we see where the back element is, we won’t be able to tell if they will be compatible.


I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. I reckon not compatible is running about a CR 5 at the moment


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 1, 2020)

Darecinema said:


> What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.


70-200 are also very useful for landscape.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 1, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflaky
> 
> We could call it "buy cheap, pay twice" just to show respect for those who cannot afford it and have no other option but the "cheap" one.


I do recall the great photographer-artist, Art Wolfe using the f4 version. I am sure he preferred that over the f2.8 and surely cost had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
> Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?


Interesting question, I wondered the same thing with the RF 24-105 F4 V the RF 70-200 F2.8 when both set at 70mm & F4. I have both lenses and I cant identify why but I prefer the 70-200. It just seems better to me, although I haven't done a scientific back to back comparison. It's just a gut reaction.


----------



## Alex784 (Nov 1, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> I do recall the great photographer-artist, Art Wolfe using the f4 version. I am sure he preferred that over the f2.8 and surely cost had nothing to do with it.


Maybe, but I have just checked his website, the gear section: he is using the f2.8 version...


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> You are absolutely right about hiking: I never walk too far from my car.  I am just wondering how much this stop might save money and/or weight and whether it's worth it from image quality perspective. We'll see.


With a decent strap, I've hiked 6/7 miles with the R5 & RF 70-200 attached. I'm sure that the F4 version will be lighter but the 2.8 isn't an issue weight wise.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 1, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I am about to purchase the RF 70-200 f/2.8L...and then I see this! Man...Canon keeps delivering some incredible lenses for this system!


Absolutely love the RF 70-200 F2.8. It's hardly been off the R5 since I got it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 1, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> With a decent strap, I've hiked 6/7 miles with the R5 & RF 70-200 attached. I'm sure that the F4 version will be lighter but the 2.8 isn't an issue weight wise.



The difference between the RF70-200 and the EF 70-200 F4 is only 280g. Not insignificant but hardly noticeable. A 5D Mark 4 with the 70-200 F4 is only 150g lighter than an R5 with the RF70-200 F2.8.


----------



## Alex784 (Nov 1, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> Absolutely love the RF 70-200 F2.8. It's hardly been off the R5 since I got it.


Indeed, when you have the best-in-class gear, you have only yourself to blame if the result is not as expected.


----------



## chrisgibbs (Nov 1, 2020)

So, which version got the zoom ring location wrong?


----------



## fabao (Nov 1, 2020)

Nice indeed. The 2.8 version already feels small. If you don't need 2.8 definitely get this one. But I just want to say I am still waiting for the 100-500 and the R5 to become in stock. To my surprise, saw that the 15-35 is also not available right now.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 1, 2020)

That F4 is one sexy lens.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Nov 1, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> It is my own personal rule based on my own (bad) experience and everyone is free to have his own ones.
> 
> I personally prefer to delay my purchase if I really cannot afford it, instead of buying something cheaper and regretting my choice every single time while I'll be using it.



It can be personal but you commented publicly, hence I improved your naming convention by making it acceptable to a broader audience, nothing personal.

I (and many others) could easily buy an R5 and 5 or 6 3k lens , pay cash for them and go bonkers with the shutter. But I would be regretting it for a few Olympic periods, specially as my wife would either file a divorce if I did . That's why my mental budget allows for up to ±€1K lens, by principle. €1.5K to 2K is already a "long stretchy stretch" and only happens if the lens is really something I got real wishes upon. (85mm 1.4 or 135 1.8...trigger that to me)

On the other hand, I don't think the lens will be flimsy or weakly built, it will surely be a great workhorse for outdoors and the IBIS+IS might make it a valid option for many photographers or enthusiasts like me. (Even if I am more of a Prime lens user)

Cheers


----------



## slclick (Nov 1, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> 70-200 are also very useful for landscape.


all focal lengths are useful for landscape.ALL


----------



## mpb001 (Nov 1, 2020)

I have the original 70-200f4L non IS. Paid like $500 new. Still use it occasionally on my 5DIV. I would except this one to cost or list for like $1299, but with the IS and IS on R5-R6 bodies I think it will be well worth the price.


----------



## lexptr (Nov 1, 2020)

Wow! It looks amazing! I know, there were talks about can-size and etc. But when you see the actual picture - it's just wow! 70-200 the size of mid-range zoom! If the quality and magnification are on the same level, as f2.8 version - it will definitely be on my wish list for travel and for my wife (she doesn't like bulky equipment and, e.g. requires me to remove battery grip, when she is about to shoot a session). 
BTW, it is interesting, that with mid-zoom size it is still white. I did expect that if it is so small, it will possibly be black. It could have some advantages, being less noticeable in certain situations (e.g. against criminals, knowing: white = expensive). But white has some advantages too (e.g. you will have less trouble to distinguish between this lens in your bag and other zooms with similar size and shape).


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2020)

slclick said:


> all focal lengths are useful for landscape.ALL


Whilst that can be true I find the landscapes that are most compelling in print form and sell best are ones that equate to a view out of a window, so many are too wide and many are too long. Not a hard and fast rule but something I have noticed over the years.


----------



## slclick (Nov 1, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Whilst that can be true I find the landscapes that are most compelling in print form and sell best are ones that equate to a view out of a window, so many are too wide and many are too long. Not a hard and fast rule but something I have noticed over the years.


What appeals to most is usually the last thing I think of while shooting. The world has been long over saturated by average and typical landscape images. ymmv but I shoot for my own liking not what others may desire, the selling shooters out there are a tiny minority.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2020)

slclick said:


> What appeals to most is usually the last thing I think of while shooting. The world has been long over saturated by average and typical landscape images. ymmv but I shoot for my own liking not what others may desire, the selling shooters out there are a tiny minority.


Absolutely, I remember working at one art market where the most popular photographer by far was selling very stylized (I'm being polite) HDR monstrosities (oops I slipped), I thought if that is what people want I am happy to not make it. 

But I believe my point was still valid, when looking at a landscape shot it often helps if the framing/fov/perspective is similarly 'natural' looking, which means often times the much favored ultrawide zooms can be 'too much'. Put another way, if I was told I could only shoot landscapes from now on and only with one lens, I'd choose a 24-70 not an ultra wide nor a tele. That won't be true for everybody, but my comment was a generalization from the beginning, of course 'any' lens can be used as a 'landscape' lens but a bell curve would point to the most useful and used focal range being shorter than a 70-200.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 1, 2020)

Ziz said:


> I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
> 1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
> 2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8
> 
> ...


I'd suggest that you take a black tele-lens to Death Valley in summertime...or to southern Italy.
You'd hope you had taken the white one (personal experience, after a few minutes, I could no longer take pictures).


----------



## neonlight (Nov 1, 2020)

I did not expect to see that the 100-400 II set a trend, but should have. I find, though, that the 100-400 II is harder to focus as the weight is extended. For (manual) focussing I actually prefer the older model. You held the focus at the extended part. Anyone else think so?
Apart from that it is very convenient to have lenses that squash down for packing. Was about to upgrade the 70-200 f/4 for the newer version but now I'll have to save for the RF and body.


----------



## dkaupp (Nov 1, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Nice for those that have the EOS R........been waiting 3 months for back order!!!!!!!!!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 1, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> Interesting question, I wondered the same thing with the RF 24-105 F4 V the RF 70-200 F2.8 when both set at 70mm & F4. I have both lenses and I cant identify why but I prefer the 70-200. It just seems better to me, although I haven't done a scientific back to back comparison. It's just a gut reaction.


The 70-200mm is faster focusing and sharper... but it comes down to how many lenses I take with me. YMMV
1 lens = 24-105mm
Landscape/seascape: 2 lenses = 16-35mm/4 + 70-200mm/2.8
Waterfalls/hiking: 1 lens = 16-35mm/4
Low light/action/indoors: 2 lenses = 16-35mm/4 + 70-200mm/2.8 and maybe 24-105mm for karate sparring where the distance varies widely
Zoo = 100mm macro + 100-500mm 
Astro 14mm/2.8 + 8-15mm/4
Underwater is 1 lens per setup with either: 100mm macro setup. Wide 16-35mm or if big subjects/fun = 8-15mm/4


----------



## Hagar (Nov 2, 2020)

We have both the 2.8L and 4.0L EF 70-200 lenses. We usually reach for the lighter unless shooting out of our Jeep. Optically we cannot tell the difference. As we get older weight matters more than size.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Nov 2, 2020)

The RF 2.8 is already so small and light. I own one of each of the EF versions because of the weight difference (which will be sold soon). But with already owning the RF 2.8 70-200 it's hard to imagine any scenario where I might need this f/4 version. 

Of course other people's weight tolerance is different than mine, and we don't know how much it weighs. And if you don't need 2.8, even smaller and lighter and cheaper is the better option if you want just one.

(That, or the act of finally selling lenses instead of hoarding to transition to RF is curbing my GAS, and I'm not as prone to coming up with reasons to buy every lens.)


----------



## dominic_siu (Nov 2, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I am about to purchase the RF 70-200 f/2.8L...and then I see this! Man...Canon keeps delivering some incredible lenses for this system!


Since you’re using RP, this F4 70200 suits you more


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 2, 2020)

The more I think about this, the more I want it. I wish they would release a 24-70 f4 L IS. That would be so small, and with this a great travel combo. 

-Brian


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 2, 2020)

Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.


----------



## OneSnark (Nov 2, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> It can be personal but you commented publicly, hence I improved your naming convention by making it acceptable to a broader audience, nothing personal.
> 
> I (and many others) could easily buy an R5 and 5 or 6 3k lens , pay cash for them and go bonkers with the shutter. But I would be regretting it for a few Olympic periods, specially as my wife would either file a divorce if I did . That's why my mental budget allows for up to ±€1K lens, by principle. €1.5K to 2K is already a "long stretchy stretch" and only happens if the lens is really something I got real wishes upon. (85mm 1.4 or 135 1.8...trigger that to me)
> 
> ...



Yes, I can also easily buy one of these cameras - - and a small pile of lenses.

But do I want to?

I don't use this equipment professionally. . .for me it is a hobby. Not even my most expensive hobby. 
Considering that my current EF lenses work just fine. . . and the cost. . . I just don't find the case for RF compelling.

BTW: I do have the 70-200/4L. . got it YEARS before the 70-200/4L-IS was released. . . it is a great lens; and I really liked the images I took with it.

I finally (functionally) replaced it with a 100-400/IS. . . about 15 years later. I just needed the longer reach more often than I needed the light weight.
I did look at the 70-200/2.8-IS. . .but for me the Weight penalty wasn't worth extra stop of light.

IF i was going for the RF line. . . .probably would just get the 100-500 for the telephoto and call it a day.


----------



## Danglin52 (Nov 2, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> I do recall the great photographer-artist, Art Wolfe using the f4 version. I am sure he preferred that over the f2.8 and surely cost had nothing to do with it.


Weight and size trade off when you travel extensively to remote locations like Art and his peers. I was a f2.8 zoom die hard until I started doing more remote travel and dealing with light aircraft weight limits. I am also getting a bit older and the camera bag felt like it was getting heavier(and bigger). I flipped all my EF zooms to f4’s and have no regrets. I doubt most people could see any difference in optical quality f2.8 vs f4. My RF lenses will eventually include RF 24-105, RF 70-200 f4, RF 100-500 f4-f7.1, RF 1.4x TC, and RF 85 f2 for fun. Some might argue that I have overlap and don’t need the 70-200, but I prefer the lens in some situations.


----------



## Danglin52 (Nov 2, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Maybe, but I have just checked his website, the gear section: he is using the f2.8 version...


his gear section is not always up to date and he has mentioned using the 70–200 f4 version and has also used the 24-70 f4. He uses both the f2.8 and f4 versions.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 2, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
> So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.


Gotta love the word "crippled"!
Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm. 
I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both

There is nothing stopping you from using your EF TCs + EF70-200mm f2.8 with a R mount adaptor as size doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Options are the beauty of the R mount system. Save money and keep your current EF lenses and they work fine (better AF in some cases).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 2, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Gotta love the word "crippled"!
> Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
> Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm.
> I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both
> ...



How does the TC work on the 100-500? You have to set the zoom to 300mm and mount the TC i understand. So if the focal length is at 250mm, you cannot even attach the TC or risk damaging the lens? And i suppose once you attached the TC, the lens need to be stored extended, cannot be collapsed.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> all focal lengths are useful for landscape.ALL



Hmm, I've done landscape shots at 700mm+ and by that point, atmospheric haze and distortion are so great that the resulting images are usually only of academic interest (like, 'I can see this mountain from 70 miles away!').


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2020)

My first L lens was the EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). It was affordable and the image quality blew me away, coming from budget/kit lenses. This will be a great multipurpose lens for casual strolls, especially if you like a bit of telephoto compression (which I do). Incidentally I also had the f/2.8 IS II and while it is also excellent, the vastly higher price (and extra bulk) made it a lot less fun, and by that point I was nitpicking where it was weak (e.g. sharpness at 200mm close to MFD). There's room for both, but making this one so small adds to its appeal - and I've normally been less enthusiastic about length-changing zooms.


----------



## dave61 (Nov 2, 2020)

Do we know for sure that TC is unsupported?


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 2, 2020)

PhotoGenerous said:


> The RF 2.8 is already so small and light. I own one of each of the EF versions because of the weight difference (which will be sold soon). But with already owning the RF 2.8 70-200 it's hard to imagine any scenario where I might need this f/4 version.
> 
> Of course other people's weight tolerance is different than mine, and we don't know how much it weighs. And if you don't need 2.8, even smaller and lighter and cheaper is the better option if you want just one.
> 
> (That, or the act of finally selling lenses instead of hoarding to transition to RF is curbing my GAS, and I'm not as prone to coming up with reasons to buy every lens.)


I agree regarding weight savings. Obviously the f4 will be affordable for a lot of people.


----------



## neilsnyd (Nov 2, 2020)

So I am wondering, is this lens small enough that there isn't a need for a tripod mount? It doesn't look like there is the traditional tripod ring around the lens. Views are only from the top so I guess we will wait and see. I also hope they include the lens hood. It doesn't show one in the pictures....


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 2, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Since you’re using RP, this F4 70200 suits you more



I do not have an RP? I have the R5 and R6.


----------



## fabao (Nov 2, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Gotta love the word "crippled"!
> Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
> Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm.
> I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both
> ...



I vote compactness!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 2, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I do not have an RP? I have the R5 and R6.



I think this forum chooses RP as the default camera for each new profile and displays it next to your name. Which is a mistake in my opinion, should be left blank.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 2, 2020)

Keep in mind that just because you have a 2.8f lens, you don't have to use it wide open. Typically most lenses peak at around f8 and with IS you can handhold slower shutter speeds and a higher (smaller hole) f-stop for increased sharpness. I handhold my 100-500mm at low shutter speeds and f8 with good results. Depth of Field with a Tele is generally small and using the lens wide open only exacerbates the DOF problem.


----------



## Kimejby (Nov 2, 2020)

Could you put a coke Can besides the lenses for size comparison ?


----------



## danfaz (Nov 2, 2020)

neilsnyd said:


> So I am wondering, is this lens small enough that there isn't a need for a tripod mount? It doesn't look like there is the traditional tripod ring around the lens. Views are only from the top so I guess we will wait and see. I also hope they include the lens hood. It doesn't show one in the pictures....


Correct, small enough it doesn't need a tripod mount.
All L lenses come with a lens hood.


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 2, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I'd suggest that you take a black tele-lens to Death Valley in summertime...or to southern Italy.
> You'd hope you had taken the white one (personal experience, after a few minutes, I could no longer take pictures).


Sure but this one is almost 50% black, extended even.


----------



## swkitt (Nov 2, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Depth of Field with a Tele is generally small and using the lens wide open only exacerbates the DOF problem.



I never had the feeling than a small depth of field was a problem !


----------



## SteveC (Nov 2, 2020)

swkitt said:


> I never had the feeling than a small depth of field was a problem !



It is if doing landscapes.


----------



## JaimeAndresPhoto1 (Nov 2, 2020)

This lens has to be amazing for studio work, which average aperture used with strobes are between 5.6 to 8, this lens will be a killer choice for studio photographers. Light, sharp, fast focus, well balanced. It's gonna be less than the F2.8, which is around $2600, so my guess is that Canon will introduce it at around $1400 then bring it down closer to $1100 in a couple of years


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 2, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Indeed, when you have the best-in-class gear, you have only yourself to blame if the result is not as expected.


I'm a lucky boy. Just need the opportunity to get out and play. Not likely now with a new lockdown coming in for a month :-((


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 2, 2020)

neilsnyd said:


> So I am wondering, is this lens small enough that there isn't a need for a tripod mount? It doesn't look like there is the traditional tripod ring around the lens. Views are only from the top so I guess we will wait and see. I also hope they include the lens hood. It doesn't show one in the pictures....


To be honest, the RF70-200 F2.8 comes with a collar but the only time I use it is when I want to do longer exposure and need to use a tripod. When handholding, I take it off as it's not that heavy and has a reasonable balance. The F4 version looks even smaller & lighter so I wouldn't have thought it will come with a collar and doesn't really need one.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 2, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> To be honest, the RF70-200 F2.8 comes with a collar but the only time I use it is when I want to do longer exposure and need to use a tripod. When handholding, I take it off as it's not that heavy and has a reasonable balance. The F4 version looks even smaller & lighter so I wouldn't have thought it will come with a collar and doesn't really need one.


Ive seen at least one professional photographer that uses a 70-200 f4 mounted on the body for landscape work and does not have a tripod collar mounted on the lens. I would never consider using the lens like that. But, I guess it is light enough to work with the f4. Still surprising, though.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 2, 2020)

JaimeAndresPhoto1 said:


> This lens has to be amazing for studio work, which average aperture used with strobes are between 5.6 to 8, this lens will be a killer choice for studio photographers. Light, sharp, fast focus, well balanced. It's gonna be less than the F2.8, which is around $2600, so my guess is that Canon will introduce it at around $1400 then bring it down closer to $1100 in a couple of years


Totally agree, unless you put ND filters, 5.6 to 8 is indeed the usual aperture for flash, and in a studio context a lighter, more compact and less intimidating lens will always be a plus for me. Also less costly  ! I have ordered the 100-500 as the travel zoom, and paying $2,699 for a 70-200 that will probably get less use and that overlaps with the 24-105 and 100-500 would be hard to justify, whereas one can hope this new one is affordable as you suggest.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 2, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> How does the TC work on the 100-500? You have to set the zoom to 300mm and mount the TC i understand. So if the focal length is at 250mm, you cannot even attach the TC or risk damaging the lens? And i suppose once you attached the TC, the lens need to be stored extended, cannot be collapsed.


I don't have a RF TC but I believe the answer to all your questions is yes. See the online reviews which will show you the limitations. I wouldn't store the TC on the lens.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 2, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Since you’re using RP, this F4 70200 suits you more


Hum, I do hope you allude to the match in compactness (more below on that) and not "better L lenses are too good for the RP", which would be IMHO some rather harsh words for the RP. In my (many) years of photography, buying great glass for a good body has always outdone buying lesser quality glass for a top notch body. I was using a Digital Rebel 450 in 2007 when I bought my first L, the 70-200 L IS 2.8, and it was amazing (it got better as I evolved to the 5D, etc... but it popped already on the non-pro bodies). 
I love the RP because it delivers on the compactness of the mirrorless concept, and with that in mind this new, even more compact 70-200L makes total sense, and optically will probably be as good as the EF version if not better. 
With the 24-105 L (or in a pinch the 35mm f:1.8) on one RP and this new 70-200 f:4 on the other, you will be able to walk around all day and take amazing pictures.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 2, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> With the 24-105 L (or in a pinch the 35mm f:1.8) on one RP and this new 70-200 f:4 on the other, you will be able to walk around all day and take amazing pictures.



I've gone on several trips so far with just the R5, RF 35mm, and RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and have absolutely loved it. Never felt like I was missing out on anything while enjoying my time off. 

The RF 35 is a great little macro lens, a great environmental portrait lens, and an excellent lowlight lens, it's been everything I've needed on the wide end. Then the RF 70-200 2.8 being so small has made me consistently pick it over the 100-400 I have, especially when you can use the 17 mp crop mode on the R5 to get to effectively 320mm. 

The RF 70-200 F/4 will only take this set-up a step further in lightening the load--with just this and the RF 35mm you would have a wide angle, a macro lens, lowlight prime, and a telephoto lens that could, with an R5's crop, get you to 320mm all on full frame and contained within a tiny, tiny sling bag or shoulder bag. That would have been just about impossible from any brand before Canon released these lenses.

What a smart accomplishment from Canon, this is excellent.


----------



## ColinJR (Nov 2, 2020)

I have the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II and it's a fantastic performing and handling lens, but every time I forget the adapter, I want a native option more... So, as much as I want the 2.8 version, I would be mighty tempted to trade mine in for this.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 3, 2020)

According to Nokishita, the 50mm will be $199 and the 70-200 $1599


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 3, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> According to Nokishita, the 50mm will be $199 and the 70-200 $1599



Both of those numbers surprise me... one being lower and the other being higher than I would have expected.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 3, 2020)

Such a small lens to wear the great white hue. It's going to look awesome on an R body wrapped in white.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 3, 2020)

ColinJR said:


> I have the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II and it's a fantastic performing and handling lens, but every time I forget the adapter, I want a native option more... So, as much as I want the 2.8 version, I would be mighty tempted to trade mine in for this.


After having owned the 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk1 for many years I sold it and bought the 70-200 f:4 mk2. Optics, IS and AF were outstanding but it was a large and relatively heavy lens, not much more compact or lighter compared to the 2.8, probably because both designs were internal focus / internal zoom fixed length lenses. This helps maintain image quality and product consistency since there are no potentially compromising barrel lengthening mechanics to deal with, or breathing. 
It is interesting that in the RF offering, Canon went a different route and embraced barrel lengthening for all zooms, and for the f:4 version of the 70-200 L have managed to make it more compact than the already compact RF 70-200 L f:2.8.


----------



## goldenhusky (Nov 3, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.



Agree with you and a 200mm macro makes perfect sense for your use cases. In my case I have always used 100-400L mark ii, sigma 150-600 Sports (I sold this a while ago) and 600 f/4 V1 for wildlife. I never used my 70-200 for any kind of wildlife. I use it if I shoot an event for a friend or family. At the moment thouhg I do not have any Canon bodies so using Sony A7r4 along with Sony 200-600 exclusively for wildlife. That is the best wildlife combo I have had so far. I am hoping the R5 with the Canon lenses would make a better setup. I Will have to wait for a long time to get my hands on a R5 though.


----------



## rightslot (Nov 3, 2020)

I think Canon has us over a barrel. Until a third-party makes a direct RF type lens I think Cannon has us if we like the R cameras. (If you want serious quality.)

I have the 24-70RF L 2.8 and now have a Samyang 85 1.4 RF. I'll tell you RIGHT NOW. There is no comparison between the Canon and the Samyang. 

Yes of course the 1.4 gives a bit more separation than the 2.8, but that's about it. 

The snappy and accurate focusing on the 24-70 is a joy to use. And because it is native, it works in all phases. *While the Samyang is nice once it gets there, you'll need a bit more patience and anticipation to enjoy similar performance. The stabilization does not work in modes outside of full auto. Therefore you need to keep the shutter speed @ or above 1/80th to get sharp photos. Even then, it's not as sharp as the Canon 24-70mm 2.8. (These results are hand held.)*

Of course I have to agree with the overall sentiment concerning the price of these RF lenses! (Who among us is Jeff Bezos?)

But I think I'm sending the Samyang back, and I'll just have to wait or bite the bullet and get the Canon RF. Hell, even the 85mm F2 macro would most likely be better.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 3, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
> So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.


I have never perceived the 70-200 lens as telephoto zooms, my usage has always been portrait for which the focal length spread is ideal (more useful than 85mm or 135mm primes). While it was convent in the EF system to be able to add a 1.4x or 2x extender in a pinch, this was never the prime reason to own a zoom with such a (relatively) short almost 3x factor, when you have competent 70-300 (4x +) or 100-400 (4x) zooms for serious telephoto work. In my EF past, I owned a 70-200 L for portrait work and a 100-400 L for travel / telephoto missions.


----------



## dcm (Nov 3, 2020)

The RF 70-200 f/4L could well have a tripod mount similar to the 600mm and 800mm lenses, ie. without the removable ring and foot.


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 3, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.



I'm thinking that the f/2.8 will be sharper at F/4. The only way to really know is to read reviews comparing them. If you have never had an L lens less then f/2.8, I think you will be more happy getting the f/2.8 rather then the f/4 unless if you want a lighter lens.


----------



## swkitt (Nov 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It is if doing landscapes.



Hey it's not a 600 f/11, you can turn the dial you know.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

swkitt said:


> Hey it's not a 600 f/11, you can turn the dial you know.



True, true.

But I was responding to someone who was wondering why anyone would want to do so, ever.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Nov 10, 2020)

AlP said:


> Here you are:
> View attachment 193719
> 
> Sorry, no can available.



Hey thanks for the “holy mole, guacamole” image.....man that’s freaking so amazing! I can forgive Canon for the teleconverter sin they’ve committed.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 20, 2021)

An interesting apples to oranges (but useful) size comparison for those still using EF system partially or wholly (or looking to get deals on EF stuff)
[thanks to camerasize.com]. Battle of the travel zooms!

EOS R6 + RF 70-200mm f/4L IS
vs
EOS 6D II + EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

Personally I find a 70-200 f/2.8 + 70-300 f/4-5.6L combo more interesting with its extra reach than a 70-200 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/4. Might be worth seeing what Canon does for RF 70-300L if you already have the RF 70-200 2.8.


----------

