# The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM announcement draws closer



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 11, 2020)

> The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has appeared for Russian certification (SKU 4318C005A), which means we should get an official announcement soon. I expect to see the RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM to be announced alongside it.
> While we don’t have an exact announcement date, we may see them announced in a few weeks alongside the new RF mount Cinema cameras and other new gear.



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Aug 11, 2020)

I assume this one will accept the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.


----------



## mrproxy (Aug 11, 2020)

In image attached there is not a single mention of an 70-200. How you get that?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 11, 2020)

padam said:


> I assume this one will accept the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.



Why, when the f/2.8 doesn't, where it would be more useful?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 11, 2020)

padam said:


> I assume this one will accept the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.



It'll be interesting to see what their design choice will be on the f/4 version. If it has an internal zoom, it's quite possible that the teleconverters will work.


----------



## lbeck (Aug 11, 2020)

I hope the 50 1.8 is as small and light as the classic nifty fifty.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 11, 2020)

Hope the 50 1.8 won't be a $500 lens.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Hope the 50 1.8 won't be a $500 lens.



truly


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It'll be interesting to see what their design choice will be on the f/4 version. If it has an internal zoom, it's quite possible that the teleconverters will work.


Interesting idea - I was shure they will do it as extending zoom for "stow away compactness" but maybe they have found an optical formular to make it internal but still quite compact (with enouth space for TCs).
Would be great to have f/8 with 2x TC after we do no longer have fear for f/11 primes !


----------



## LLW902 (Aug 11, 2020)

I'm a little surprised it has taken this long for a budget minded 50mm lens to make its way to the RF system. Hopefully we won't be waiting too much longer and hopefully the price won't be drastically higher than the hundred-ish dollars that have made the plastic fantastic such a big seller for them.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 11, 2020)

I have upgrade fever for an R6, because I can't swing an R5 anytime in the near future. I have the EF 70-200F4LIS, and love it. I wonder how much better this one will be? Also will it do the full 12/20FPS? I think all RF native lenses do. 


-Brian


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 11, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I have upgrade fever for an R6, because I can't swing an R5 anytime in the near future. I have the EF 70-200F4LIS, and love it. I wonder how much better this one will be? Also will it do the full 12/20FPS? I think all RF native lenses do.
> 
> 
> -Brian


Same here. I expect a shorter and lighter (than adapter+lens) system and I expect some strong optimization for cooperative IS (IBIS + lens) and some nano-USM implementation to exploit the video capabilties of the R5/6 cameras.
I do not expect some stellar improvement of IQ because there is not too much to gain - IMO it is excellent (but not tests with more than 26 MPixels in FF land. By the way:; I am speaking about the mark i IS lens.


----------



## gzroxas (Aug 11, 2020)

Although I like the internal zoom in my 70-200 f4 IS, I wonder if they'll do an extending RF 70-200 f4 IS... Portability and quality are key to me


----------



## miketcool (Aug 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Hope the 50 1.8 won't be a $500 lens.



The RF 35mm f/1.8 is $400. I betting the 50mm will come in around $300 if they add a control ring.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 11, 2020)

I really love my EF 70-200 f4 L IS II and plan to keep it for the foreseeable future. It is a great lens and can adapt to my R5 and M6 II with the option of using the EF 1.4x TC III. I still have my 100-400 II, but it wll go as soon as I receive the RF 100-500 and validate the performance.


----------



## Fast351 (Aug 11, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I have upgrade fever for an R6, because I can't swing an R5 anytime in the near future. I have the EF 70-200F4LIS, and love it. I wonder how much better this one will be? Also will it do the full 12/20FPS? I think all RF native lenses do.



Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.


----------



## Jstnelson (Aug 11, 2020)

What happened to the 35mm f1.2L rumored for 2020? It just stopped getting mentioned.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 11, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> What happened to the 35mm f1.2L rumored for 2020? It just stopped getting mentioned.



Unfortunately, we still have another 4+ months left of 2020.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 11, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.


70-200/2.8 II has been confirmed being 12FPS Ready by a forum member. HenryL if I recall correctly?


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 11, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.


I don't think there is any difference in frame rate between EF/RF lenses. This one will really hard to measure without some testing tools. The only difference I would expect would be in IBIS effectiveness. The RF lenses communicate more information and should provide better co-operation between he body/lens.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 11, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.


Its in the manuals that were previously linked for download on this site. At least the list that is capable of 12/20. Doesn't say what you can get with the other lenses, though the answer based on various youtube videos seems to be 9fps.


----------



## Jstnelson (Aug 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Unfortunately, we still have another 4+ months left of 2020.


Correct, but it stopped getting mentioned as a lens coming in 2020.


----------



## trulandphoto (Aug 11, 2020)

LLW902 said:


> I'm a little surprised it has taken this long for a budget minded 50mm lens to make its way to the RF system. Hopefully we won't be waiting too much longer and hopefully the price won't be drastically higher than the hundred-ish dollars that have made the plastic fantastic such a big seller for them.


I will be more expensive. It has IS and the RF lens communication.

My guess is $349 US.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 11, 2020)

Pricing for both will be key. The fast lenses have been expensive for many so Canon need to hit a home run on keen pricing.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 11, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Its in the manuals that were previously linked for download on this site. At least the list that is capable of 12/20. Doesn't say what you can get with the other lenses, though the answer based on various youtube videos seems to be 9fps.



This doesn't answer your frame rate question, but it should be useful as another data point in how EF adapted lenses work on R5/R6. Just posted a few hours ago and shows the AF of an adapted Canon EF 400 f2.8 AND Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Again, just another data point and not proof of FPS. 






CANON EOS R5 / R6 Adapted EF LENS Test | CAN IT KEEP UP??? | Fro Knows Photo


One of the biggest questions I've been asked since Canon released their EOS R5 and R6 is how is the Auto Focus with EF Glass adapted with the RF adapter? On top of that how is it with third party glass from Sigma and Tamron? I tested a 400 2.8 Canon EF and a Sigma



froknowsphoto.com


----------



## murzik (Aug 11, 2020)

The title is completely misleading. In Russian it say Canon RF85/1.2. No mention Canon 70-200/4


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Unfortunately, we still have another 4+ months left of 2020.


Yes I’m looking forward to that lens and a 24 1.2 for editorial portrait work. Also I thought I saw a rumor of a 135 1.4. Or maybe that’s just my wishful thinking?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Aug 11, 2020)

I’m going to stick with adapting my nifty fifty III and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM for now, saving so I can hopefully afford an R6 sooner or later.


----------



## Eclipsed (Aug 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Hope the 50 1.8 won't be a $500 lens.


 I assume it will be like the $399 35mm


----------



## Eclipsed (Aug 11, 2020)

lbeck said:


> I hope the 50 1.8 is as small and light as the classic nifty fifty.



I'm delighted with my "Hefty Fifty" RF50 f1.2.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 12, 2020)

padam said:


> I assume this one will accept the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.



Why? If the 2.8 doesn't it seems highly unlikely the 4 will.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Hope the 50 1.8 won't be a $500 lens.



If it's as good as the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 then I'd pay $500 for it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Why? If the 2.8 doesn't it seems highly unlikely the 4 will.


This is one advantage of keeping/buying EF 70-200 or 100-400 lenses for the R cameras. You can use an EF-RF + EF 1.4x / 2x TC III + 70-200 or 100-400 II with the R bodies. I guess I should give this a test tomorrow to make sure it works.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 12, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> I'm delighted with my "Hefty Fifty" RF50 f1.2.



Hefty Fifty is an understatement.

That sucker is so heavy it bends light OUTSIDE the shell, without the use of refraction.

If you know what I mean


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Why? If the 2.8 doesn't it seems highly unlikely the 4 will.


Seconded on this. The 2.8 70-200 doesn't take extenders in exchange for portability. There's no way that they would make the more portable 70-200 F/4 less portable than its bigger brother. That is, unless they decide to make the more expensive 2.8 lens more portable than the cheaper F/4 lens to convince more people to upgrade.

I love my RF 70-200 and honestly that lens on its own has been such a huge change for me. My go-to set up at the moment is the 1DX2 with a 24-70 and R5 with the RF 70-200, and it really just feels like I'm carrying two 24-70s. Way, way more comfortable using the RF 70-200 on the R5 than my old EF.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 12, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I really love my EF 70-200 f4 L IS II and plan to keep it for the foreseeable future. It is a great lens and can adapt to my R5 and M6 II with the option of using the EF 1.4x TC III. I still have my 100-400 II, but it wll go as soon as I receive the RF 100-500 and validate the performance.



I would not bother updating the 70-200 f/4L IS II either it's so good and the ability to use a TC is very welcome. I'm hardly going to buy any RF glass when I get the R5, it's stupidly priced in Australia, far dearer than the equivalent EF and the longer tele options literally suck.


----------



## padam (Aug 12, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Seconded on this. The 2.8 70-200 doesn't take extenders in exchange for portability. There's no way that they would make the more portable 70-200 F/4 less portable than its bigger brother. That is, unless they decide to make the more expensive 2.8 lens more portable than the cheaper F/4 lens to convince more people to upgrade.
> 
> I love my RF 70-200 and honestly that lens on its own has been such a huge change for me. My go-to set up at the moment is the 1DX2 with a 24-70 and R5 with the RF 70-200, and it really just feels like I'm carrying two 24-70s. Way, way more comfortable using the RF 70-200 on the R5 than my old EF.


Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and _both _are Internal zooming.

f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98

The 20mm flange distance needs to be subtracted from these.
So not a huge penalty in terms of size, still smaller than the EF f/4 versions with an RF adapter.

Either pay a premium for f/2.8 and reduced length or pay less for f/4, internal zooming, and teleconverter compatibilty. (Until they come out with an f/2.8 internal zooming lens, if they ever will)


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2020)

padam said:


> Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and _both _are Internal zooming.
> 
> f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
> f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98
> ...



I had a little trouble understating if your f4 referees in the last paragraph above is the RF or EF f4. If EF f4, you can ignore my comment which I based on assuming you meant RF f4. I didn't look at the patent, but I think it is more of an issue how far the rear element is recessed inside the lens tube rather than if the lens is internal focusing. Comparing the actual RF 1.4x TC vs EF 1.4x TC III, the RF protrudes a lot deeper into the lens tube EF 1.4x TC.


----------



## padam (Aug 12, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I had a little trouble understating if your f4 referees in the last paragraph above is the RF or EF f4. If EF f4, you can ignore my comment which I based on assuming you meant RF f4. I didn't look at the patent, but I think it is more of an issue how far the rear element is recessed inside the lens tube rather than if the lens is internal focusing. Comparing the actual RF 1.4x TC vs EF 1.4x TC III, the RF protrudes a lot deeper into the lens tube EF 1.4x TC.


As you said it yourself, just look at the patent. The rear element is not at the edge of the mount.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2020)

padam said:


> As you said it yourself, just look at the patent. The rear element is not at the edge of the mount.
> View attachment 192105


The problem is that the diagram does not have exact measurements. In addition, the part of the extender that protrudes into the lens barrel is 5/8 - 3/4 inch in length. There is no way to tell from the diagram the distance between the rear element and the mount. Here is a picture of the EF & RF TC's. You could be correct, but there is not enough information available to actually confirm that the RF 70-200 f4 L IS can accept the RF 1.4x TC. The RF TC is the one on the left.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 12, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> This is one advantage of keeping/buying EF 70-200 or 100-400 lenses for the R cameras. You can use an EF-RF + EF 1.4x / 2x TC III + 70-200 or 100-400 II with the R bodies. I guess I should give this a test tomorrow to make sure it works.



You'll be fine. I used 70-200 f/2.8 IS III > 2.0x extender II > 1.4x extender II > control ring adapter in the R (not the R5 yet), and was able to autofocus no problem. I would LOVE to replace all 3 with the RF equivalents but it's just not in the cards. I wish they'd make a reasonably sized RF zoom that starts at 200mm or so, then I could carry 2 lenses instead of the TC's... The 100-500mm doesn't go as long as I would like and 100mm overlaps too far.


----------



## jdavidse (Aug 12, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Unfortunately, we still have another 4+ months left of 2020.



A+ post


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 12, 2020)

padam said:


> Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and _both _are Internal zooming.
> 
> f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
> f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98
> ...




I feel like Canon still has at least *something* up its sleeve for a lens like this, though.

One detail the patents would leave out is a lens being collapsible, if it is internal zoom and has a long backfocus for extenders there's room to collapse over. It would make a lot of sense for the 70-200 F/4 to be collapsible, which is a huge pick for people who hike or shoot landscapes. Plus, you'd get both extender use and small size in a bag.

That said, I could see Canon as seeing the extending zoom of the F/2.8 as a reason for people to upgrade. Just doesn't seem fair to backpackers to have to pick up the F/2.8 just to make room in a bag. Maybe they see the use of extenders as saving room, since it would let the lens also be a 400mm f/8, but who knows.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 13, 2020)

padam said:


> Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and _both _are Internal zooming.
> 
> f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
> f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98
> ...


I'm not buying it. Canon made a conscious design decision with the f/2.8 to go for size and weight over extender compatibility. They will certainly stick to this decision with the f/4.0. Perhaps later on they will come out with a 70-200 f/2 and a f/3.5 or something similar that don't collapse and accept extenders, but not this time around. My 2 cents...


----------



## sobrien (Aug 13, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> The problem is that the diagram does not have exact measurements. In addition, the part of the extender that protrudes into the lens barrel is 5/8 - 3/4 inch in length. There is no way to tell from the diagram the distance between the rear element and the mount. Here is a picture of the EF & RF TC's. You could be correct, but there is not enough information available to actually confirm that the RF 70-200 f4 L IS can accept the RF 1.4x TC. The RF TC is the one on the left.
> 
> View attachment 192106



What I find a bit curious is that Canon decided to give the RF 100-500 a way to overcome the large protrusion - i.e. a mechanism to prevent the rear element from bumping into the extender to allow it to be used at 300mm+ - but for whatever reason did not provide the RF 70-200 f/2.8 with a similar protective mechanism that might allow it to work at 200mm, say. I have not measured it but there seems to be plenty of space at the rear of the RF 70-200 when zoomed out. I wonder did Canon do that to encourage sales of the RF 100-500 (or rumoured 100-400 non-L) or is there some genuine technical reason for that?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 13, 2020)

Why do teleconverters need that protruding part? Why cannot be completely flat? They might be 1cm bigger that way but at least could be mounted on almost any lens, like the RF 70-200


----------



## StandardLumen (Aug 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Why do teleconverters need that protruding part? Why cannot be completely flat? They might be 1cm bigger that way but at least could be mounted on almost any lens, like the RF 70-200



I'm not certain, but the extender being bigger rather than having the protruding piece is not the same, because it affects the distance to the lens elements. My guess is that this design will work with a variety of lenses that function similar to the new RF 100-500, where the extender can only be used with the lens at the longer focal lengths. This is a design that comes at the cost of some compatibility and flexibility, but means the lenses can all be smaller and lighter while still maintaining the same maximum focal lengths.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 13, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.




There is a page out of the manual for the R5 floating around in one of these threads that lists them all. I'm not sure which one it's in, but I'm pretty sure it came right out of the manual.

EDIT: It's page 896 of the R5 manual. All adapted lenses that can do 12FPS.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 13, 2020)

sobrien said:


> What I find a bit curious is that Canon decided to give the RF 100-500 a way to overcome the large protrusion - i.e. a mechanism to prevent the rear element from bumping into the extender to allow it to be used at 300mm+ - but for whatever reason did not provide the RF 70-200 f/2.8 with a similar protective mechanism that might allow it to work at 200mm, say. I have not measured it but there seems to be plenty of space at the rear of the RF 70-200 when zoomed out. I wonder did Canon do that to encourage sales of the RF 100-500 (or rumoured 100-400 non-L) or is there some genuine technical reason for that?


Just a guess, but it may have something to do with TC design optimizations for the upcoming RF versions of the 300, 400, 500, 600 & 800. I found it interesting you had to bet at 300mm on the RF 100-500 before you could attach the TC. That happens to match the beginning of the super telephotos - 300mm F2.8. They might have been able to make it work at 200mm, but didn't feel it was necessary for the 70- 200mm if 200mm is the shortest focal length that can use the TC and you would loose the rest of the zoom range. I am hoping that is the case, because I would really like a 200-400 replacement stretched out to 200-500 w/integrated TC (and 2-3lbs lighter).


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 15, 2020)

I just hope things work out in the mid term so Canon continues to release ambitious and even daring lens designs.


----------



## filmmakerken (Sep 25, 2020)

Any news on this lens?????


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 25, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Hefty Fifty is an understatement.
> 
> That sucker is so heavy it bends light OUTSIDE the shell, without the use of refraction.
> 
> If you know what I mean



For a 50 I guess it's kinda big... but it's about the same weight as the 24-70 f2.8... so not terrible. It's the 28-70 f2 that starts warping space/time.


----------

