The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM begins shipping this week

Mr.Burberry · Jan 25, 2021

Well.. RF 70-200 2.8 is ******* then

dolina · Jan 26, 2021

If you have little intention to sell your EF 70-200mm and want the lightest 70-200mm then this RF would be to buy.

usern4cr · Jan 26, 2021

This sounds like a great f4L lens for those wanting a smaller, lighter & less expensive version of the f2.8L version. They've increased the max magnification to 0.28x so you can still get some big background blur for close objects (like flowers) at 200mm. I'm looking forward to more RF lenses with big max. magnification, hopefully in some of the future long telephotos to come.

xwxw · Jan 26, 2021

Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.

dwarven · Jan 26, 2021

xwxw said:
Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.

"xxx is *******" replies are *******.

Bdbtoys · Jan 26, 2021

xwxw said:
Can we not have this "xxx is *******" automatic reply any more. Just like the meme it is intended to make fun of, it is quickly becoming a corny and unthinking reaction to almost anything being posted here. Well sad to say, but it does not age well, unlike most Canon lenses.

Agreed... It's getting a bit long in the tooth... It's no better than "First!".

Edit...

Canon Rumors Guy · Jan 26, 2021

Bdbtoys · Jan 26, 2021

So back to the topic...

Are any of us in the forum buying this soon? If so, is cost or size/weight your main reason to get this (or both)? Would you get this over or in addition to a 2.8?

For me, it's an odd duck. Would I want it, sure. Do I need it, not yet.

If I was starting new w/o lenses and wanted a 1st RF lens that could reach everything as cheap as possible, the 24-240 would be a prime candidate. So that leaves this user out for now.

But lets say I'm a bit pickier in glass, and I was starting new w/o lenses and had a bit more cash to throw at it, and had a desire to get good RF glass and want decent range... I would get a 24-105 & 70-200 F4 L's. However, if I was able to spend a bit more, wouldn't I be better suited with a 24-105 + 100-500 L's. The second lens would be a hard call... as I would have to factor weight vs range (as well as cost).

However, if I didn't need <70mm zoom... the decision might become a whole lot easier. And actually the 70-200 F4 L + 50 STM and/or 35 STM 1.8's would be a pretty lightweight & versatile kit (could even toss in a DO for good measure).

But not starting new... most have 2.8 in this range already. And the main advantage this has is size/weight (don't get me wrong, that itself is a good reason). Cost, although a factor in all buying decisions, however I don't see it as important in this case (for the 'want'). For these people it becomes a want of the reduced size/weight, factoring in 'how soon' one want's it over other glass (Pokemon for adults?).

It would make for a heck of a light (but high quality) kit piece in good/fair lighting. But I'm still building my collection and given a choice of a 2.8 vs 4, I would take the 2.8 zooms first (missing 1)... and lug around the extra weight.

After all this, I think I answered my own question (for myself) and it really comes down to wanting the reduced size/weight.

mb66energy · Jan 26, 2021

I would like to have it, it's so cute ...

On the other hand: The 4.0 70-200 IS mark i is a very good lens and I enjoy it on my M50 where it gives me a good range from 110---320mm.
The old one with APS-C gives me nearly the same image field like the new RF variant (effectively 0.33 max. reprod. ratio) but with twice the distance - I think the RF version has less focal length at close distance to gain the 0.28 max. reproduction ratio.
Another thing is the fact that I usually use this lens @200mm so during photographing the effective size will be the same.

But in a pure RF system this new lens seems to be a gorgeous tool!

Danglin52 · Jan 26, 2021

I placed my pre-order for the RF 70-200 f4 L IS as soon as it was announced and available to order on B&H. While I really like the f2.8 lenses, I purchased the f4 version for size/weight cost was not an issue). My focus is wildlife and I like this lens on a second body in combination with my 100-500 (100-400 previously). I know there is overlap, but the lens is a litter wider/faster. After a trip to Africa in 2017 carrying 36lbs of gear, I decided it was time to lighten the load. I sold my 1dx II / 5dIV, 24-70 f2.8 L II, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, 100-400 L IS II and 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x TC to make the move to mirrorless. My pack has been reduced to roughly 22lbs with the move to mirrorless - R5 + grip, RF 24-105 f4 L IS, RF 70-200 f4 L IS, RF 100-500 f4.5 = f7.1 L IS and 1.4x extender. After shooting the new gear for 2 weeks in YNP/GTNP, the only thing I lost was the quality and versatility of the 200-400 f4. In my opinion, the other new gear is as good or better than the old setup and 14lbs lighter (8lbs with the 200-400).

Exploreshootshare · Jan 26, 2021

I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...

Joel C · Jan 26, 2021

As of this point in 2021, the RF 15-35mm 2.8 and the 100-500 seem to cover the bases for doing video or stills. Not sure where this fits in at the 1500$ Price point. I think I would get this over the 2.8 version though considering you can still get the blur and for video this is actually a really nice range.

bbasiaga · Jan 26, 2021

Bdbtoys said:
So back to the topic...

Are any of us in the forum buying this soon? If so, is cost or size/weight your main reason to get this (or both)? Would you get this over or in addition to a 2.8?

For me, it's an odd duck. Would I want it, sure. Do I need it, not yet.

If I was starting new w/o lenses and wanted a 1st RF lens that could reach everything as cheap as possible, the 24-240 would be a prime candidate. So that leaves this user out for now.

But lets say I'm a bit pickier in glass, and I was starting new w/o lenses and had a bit more cash to throw at it, and had a desire to get good RF glass and want decent range... I would get a 24-105 & 70-200 F4 L's. However, if I was able to spend a bit more, wouldn't I be better suited with a 24-105 + 100-500 L's. The second lens would be a hard call... as I would have to factor weight vs range (as well as cost).

However, if I didn't need <70mm zoom... the decision might become a whole lot easier. And actually the 70-200 F4 L + 50 STM and/or 35 STM 1.8's would be a pretty lightweight & versatile kit (could even toss in a DO for good measure).

But not starting new... most have 2.8 in this range already. And the main advantage this has is size/weight (don't get me wrong, that itself is a good reason). Cost, although a factor in all buying decisions, however I don't see it as important in this case (for the 'want'). For these people it becomes a want of the reduced size/weight, factoring in 'how soon' one want's it over other glass (Pokemon for adults?).

It would make for a heck of a light (but high quality) kit piece in good/fair lighting. But I'm still building my collection and given a choice of a 2.8 vs 4, I would take the 2.8 zooms first (missing 1)... and lug around the extra weight.

After all this, I think I answered my own question (for myself) and it really comes down to wanting the reduced size/weight.

Just imagine a travel bag with the two cans of soda and a nice fat sandwich. Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS. Maybe you're a little worried you'll need a night time snack, so you throw a pack of cookies in the bag. Only the cookies are actually an RF 35 F1.8.

One lusty, compact, lightweight situation you'd have going on there. For me, that's the draw of this lens. Smaller, lighter, better. I'm looking forward to the reviews. I have the 70-200 F4 L IS V1 and it is great. So if this is better, I may not be able to resist for too long. I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews hit.

-Brian

jeanluc · Jan 26, 2021

Exploreshootshare said:
I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...

I think the amount of indoor sports you shoot is the factor. If you want the most versatility for that, the RF F2.8 70-200L is the way to go. If it is outdoor stuff in good light, then the decision is really between the small, light F4 70-200 and be reach-limited, or carry a bigger, heavier 100-4(5)00 around.

I have the RF 70-200, the EF 100-400II, and also the EF 70-300L. The 100-400 will be replaced soon by the RF100-500, but I use that for birds etc and the occasional car trip. The 70-200 is for indoors and low light.

I mainly shoot landscapes and travel by air, so for me, the decision is similar...whether to travel with the RF F2.8 70-200L for low light or the EF 70-300L for reach. The 70-300 is very sharp, not too big and sure has come in handy at times. I had thought about the RF 70-200 F4, but with that I lose both reach and very low light capability. So I suspect the 70-300L may be the last EF lens I keep (except for the 100L macro..).

YuengLinger · Jan 26, 2021

Exploreshootshare said:
I am going back and forth on whether I should get this lense. Lately and thanks to COVID, I've really gotten into hiking. I carry my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm (plus adapter) around which is quite heavy....therefore, I'm looking at the 70-200mm as a hiking/ easy to carry around lense. It would also make sense to use on school trips or indoor sports...(do I need F2.8 here? )
But does it make sense to own a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm (one day I'll upgrade to 100-500mm)? Isn't it just too much money spend? Every time when I finally come to a decision, I start overthinking it again When traveling: 100-400mm AND 70-200mm or just one of them? I just can't decide...

So many lenses, so little time (and money)!

lglass12189 · Jan 26, 2021

Mine will be here on Friday. Got the call yesterday that they could ship it to me on Thursday. Can't wait !

degos · Jan 26, 2021

bbasiaga said:
Only the sandwich is an RF mount camera, and the cans of soda are a 24-105 F4L IS AND 70-200 F4L IS.

Not many soda cans are 82mm in diameter!

another_mikey · Jan 26, 2021

This will sell very well, just as the excellent EF version sold very well. For me, with the RF 100-500 on backorder, it will come down strictly to how heavy my bag is on a daily basis with that lens. If I can carry it around without issues then I will probably put a purchase of this lens on hold. Otherwise, as a shooter who shoots both scenic and wildlife, I would consider this lens as the lens to bring for landscape shooting opportunities for sure.

ML