I have just received word that the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will begin shipping from some retailers this week. I do not know what sort of allocation is being made available, or how long preorder lists are.
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is remarkably small and I'm sure it'll be optically fantastic.
- Canon's Shortest and Lightest 70-200mm f/4 Interchangeable Zoom Lens
- High Image Quality and Bright, Constant f/4 Aperture Telephoto Zoom RF L Lens
- Optical Image Stabilizer with up to 5 Stops of Shake Correction
- High Speed, Smooth and Quiet Auto Focus with Dual Nano USM
- Minimum Focusing Distance of 1.96 ft. and Maximum Magnification of 0.28x
- Control Ring for Direct Setting Changes
- 12-Pin Communication System
- Dust- and Water-resistant with Fluorine Coating
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1599 at Adorama
"xxx is *******" replies are *******.
Agreed... It's getting a bit long in the tooth... It's no better than "First!".
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.
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!
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...
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.
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..).
Not many soda cans are 82mm in diameter!