Here are the full specifications for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, I expect this lens to be announced later tonight.

Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM:

  • 16 elements in 11 groups (including 4 UD elements)
  • Minimum focusing distance: 0.6m /  23.6″
  • Maximum magnification: 0.28x
  • 9 aperture blades
  • 77mm filter thread
  • Maximum stops of IS  with the EOS RP and EOS R: 5 stops
  • Maximum stops of IS with the EOS R6 and EOS R5: 7.5 stops
  • Size: 83.5mm / 3.28″ x 119mm / 4.68″
  • Weight: 695g / 1.53lbs
  • Price: $1599 USD

Correction: I have corrected the pricing of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM from a previous typo.

Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

Go to discussion...

Share.

91 comments

  1. It's not uncommon to get a 70-200 2.8 RF used for 2400 USA model. For reputable Grey market stores 2200-2300 isn't uncommon either. At 1600 for a wise shopper its a bit too much of an ask. I think 1400 would of been a better price point. I have the 100-500 but debating on a 70-200 pick up. At 1600, I will glady go buy a used RF 2.8 or just get a grey market 2.8
  2. This is impressive! I bought the RF f/2.8 version because of the reduced weight and size, and now this came out. Though I really like the f/2.8 but at 700g with that price tag, it is really tempting.
    I am doomed!
  3. Minimum focusing distance: 0.6m

    Thats nice! My old one had 1,2m I think.
    Only 700g too!

    Price tip: 1500€ or near to 1700€ Not those 1300$ here...
    ~1500€ would be around 50% of the f2.8
  4. It's not uncommon to get a 70-200 2.8 RF used for 2400 USA model. For reputable Grey market stores 2200-2300 isn't uncommon either. At 1600 for a wise shopper its a bit too much of an ask. I think 1400 would of been a better price point. I have the 100-500 but debating on a 70-200 pick up. At 1600, I will glady go buy a used RF 2.8 or just get a grey market 2.8

    I agree about the price but i think most of the people will get the F4 version because it's smaller and lighter.
    Altough i expected the weight to be closer to 500g than 700. Its not that much lighter than the 2.8 version.
  5. My current go to small telephoto lens is the EF 70-300L. This is smaller and lighter with the 70-300L at 1,050 g, 3.5" x 5.6".

    Well, fortunately, I am not traveling any place any time soon, but when I start traveling again, this may be too tempting as a second telephoto lens when traveling with a supertelephoto or just trying to travel light.
  6. Altough i expected the weight to be closer to 500g than 700. Its not that much lighter than the 2.8 version.
    695 g vs 1070 g is quite a difference. The f/4.0 is only 65 % the weight of the f/2.8.
  7. LOVE that MFD! I could see just keeping mostly this on my R for travel, fun, family, plus put my "old" ef 35mm in a bag for wider. Wow!
    But, with that price, and all the moves to mirrorless this past year, I can wait for another year, for NEXT black Friday. And just keep the 24-105 on the R for now!
  8. What is the easiest route to take in securing the purchase of this product when it is released for sale? Back orders seem to be the order of the day.

    When we tracked R5 shipments, B&H was among the slowest for fulfilling pre-orders. Adorama was much quicker in average delivery for some reason (they also had a fraction of the B&H orders reported, which might have been the key factor, if they both got similar inventory in). The Canon store did well, not as quick as Adorama at first, but was faster for later on-backorder orders. Not to say it'll be different this time.
  9. The specs seem to be terrific, pricing is yet again a pain in my wallet :/
    At the moment, I own the absolute magnificent EF 100-400mm II and I'm going to keep it until the backorders have cleared and the MSRP´s drop. It'll probably take till 2022, but at one point I have to decide:

    1. keep EF 100-400mm
    2. get the RF 100-500mm (sell: EF 100-400mm)
    3. get the RF 70-200mm (sell: EF 100-400mm)
    4. get the RF 70-200mm and the RF 100-500mm Kind a love that option but my wallet hates it
  10. 695 g vs 1070 g is quite a difference. The f/4.0 is only 65 % the weight of the f/2.8.
    Yeah, but the EF 70-200/4 IS II is 52% the weight of the f/2.8 version. A similar size reduction would yield a weight of 565g... Still, it's a fairly lightweight lens.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment