Looking good Canon for No 1 spot in ML world, hopefully this lens 70-200 F4 can be used with the RF teleconvertors.
Upvote
0
Looking good Canon for No 1 spot in ML world, hopefully this lens 70-200 F4 can be used with the RF teleconvertors.
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.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
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
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?
Just because it is small does not make it a 'travel' or 'hiking' lens. This is an all-purpose lens including money work.
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.I can agree with this. My 70-200L II f2.8 is one of my least used lenses...
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...
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.
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
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?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
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. I reckon not compatible is running about a CR 5 at the momentUntil we see where the back element is, we won’t be able to tell if they will be compatible.
70-200 are also very useful for landscape.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.