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

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
LOVE that MFD!...

Yup, same as the 2.8 version. Glad they did not compromise the MFD! Also keeping the 77mm filter thread bodes well for vignetting to match the 2.8 version stopped down to f4. Now here's hoping that they didn't need to use a large amount of software distortion correction – the 2.8 already has quite a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lethiferous

EOS M50
Nov 3, 2020
35
26
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

Around May I bought a 100-400 II new from a private seller who got it from Adorama and never even took it out the box. I bought as I decided to get into birding. I sold it 2 weeks ago for 1500s locally (the copy was not even 1 year old by date code) because I got the 100-500. Expensive upgrade and I could of waited. However, I think EF glass prices will just go down, and RF glass prices aren't going to change much. As more people dump their EF glass to move to RF, there will be more on the market. All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so. Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
550
686
USA
Am I missing something? How come this lens is so much more expensive than the EF counterpart?
It is shorter, has a stop or two more IS, and all the RF glass is more expensive because its new and popular.

Assuming IQ is about the same as the EFs, but we won't know for sure until they hit the streets. I believe it also has a larger front element (or at least filter size), which may mean good things for the level of correction. The big thing for me was seeing the size comparisons posted in one of the other threads. Its basically the size of a 24-105 lens. So small! Amazingly small and very light. If I read the specs right, when fully collapsed it will be almost 3" shorter than my 70-200F4L IS V1 EF lens. Astounding.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,567
2,472
Ouch - I guess this makes sense since RF = requires financing.

I resemble that remark, as I was debt-free before the R5 came out. Then I had to go buy a 15-35mm on top of that, and on top of THAT I bought a refurb 24-105 L (which came with an RP as an accessory). OK, gotta cool it now. Just hope the car doesn't break down (again) before I can pay it all off.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Swerky

G1X Mark III
Sep 3, 2020
31
15
Photography is my hobby. I definitely don't need those beige L lenses. One time I had the crazy opportunity of picking up a used and very clean EF 70-200 f4 IS for 400$. That was a bargain. Used clean it still goes for 650 at least. Crazy sharp lens. But turned out to be a pain to bring along and carry around. Bought a large holster bag just for it. Finally sold it. Now this turns up. A compact RF version with half the close focusing distance and even lighter. 1600$. Canon should release an RF 24-70 f4 IS to go with it. I might go crazy when that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrfig

CR Pro
Jun 27, 2019
6
6
I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.
I'm pretty sure that they went with an external zoom to make it more compact. To have it be internal zoom the overall size would have to be at least the same as when this lens is fully extended at 200mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

YuengLinger

Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,619
2,076
USA
Around May I bought a 100-400 II new from a private seller who got it from Adorama and never even took it out the box. I bought as I decided to get into birding. I sold it 2 weeks ago for 1500s locally (the copy was not even 1 year old by date code) because I got the 100-500. Expensive upgrade and I could of waited. However, I think EF glass prices will just go down, and RF glass prices aren't going to change much. As more people dump their EF glass to move to RF, there will be more on the market. All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so. Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.
Be careful! Three years ago I almost got run out of town for saying this would happen within five years.

And I never said it would be suddenly, like the prices going over a cliff. But it freaks people out who are holding EF glass, especially L glass, and who are sitting on the fence. (And that's why I started posting my concerns, because I had a brief panic, but fortunately the great majority of members here patiently put me at ease. Then I felt even better when I finally got my hands on an R and fell in love with Canon mirrorless.)

I still have a few EF lenses. The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 135mm f/2, and the ef 100mm L macro, which all work nicely on the Rf mount; and the original 70-200mm f/4, which I'm keeping for the 80D my kids will soon learn how to use. Plus I have an ef-s 24mm pancake for them. I don't plan to sell any of these, just use them until they can't be used anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
168
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
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.
I'm in the same situation. Maybe when I have more of a need for this lens it will be part of a rebate offer. Though giving up 100mm of reach won't be fun.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
550
686
USA
Be careful! Three years ago I almost got run out of town for saying this would happen within five years.

And I never said it would be suddenly, like the prices going over a cliff. But it freaks people out who are holding EF glass, especially L glass, and who are sitting on the fence. (And that's why I started posting my concerns, because I had a brief panic, but fortunately the great majority of members here patiently put me at ease. Then I felt even better when I finally got my hands on an R and fell in love with Canon mirrorless.)

I still have a few EF lenses. The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 135mm f/2, and the ef 100mm L macro, which all work nicely on the Rf mount; and the original 70-200mm f/4, which I'm keeping for the 80D my kids will soon learn how to use. Plus I have an ef-s 24mm pancake for them. I don't plan to sell any of these, just use them until they can't be used anymore.
Used prices always march down. I suppose you could say Canon did us a favor by pricing the new stuff higher - that will have kept EF prices afloat somewhat.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
263
183
... EF 70-200 f4 IS for 400$... ... A compact RF version with half the close focusing distance and even lighter. 1600$.
Half the focusing distance but not twice the magnification. It's very common for modern zooms to exhibit serious 'focus breathing', and that's definitely the case here. The EF 70-200/4L IS - MFD 1.2 m, 0.21x; RF 70-200/4L IS - MFD 0.6 m, 0.28x. I haven't done the full calculation but the RF lens is losing more than a third of its focal length at MFD. But that's the new normal - the EF 100-400L II is even worse, and so is the RF 100-500L. Does it matter? Only when getting physically closer is a problem, such as for certain wildlife. Otherwise just judge by the magnification and ignore the MFD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oct 31, 2020
278
358
All the popular Ef glass has taken a hit already, and will just continue to do so.
You're right about that! I was barely able to sell my EF 16-35 F4 for a decent price...BTW: that's why I am eagerly waiting on the RF 14-35mm F4 or anything similar.

Personally, I got tired of the adapter as well. It may be expensive to make the jump, but I do not think it will get cheaper in the long run in the next 2-3 years to do so either only more expensive as more people dump ef glass.
At the moment, I only use the EF 100-400mm with an adapter, so I never take it of and it doesn't bother me.

Jumping of board the EF glass and getting RF glass needs to happen in near future in order to get value for my equipment. But my question is this:

I bought the EF 100-400mm in 2019 for 1.520 € brand-new, out of the box. Getting the RF 100-500mm would mean an additional cost of 1.500 € at the moment (plus the money I lose on my sale...). 1.500 € plus X for just 100mm extra range? Yikes...