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

YuengLinger

Godzilla needs boxing lessons.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,483
1,932
USA
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.


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...
I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.

While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE! o_O
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Exploreshootshare

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,036
476
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.
True....I also wonder if, in a year or two, if we see a RF 70-300L that is also smaller and lighter. Then it goes back to the battle of extra stop of aperture vs extra 100 of focal length.
 

YuengLinger

Godzilla needs boxing lessons.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,483
1,932
USA
True....I also wonder if, in a year or two, if we see a RF 70-300L that is also smaller and lighter. Then it goes back to the battle of extra stop of aperture vs extra 100 of focal length.
Are we going to see a 150 or 200mm-600mm f/4.5-5.g type of lens from Canon? I wonder if Sigma has an updated Rf version in the works? Or Tamron.
 
Nov 3, 2020
6
5
I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.

While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE! o_O
You forget the 100-500 also focus faster quite a bit on the long end and is sharper on the r5. I was not the only one who noticed this from those who moved up. I had both lenses for a while (2 weeks) and sold the 100-400.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,714
4,290
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.
If it follows what happened to FDn glass, EF glass will take a good hit, then the prices will firm up, then they will get expensive and even overtake some older RF glass.

I paid more for my last (secondhand) FDn 20-35 than I paid for my first EF 16-35 new. It’s all down to supply and demand, currently as buyers are seduced by new shiny things the supply of EF glass outstrips the demand, but it will even up again.
 

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
89
98
I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.
That's exactly what I am afraid of!

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm.
The EF 100-400mm balances perfectly with EOS R and BG. Without the BG its slightly too heavy up front. So far, no complaints from my side though.

100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.
I am definitely not going to buy the extenders for RF Mount. It doesn't work on most lens and a 300-1000mm lens just seems useful for safaris only! What's the minimum focus distance on a 300mm plus lense anyway...

I am thinking about getting the extender for 100-400mm though to make up for the "missing 100mm" in comparison to the RF lese.

...consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...
That's what I actually do/ use on my R. I works quite fine although the 10,7MP imagine lack some details imho. Probably have to compare pics taken with an extender vs. crop-mode.
 

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
89
98
You forget the 100-500 also focus faster quite a bit on the long end and is sharper on the r5. I was not the only one who noticed this from those who moved up. I had both lenses for a while (2 weeks) and sold the 100-400.
But is "quite a bit" worth an 1.500 $ upgrade? For professionals, no doubt, it is! But I'm more like an enthusiasts who will never earn his base salary by selling images or teaching the art of photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
419
447
USA
I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.

While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE! o_O
Remember though, the crop mode doesn't actually increase the pixel density in any way. Its just cutting out a portion of the frame, giving you a smaller MP image. So there is no effective 'extra reach' - just a pre-cropped image for you to view. The APSc reach thing works because there are more pixels in the same area (the pixels are smaller than FF pixels). So when you display that image at 300dpi there are more pixels on that bird and it appears larger. When you crop the R5 or the R6, it will appear the same size as it would in the uncropped image, there is just less image around it. At the point at which FF pixel density equals that of APSc pixel density (getting close with the R5/7DII), the 'reach' advantage is gone from APSc.

-Brian
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
72
30
Specs looks as great, as the lens itself! MFD is a bit of a bummer, as with f2.8 version. It is much shorter, than EF version has, but magnification just tad better. At least it is still better and not the same or worse. I guess such focus breathing is a characteristic of this external-zoom design. Any ways, overall it looks so cool (assuming IQ will not let down) that I want this lens without thinking whether I really need it :D Going to get R5 and f2.8 version first and then try to think rationally about this one :)
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,353
3,700
Irving, Texas
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.
Of course you are correct, but I still prefer the other way. The weight doesn't matter to me.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
Are we going to see a 150 or 200mm-600mm f/4.5-5.g type of lens from Canon? I wonder if Sigma has an updated Rf version in the works? Or Tamron.
With the 100-500L out, I don't think we will see anything like that from Canon, at least not for a while. There will be the lower end 100-400 that keeps coming up to replace the 70-300 non L EF lenses, but I doubt a 200-600 any time soon. I'm sure Tamron and Sigma are both reverse engineering the mount as we speak.

For me, the 100-300L is such a great size for what you get out of it. I'd consider an RF version if one comes out, but I'm not holding my breath. The fact that I can get it into both of my backpacks without taking up space lengthwise is a huge plus for me (even with the adapter, just barely). I know everyone's priorities are different. I almost bought the 100-400LII for a trip I was going on, but ended with the 100-300L and a Kenko 1.4 because of portability and my bank account.
 

VegasCameraGuy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jul 9, 2020
170
117
Las Vegas, NV
www.flickr.com
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.
If you can figure out when the pre-release is and when the vendors will take preorders, then set your alarm clock and order the instant preorders open. I was lucky to get my R5 out of the first batch released and placed my order when preorders were started at 5am PST. They quickly sold out and it's been onesie twosies ever since. I got my RF 28-35mm f2.8 on Canon Camera Watch, no sales tax and shipped from Canada free with no import duties. Came with a full Canon warranty. If you have a B&H credit card, they will refund the sales tax assuming you pay it off the first month.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
692
813
I don't see how anyone could conscience the $1599 price tag on this lens when you can get brand-new, recently released 1st and 3rd party EF glass (with equivalent specs) for $1299. Sure, you have to use an adapter, but if you went with Tamron or Sigma, you could even get f/2.8 and IS for less than $1400.

Anyway, I'm not the audience for this one because I don't need my lens to be this small or lightweight, and I need more light-gathering than f/4 because I want to be able to easily shoot indoors.
 

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
89
98
With 3 85's out, it wouldn't shock me if a fixed length 70-200 2.8 came out that could also use the new extenders. Maybe even slightly faster than 2.8, because size wouldn't be as much of an issue with the current version out there.

I like that thought. Maybe even a F2.0 Version with a little less reach? 70-170mm? I know that there is a rumors about a 70-135mm F2, but I have no clue (not an engineer) whether they could manage giving it more reach towards 150mm or 170mm.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
623
523
www.flickr.com
I so wish these 70-200 lenses were internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.
Why? The teardown by Roger Cicala of the RF70-200m shows the engineering for both the weather proofing and image quality throughout the range. I am impressed with the shortness when storing/ travelling with it. The weight could have been slightly lower with an internal zoom but maybe not as the external shell would have needed to be longer. THe width is wider than an internally zoomed lens.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
623
523
www.flickr.com
Will the RF 1.4 and/or 2.0x extenders fit / work on the lens?
I believe that they won't due to the external zoom design - similar to the RF70-200mm/2.8 lens that has its rear element close to the sensor. It is the only downside for the RF70-200mm/2.8 for me compared to the EF version where I had both ED1.4 and 2x TCs. I bought the RF100-500m and am very happy with the only regret being my hip pocket.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I don't see how anyone could conscience the $1599 price tag on this lens when you can get brand-new, recently released 1st and 3rd party EF glass (with equivalent specs) for $1299. Sure, you have to use an adapter, but if you went with Tamron or Sigma, you could even get f/2.8 and IS for less than $1400.

Anyway, I'm not the audience for this one because I don't need my lens to be this small or lightweight, and I need more light-gathering than f/4 because I want to be able to easily shoot indoors.
I guess it's all a matter of opinion and what matters to you. I don't think $300 at release is that big of a premium to pay over the EF III. I don't have to use an adapter with it so that can stay on one of my other lenses, and I do need my glass to be small. I don't have the cash for this right now, but it's definitely on my list.

Luckily, there are lots of 70-200's out there if you count the Canon RF and EF versions, and 3rd party EF, so you have a lot to choose from and will most likely have more to choose from in the future, as more RF lenses roll out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
623
523
www.flickr.com
I seriously regret selling my excellent copy of the 100-400mm II so that I could help fund buying Rf glass. Seriously.

I'd say that unless using it with an adapter just destroys the ergonomics for you, stick with your 100-400mm. Don't forget, the 100-500mm will need a new tele-extender too (if you use those), and that extender can't even be used for the full zoom range. Ugh.

While you do get an extra 100mm with the 100-500mm, consider that the R, R5, and R6 have crop mode built in, which would give a similar "extra reach" as using an aps-c sensor...I'm not sure that would be wonderful on the 20MP R6, but I think it would be very nice on the 45MP R5. (I haven't tried it on the R yet.) So you might save the money, try to get closer to your subjects, and just use that 100-400 until it don't work no more! OH HOW I WISH I HADN'T SOLD MINE! o_O
With EF you have the choice of 100-400mm, 140-560 or 200-800mm with EF TCs and R mount adapter
With RF you have the choice of 100-500, 420-700, 600-1000mm with RF TCs
RF has a (almost) better native range than the EF version with/without 1.4TC. It is a 5 times zoom with great image IQ, and including the R mount adapter is shorter and much lighter
I don't really see the point of using the RF1.4x TC from a focal length perspective but with RF2x TC you go can go from 100-1000mm. I am sure that image IQ and focus speed will be different between RF1.4 and RF2x TCs though.
The crop mode doesn't increase pixel density - only cropability
I don't use the crop mode with my R5. I crop in post to give more composition choices. APS-C crop is around 17mp
A second hand EF100-400mm ii was hard to find in Australia and their pricing is still high. People are hanging on to them. The price difference of a new one including a EF 1.4x TC vs a discounted new RF100-500mm was a no-brainer for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana
<-- start Taboola -->