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

#### YuengLinger

##### Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
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.

Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?

Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?

Thanks! I'd like to know before I start using crop mode.

#### SteveC

##### R5
CR Pro
Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?

Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?

Thanks! I'd like to know before I start using crop mode.

To compute megapixels left after a crop factor, you have to square the crop factor.

For example, let's say the crop factor is exactly 2. You lose half the height and half the width; if your camera is 6000x4000, your cropped photo will be 3000x2000. The first number is 24 MP, the second is 6, you needed to divide by four (2x2), not 2.

But I am sure you knew this, I know you've been here a while, so what is it you were really asking?

#### YuengLinger

##### Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
To compute megapixels left after a crop factor, you have to square the crop factor.

For example, let's say the crop factor is exactly 2. You lose half the height and half the width; if your camera is 6000x4000, your cropped photo will be 3000x2000. The first number is 24 MP, the second is 6, you needed to divide by four (2x2), not 2.

But I am sure you knew this, I know you've been here a while, so what is it you were really asking?
In fact I've been doing it wrong for a while. That's why I'm asking! I never paid attention to anything about crop factor when I owned the 5DIV and its predecessor!

#### SteveC

##### R5
CR Pro
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.

If you can get to a brick and mortar shop sometimes they'll take a preorder before the official announcement if you put money down. That's how I got my R5 the first day.

#### David - Sydney

##### EOS R
CR Pro
If you can get to a brick and mortar shop sometimes they'll take a preorder before the official announcement if you put money down. That's how I got my R5 the first day.
I've found that stores will only do this if the product has already been formally announced.

#### YuengLinger

##### Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
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.
Ok, I'm wrong about the actual result of using crop mode. It is not an advantage, granted.

However, if I still had my 100-400mm I'd glady use it with the 1.4 extender I still own and be happy. It would not be worth selling to upgrade, in my opinion.

But I don't have any lens over 200mm at the moment, so I'm looking carefully at where to go from here. Something about the weight, AF, and IQ of the Sigma and Tamron keep me from going with one of them. The price of the new extender plus the Rf 100-500mm, and not being able to stow the lens as usual with the extender attached, or use it at less than 300mm, really bugs me. So I'll just keep thinking about it.

#### dominic_siu

##### R5, RF1435, RF2870, RF100500, RF100 Macro
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...
Sad but true, EF definitely will end some time in the future, since I changed to EOS R 2 years ago I sold all the EF lenses and went for RF lenses. And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses

#### David - Sydney

##### EOS R
CR Pro
Ok, I'm wrong about the actual result of using crop mode. It is not an advantage, granted.

However, if I still had my 100-400mm I'd glady use it with the 1.4 extender I still own and be happy. It would not be worth selling to upgrade, in my opinion.

But I don't have any lens over 200mm at the moment, so I'm looking carefully at where to go from here. Something about the weight, AF, and IQ of the Sigma and Tamron keep me from going with one of them. The price of the new extender plus the Rf 100-500mm, and not being able to stow the lens as usual with the extender attached, or use it at less than 300mm, really bugs me. So I'll just keep thinking about it.
Agreed that there is no compelling reason to sell your EF100-400mm which is why there are so few of them on the second hand market at anywhere near a reasonable price.
My RF70-200mm can't accept TCs so I didn't really have a choice except to get the RF100-500mm (we all have choices - but you know )
The RF TCs are way overpriced. Similarish pricing to get a RF800/11 rather than add a RF1.4 TC and would be close to the same aperture. The RF1.4x TC would be smaller if stored separately from the RF100-500mm compared to a separate RF800 though.

1 user

#### David - Sydney

##### EOS R
CR Pro
Sad but true, EF definitely will end some time in the future, since I changed to EOS R 2 years ago I sold all the EF lenses and went for RF lenses. And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses
why not "fun"? I am really glad I can still use my EF lenses with my R5. There are no RF equivalents except the RF24-105mm. I haven't been caught out without my R mount adapter so far

#### PhotoGenerous

##### R5/R6 + GAS
CR Pro
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.

But it's not equivalent specs. Minimum Focus Distance, compact size, and possibly the 77mm filter size to match plenty of my other lenses, would all be reasons to get the RF version over the Canon EF version. Focus speed perhaps we don't know anything about it. Image stabilization? No desire to buy an adapter are possible other reasons where they are not the same spec wise.

As for Sigma and Tamron, Sigma and Tamron versions are always cheaper than Canon versions, so I feel like that cheaper price comparison decision doesn't work that well here. It already applied to their lenses vs the EF versions, and just continues to apply to the RF versions, and people have their reasons for sticking to the more expensive Canon versions, such as differences in image quality, focus speed, weight, and reversed zoom rings.

1 user

#### lethiferous

##### EOS M50
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.
I'm not a professional, I am hobbyist. The 100-400 was the last piece of EF glass I had, so getting rid of the adapter and the 1.4x i had. So all in all my upgrade was really more in the 700 range after selling those 3 items.

#### CvH

##### EOS 90D
CR Pro
Both lenses have been announced on the Canon Australia website.

1 user

#### dominic_siu

##### R5, RF1435, RF2870, RF100500, RF100 Macro
why not "fun"? I am really glad I can still use my EF lenses with my R5. There are no RF equivalents except the RF24-105mm. I haven't been caught out without my R mount adapter so far
When I used EF 24-70 II on R before I got the RF28-70, although the EF2470 is very compact but when using adapter it protruded quite a lot and make it imbalance

#### David - Sydney

##### EOS R
CR Pro
When I used EF 24-70 II on R before I got the RF28-70, although the EF2470 is very compact but when using adapter it protruded quite a lot and make it imbalance
No doubt that mirrorless' size reduction hasn't helped ergonomic balance (or thermal transfer).

CR Pro
Last edited:

#### Exploreshootshare

##### EOS RP
Could you please explain how you calculated the MP size with crop mode? A mile is 1.6 kilometers, right? So a kilometer would be the inverse? We round it off to 0.6 miles right? So 30 kilometers is 18 miles?

Ok, now does something happen with megapixels because they aren't a linear measurement? Or would it be about 18 MP?

I took the information from the Canon.de site in Germany, although I remembered the number incorrect. It is stated that in Crop Mode the EOS R produces 11.6 MP pics.

Here is a quote from imaging-resource in English. I couldn't the equivalent text on the US Canon site at a fast glimpse.
"The Canon R has a 1.6x crop mode which produces 11.6-megapixel files and supports JPEG, RAW and C-RAW capture."
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-r/canon-eos-rA.HTM

I don't actually know how one calculates the size of crop pictures but I was told by a canon academy photographer that one cannot exactly calculate them because the pixels aren't evenly distributed over the entire sensor. So there is no linear calculations. The example he provided was a comparison between the crop-mode EOS R (11.6 MP in crop, 30.3 MP in full-frame mode) and the Sony 7RIV (26 MP crop, 61 MP full frame) If you calculate the pixels of the cropped image from one camera and transfer the formula to the next camera, the calculation won't match the actual pixel size of the cropped image.

Maybe there's somewhere here who can give you a detailed explanation. I unfortunately can't.

1 user

#### Exploreshootshare

##### EOS RP
And using EF lenses with adapter on R series bodies is not fun when using shorter focal length lenses

That's why I sold my EF 16-35mm F4...

1 user

#### Joules

##### doom
CR Pro
I was told by a canon academy photographer that one cannot exactly calculate them because the pixels aren't evenly distributed over the entire sensor. So there is no linear calculations.
I think something must have caused a misunderstanding in that exchange. The formula for calculating the resolution of a cropped section is not linear, that is correct.

Total resolution / (crop factor^2)

But it would be news to me if the pixels weren't evenly distributed across the sensor (Unless you want to consider the missing ones in Sony sensors). Also, the example doesn't seem to relate to this aspect. What may of course be relevant when comparing different cameras is the actual sensor size. Or what 'crop mode' means exactly in bodies from different manufacturers. On a Canon, I would expect it to mean 1.6 crop, on a Sony 1.5 for example (that is just my expectation, haven't looked this up).

#### Viggo

##### EOS R5
I see videos of Vanessa Joy playing with the 70-200 and it has been announced and nothing nowhere? What’s up?

#### dichterDichter

##### R6
this lens is cool but the Price difference looks different in Europe. 1.755€ for the f4 and 2777€ for the f2.8. currently you get cashback for the 2.8 so after cashback its 2547€. A price around 1300€ would have been awesome, 1500/1600€ woul be ok but that tends to be expensive. I thought about getting the f4 and a 85mm but now im thinking about getting only the 2.8.

Last edited:
1 user