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

[Nigel95]

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

Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.

The lens works really well with an adapter, no doubt about it. Image quality is great, it is sharp and only noticed difference in image quality when I shot the night sky (Milky Way) and compared the pictures with some taken with the RF 24-105mm. Autofocus was very reliable.

What bother me was:
When the lense was attached to the adapter it didn't fit in its designated pocket in my backpack (mind shift Backlight 26l) so had I to take it off every single time. Furthermore, I hated switching the adapter between two lenses (actually three at that time) so I decided to keep only one EF lense.

Last but not least:
The EF 16-35mm is moderately compact imho, but with the adapter it just lost that kind of feeling for me. On the EF 100-400mm I really don't notice having it attached to the adapter.

So, to sum up:
Selling the lense was just based on personal feelings on how to handle the equipment, not based on performance issues of the EF 16-35mm

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

Well, that's just not true.

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 what he was trying to explain was that Canon's crop factor is 1.6x, but Sony's is 1.5x (same as Nikon), so the same MP full frame sensor would have a different MP count in crop mode.

 

[koenkooi]

Well, that's just not true. [..]

If the Canon person was talking about the bands of masked pixels, he was right. AIUI the left and bottom sides have masked pixels used for calibration, which is where the "32MP, 31.2 effective MP" bits come from. You 'gain' a few pixels when cropping, since there are no masked pixels inside the cropped frame.

Practically speaking: that makes no difference, just divide by 1.6² and be happy

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

A friend has recently sold three EF lenses to raise funds for an R5, and got a fair price for all three. Reasonably quickly too.

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...

Taken together, the cost of upgrading from my 5D4 + 100-400 to the R5 plus 100-500 was huge, but the benefits are pretty big too. 25% more optical reach, plus about 22% more (linear) sensor resolution, which multiplies up to more than 2.3x the number of 'pixels per bird'. That vastly increases the usefulness of the combination and gives me a real alternative to carrying a big white prime for many situations. And if that's still not enough, the combination is a full pound (450 g) lighter! It's hard to imagine how different that feels until you have them side by side to compare.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

If the Canon person was talking about the bands of masked pixels, he was right. AIUI the left and bottom sides have masked pixels used for calibration, which is where the "32MP, 31.2 effective MP" bits come from. You 'gain' a few pixels when cropping, since there are no masked pixels inside the cropped frame.

That is also not true. The crop factor is applied after the masking of pixels outside the effective sensor area is taken into account - so it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

 

[koenkooi]

That is also not true. The crop factor is applied after the masking of pixels outside the effective sensor area is taken into account - so it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

In that case I have no idea what the Canon person was talking about.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

In that case I have no idea what the Canon person was talking about.

Nor do I

 

[Tony Bennett]

Can you please explain your experience with this lens with adapter? If I would go for a R body, this is the lens I would adapt.

I don't have this lens but have the 16-35 L III and it works exactly as expected on my R and R5 with the adapter.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Practically speaking: that makes no difference, just divide by 1.6² and be happy

Thx, now I finally know how to calculate the pixel on crop mode That's been driving me nuts ever since I got the R last year. I couldn't read it up anywhere and apparently even the Canon guy was wrong.

 

[mpeeps]

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.

With RF2X you will get 600-1000, although you said that earlier. Can't mount to lens below 300mm from my understanding.

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.

I've never been a fan of the extenders. When I got the 100-400ii, I paired it with the 5dsr and found that cropping produced fabulous results, better than the extended version in my opinion. I'm sure others would disagree. Now that I have the R5, I will sell the 100-400 and get the 100-500 when it becomes available. That said, I'm retired and want to spend some of my savings!! So far, the 100-400 looks great on the R5 with the EF-RF adapter.

 

[rightslot]

I am thrilled that this new 70-200 f4 is available. Hopefully we (I) can take Canon's word--and the few early testers on Youtube that the imaging is as good/better than the f4 EF version.

As far back as I remember the EF version was always considered a great bargain, same focal length and possibly better sharpness.

I usually don't do this, but ordered from B&H first thing this morning. And...sent back/canceled an order for the 2.8 version from Amazon. Never took delivery of it. For the most part, I need the length outdoors. However, with the super excellent ISO of the R5 the f/4 selected shots indoors shouldn't be a huge problem.

Supposedly delivered 1 or second week of December. We'll see.