Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
428
371
The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it.

Of course they had, just at the lower end of the market.

93fb28404cb5dbe172d7b326c7bb215c.jpg
 
Upvote 0
When they say the 70-200 F4 is the size of a can of coke, I can only imagine that they mean the length, not the width. I have the rf 24-105 F4, and it's definitely stout on the width, and would think that the have a 200 reach at F4 would be a bit wider physically than 105, but sometimes optics can be crazy as far as what they can manage.
 
Upvote 0

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
785
1,594
It is easy to calculate:
105mm :4= 26,25mm
200mm :4 = 50mm

So there could be space to design a 70-200 f/4 smaller then a 24-105 f/4.

The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.

When you really look at the EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II, it's really striking how much of a skinny drainpipe it looks like, in comparison to the extending RF 70-200.
1604002809454.png

Looking back, it's been long overdue that a lens as compact as this gets an external zoom to really make it able to minimize space for those who would be choosing this over the F/2.8 anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,553
1,327
www.flickr.com
View attachment 193657

I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.

Supposedly the source had said the new RF 70-200 F/4L is going to be the same size as a coke can...well...since I don't drink coke, here's a can of Pepsi for comparison. (Propped up on my wallet, which is unfortunately a bit thinner than the EOS R5, due to the EOS R5...)

I'm actually surprised to say a can of soda is a good bit smaller than the F/2.8, so the new F/4 must be absolutely tiny.
Surely the diet can is smaller than a regular can :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

danfaz

RFIVE
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
202
163
www.1fineklick.com
Not only that, but the previous 70-200/4L's (both the non-IS and the first IS version) had 67mm filter threads. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for E-mount is also a 67mm thread, so you can do some pretty crazy things with the right design.
The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.

Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread.

Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
268
196
Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread.
I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,388
2,517
The Netherlands
I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.

The RF70-200 f/2.8 does get a lot wider right after the filter thread, the picture on page2 shows it quite nicely.
 
Upvote 0

danfaz

RFIVE
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
202
163
www.1fineklick.com
I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.
I'm really curious. Hopefully we'll see it soon!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0