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

KKCFamilyman

Capturing moments in time...
CR Pro
Mar 17, 2012
532
12
41
Orlando
www.allofamily.net
I am definitely interested in it. I hope the price is reasonable. Like $1249 would be a good starting price. If it is $2k then I am going to rethink the whole RF system for me personally as they are not pricing the lenses reasonable. Every direct EF to RF replacement is extremely expensive.
 

AlP

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2018
52
91
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.
View attachment 193684

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.
And it looks like Canon did just that
1604096402489.png

(Source: Nokishita)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nemorino

AlP

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2018
52
91
No nice animation, but just to compare the 70-200 to another f/4 lens:
1604139353432.png


The 70-200 is barely larger than the 24-105, Impressive!
 
Jun 25, 2020
40
19
this will be a hard decission for me. r6 + 70-200 f4/f2.8. i mean, clearly the price will be an argument but i reall like shallow depth. im curious how big the difference will be.
 

canonmike

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
196
121
I am glad that Canon continues to release "affordable" primes.

But I don't think that 349 will be enough for the MRSP of the RF 50 STM.
Looking at the 85 STM price I'd add at least another 200.
And if the 70-200 is an "L" maybe we need to look further towards 1,800.
Just my 2 cents.
As we've grown accustomed to fairly high pricing on most RF lenses, we have learned to cut Canon some slack on this front, knowing that they are releasing lenses that are not only state of the art but a cut above. Looking at reviews on some of these lenses, RF 85 1.2L, RF 28-70 F2L, etc, I find myself drooling over their sharpness. Even the moderately priced RF 24-105 F4L is getting great reviews. Eventually, as the RF line seasons, we'll see some sort of price breaks, albeit I don't expect any bargains any time soon, even for Black Friday. Come on Canon, Adorama, B&H, surprise and shock us.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
259
177
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.
So, it turns out that it really is almost as fat as the f/2.8. I don't really understand why it needs to be, but I never liked the long thin EF 70-200/4L/IS/ISII so I'm not complaining. If I was in the market for a 70-200 this could be a very attractive option.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,446
1,236
So, it turns out that it really is almost as fat as the f/2.8. I don't really understand why it needs to be, but I never liked the long thin EF 70-200/4L/IS/ISII so I'm not complaining. If I was in the market for a 70-200 this could be a very attractive option.
My guess is that the extension mechanism takes up a significant portion of the width. Or Canon follows the EF-M mantra with marketing based sizes and will only allow chunky L RF lenses.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SteveC

Fischer

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 17, 2020
82
46
this will be a hard decission for me. r6 + 70-200 f4/f2.8. i mean, clearly the price will be an argument but i reall like shallow depth. im curious how big the difference will be.
DOF difference is not that huge. There will of course be cases, where you can see the difference, if the background is "close" enough. Check out the flickr 70-200mm f/4 pool and see if you think it will matter to you. Other will have a hard time deciding for you. I got the EF f/2.8 - but only because I needed the extra speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dichterDichter