Here are the Canon RF 1.4x and Canon RF 2.0x teleconverter specifications

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
8,211
967
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Canon announced the development of the RF 1.4x and RF 2.0x teleconverters alongside the EOS R5 a few months ago and will be officially announced on Thursday.
Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter specifications:

7 elements in 4 groups
Size: 71.2mm x 20.3mm (mounted) 40.7mm (total length)
Weight: 225g

Canon RF 2.0x teleconverter specifications:

9 elements in 5 groups
Size: 71.2mm x 39.3mm (mounted) 60.6mm (total length)
Weight: 340g

Each of these teleconverters will be compatible with the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM.
Continue reading...
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
I did hope they would somehow work with the 70-200 F2.8!

I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible.

It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.

We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible.


(edit: the above was soundly corrected by everyone below -- I haven't had a good look at that RF 70-200 yet.)

No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?

- A
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,171
963
I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible. It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.

We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible. No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?
Looking at the rearmost element of the RF70-200 and the frontmost element of the RF extenders doesn't make me think "That's possible!". Unless you drill a 2cm hole in the RF70-200.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Looking at the rearmost element of the RF70-200 and the frontmost element of the RF extenders doesn't make me think "That's possible!". Unless you drill a 2cm hole in the RF70-200.

Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?

- A
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,171
963
Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?
I don't know the why or the how, just saying that with a lens that has an element sticking *into* the body and an extender with an element sticking *out* of the body, hoping for compatibility takes some serious blind faith.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,384
260
Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?

- A
We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr and Mahk43

Sharlin

EOS R
Dec 26, 2015
1,308
1,068
Turku, Finland
Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?
Allowing large rear elements close to the sensor is one of the primary selling points of the RF mount design, and the 70-200mm is designed to exploit that. Evidently Canon believes that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage of being incompatible with extenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Bert63

EOS RP
Dec 3, 2017
572
1,133
Here's me hoping that the 100-500 and the 1.4 performs as well as the 100-400 and 1.4 currently living on my EOS-R.

Here's even more hoping that the new 2.0 is better than the last one.
 

CJudge

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2019
60
75
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.

Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?

- A
The only way I can see the RF 70-200 2.8 working with a TC is if they release an alternate version of the TCs designed to work with lenses that have rear elements closer to the sensor. But I don't really imagine that happening...
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
67
47
We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.
There are some disadvantages beyond simple cost. For instance, I personally take photos of wildlife and, to a lesser extent, landscapes. I often go on long hikes with lots of climbing, which sometimes means making a tough choice regarding which of my lenses to bring with me for the day if I can't bring them all. Back in the olden days (pre-COVID), when travel was allowed, I also brought my equipment on small planes with (ridiculously) small size and weight luggage allowances (thank goodness for travel photo vests with large pockets ;)).
When having to make choices regarding which equipment to bring, a 70-200 with TCs is a very strong contender against a 100-400 or 100-500, as the ability to not use the TCs opens up the benefits for low light and shallow DOF, and the ability to use them helps with reach when needed (which is often). Not having that TC option makes the applications of the two lenses completely different, meaning you are more likely to "need" both. Totally fine when size and weight (and money) are not an issue, but arguably a major drawback for those of us who are carrying gear around for hours on end and who are sick of arguing with airport check in staff about why we refuse to put items made of glass in our checked luggage.
 

esglord

EOS RP
May 9, 2019
25
26
Just took a look at the rear element on the RF70-200. Assuming this photo of the teleconverters is accurate, I'm going to assume, these aren't compatible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.

I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).

- A