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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

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...

 

[BakaBokeh]

So not compatible with all RF lenses as previously rumored? Well that did seem to good to be true.

 

[Sharlin]

So not compatible with all RF lenses as previously rumored? Well that did seem to good to be true.

I don’t think that was even a CR0 worthy rumor. Just pure wishful thinking by some people.

 

[FrenchFry]

I did hope they would somehow work with the 70-200 F2.8!

 

[Fast351]

I wonder if these will work with EF lenses by putting the RF-EF adapter on the teleconverter instead of the body.

 

[Stuart]

2x the RF 800mm f/11 - 1600mm - wow, but for how much £ but f22 ?

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[koenkooi]

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.

 

[swblackwood]

So can we assume that on the super telephoto lenses, it fill be MF only?

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[Besisika]

2x the RF 800mm f/11 - 1600mm - wow, but for how much £ but f22 ?

can you still autofocus at f22?
Interesting concept. It is small enough for handheld shooting, but at 1600mm and f22, you will still need a tripod at midday.

 

[koenkooi]

So can we assume that on the super telephoto lenses, it fill be MF only?

Well, Canon did put in STM motors, it would be sad if they sat there unconnected.

 

[koenkooi]

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]

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.

 

[Sharlin]

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.

 

[Bert63]

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]

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...

 

[FrenchFry]

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]

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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