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

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
315
258
Kentucky, USA
I was planning on getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 because it was such an awesomely reviewed lens (including the teardown of it) and good for portraits as well as landscapes. But I'd also like to get the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for long telephoto and hopefully the RF 70-135 f2 in the future for even better portraits. But this gets me wondering if I would be better off just getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 and waiting for the RF 70-135 f2 and not getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 at all? Any suggestions regarding this?

I know that the size & weight of the 70-135 f2 are not known, but I'm hoping the weight of it is under 1,100 g. Is that hoping for too much?
 
Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.
I'm not complaining, but as a hobbyist I've appreciated being able to shoot at 400mm without putting my marriage through the stress of buying another piece of L glass. It's not the best tool for the job, but if I'm willing to accept some compromises related to autofocus and wide open sharpness, I can get good enough results. Are there shots I can't get with this combo? Of course. Do I wish I had a 500mm f4L? Other than the fact that I couldn't stick it in my everyday camera messenger bag, yes. Yes I do. But my kids can't eat camera lenses. And I do find it very convenient that by adding a little thing to my camera bag that shares a lens slot with a few other smaller items, I can add 400mm to the ability to shoot 70-200mm at f2.8.

Canon 7D w/ EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM ii + 2xiii, 400mm, f/11, 1/13s, ISO100
IMG_4752-03 (1).jpg

Canon 7D w/ EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM ii + 2xiii, 400mm, f/8, 1/40s, ISO100
IMG_6643-01.jpg
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
Dec 20, 2012
2,933
1,215
Southeastern USA
Thanks to those who did post some shots of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8 with an extender. Personally, I tried it with a 1.4 III but had pretty poor results. Hard to tell from what has been posted here, but they look better than I got.

Still, it isn't a heartbreaker for me.

On the other hand, official specs might delight those who are disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMac

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
67
47
Lucky for you, you still have that choice.
Not if I prefer to use native glass, with all of its benefits... But yes, I could buy a bigger and heavier EF lens with the intent of only using it adapted on an RF body so that I preserve TC compatibility, even though the lens that I would much prefer to own already exists in RF mount. But it seems like a shame to do so when I know the RF lens would have been the perfect lens for me, if only it could take a TC.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
67
47
Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.
Why would the performance of an EF lens and EF teleconverter on an EF body be any indication of the performance we can expect out of a completely redesigned RF lens with new RF teleconverter on the latest and greatest RF body?
Given that the previously released 70-200 F/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. all take a TC, it's perfectly reasonable to hope that the new Canon lens will preserve this additional benefit and flexibility. Definitely not a dealbreaker for most, but something that some will consider when evaluating the pros and cons of each lens on offer in the RF system.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,022
652
I know that the size & weight of the 70-135 f2 are not known, but I'm hoping the weight of it is under 1,100 g. Is that hoping for too much?
There is no patent anywhere at the moment, so it is questionable if they are making it at all.
There is a 70-130mm f2 patent for Sony mirrorless and that one looks massive, it can easily reach 2000g. It surely isn't going to be as 'light' as the 28-70 f2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
315
258
Kentucky, USA
There is no patent anywhere at the moment, so it is questionable if they are making it at all.
There is a 70-130mm f2 patent for Sony mirrorless and that one looks massive, it can easily reach 2000g. It surely isn't going to be as 'light' as the 28-70 f2.
Thanks for the feedback. It looks I'll probably want the RF 70-200 f2.8 and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1, and I guess if the 70-135 f2 is that heavy (and that sounds reasonable) then I doubt if I'd want it - I know I have a limit on lens weight and beyond a certain point I just won't bother to use it.
 
Are we sure these photos are accurate? They're the same photos as we got with the original rumor some months ago. They may be an artist rendering based on assumptions about the RF mount. Shallower protrusions would enable use with RF 70-200mm.
Look at the EF 1.4X. That protrusion looks shallow enough. A similar form factor in the RF model should work with most RF lenses.
View attachment 191154View attachment 191153
Canon would be crazy to introduce teleconverters that only work with some lenses.
The RF TC photos are official photos that have been on Canon's own websites for months now...people need to just get it in their heads that these don't work with the RF70-200/2.8. In order to make the compact design they had to forgo TC use.
Canon will happily sell you an EF 70-200/2.8 IS III, EF 1.4TCIII and an EF-RF adapter if you need TCs on your 70-200/2.8 lens....
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
101
88
Why would the performance of an EF lens and EF teleconverter on an EF body be any indication of the performance we can expect out of a completely redesigned RF lens with new RF teleconverter on the latest and greatest RF body?
Given that the previously released 70-200 F/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. all take a TC, it's perfectly reasonable to hope that the new Canon lens will preserve this additional benefit and flexibility. Definitely not a dealbreaker for most, but something that some will consider when evaluating the pros and cons of each lens on offer in the RF system.
It seems that Canon have us a design miracle in the RF70-200. But not a second miracle for TC adaptability.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
291
209
The other, perhaps bigger concern, is locking on to an image at 1120mm. When I put my 2x onto my 100-400 (or my 1.4x onto my 200-600mm), I often struggle to find my target in the vf an this is at 800-840mm.
It's easy enough with practise using a technique from the binocular / scoping community, which is to keep tracking the target by eye and raise the viewfinder into the line of sight without taking your eye off the target. Works reliably at silly magnifications.

Instead of finding the target with the lens you're aligning the lens with the target.

Alternatively you can buy red-dot finders for the hotshoe mount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob
Mar 23, 2020
4
0
Considering the fact that the TC's are white (and the 600/800 @f11 are not) we might expect tele lenses (with wide aperture) in a white lineup. Now the only white lens is the 100-500 that would be color-matching?
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,184
974
Apparently these are the UK prices, including VAT:

100-500: £2,899
600mm: £699
800mm: £929
85 macro: £649
The f/11 lenses are a lot cheaper than I expected, the 100-500 is what I expected, the RF85 is 100 currencies more expensive than I thought.
But as my wife just pointed out "Cheap is not a good enough reason to buy an 800mm lens".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Del Paso

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,031
235
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.
I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. I bought a 2x TC for the rare occasions I need 400mm, which means I'm not going to spend $2K+ on an RF 100-400mm lens. Not having a 70-200mm compatible with TCs puts me in an inconvenient position. At best, Canon is going to lose a TC sale I planned on.