Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

[blackcoffee17]

I expect a price around $1499 or max. $1799.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...

It isn’t about the AF. You can AF at f/22on these bodies. It looks like it is built like the f/2.8 which means they’ll be no room for a TC. One of the reasons my 70-200 might be Nikon is that I can shove a 1.4x and 2x converter on it as they went for a ‘old’ design. The Canons are giving that up for shorter in the bag and lighter to carry lenses. So you would need this and a RF 100-500. Instead of just shoving a TC on.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I expect a price around $1499 or max. $1799.

Thats a bit steep. $1299 would be more inline with my expectations. It has 3 EF versions to compete with, one of which costs less than I spent on coffee last month.

 

[goldenhusky]

It isn’t about the AF. You can AF at f/22on these bodies. It looks like it is built like the f/2.8 which means they’ll be no room for a TC. One of the reasons my 70-200 might be Nikon is that I can shove a 1.4x and 2x converter on it as they went for a ‘old’ design. The Canons are giving that up for shorter in the bag and lighter to carry lenses. So you would need this and a RF 100-500. Instead of just shoving a TC on.

Interesting. I did not know until now that the RF 70-200 is not compatible with the RF extenders. While I never used extender on my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I may have to stick to that for longer I guess. I may upgrade to the III.

 

[danfaz]

It looks so cool, only a few mms taller than the 24-105L! Gonna have to grab this!

 

[LSXPhotog]

I am about to purchase the RF 70-200 f/2.8L...and then I see this! Man...Canon keeps delivering some incredible lenses for this system!

 

[goldenhusky]

And here (copied from the lenses Forum) two size comparisons, one with the 24-105 f/4 and the other with the 24-70 f/2.8:
This will be a fantastic hiking or trekking lens! Curious about the price though...

The size of the lens is definitely tempting but I do not think I will get this 70-200 f/4 ever.

 

[Tom W]

Continue reading...

That is one nice-looking lens. It will probably end up in my bag instead of the f/2.8 version. I'll just keep my old EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS around. It's the oldest version and wouldn't gather a lot of money anyway if I sold it.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Interesting. I did not know until now that the RF 70-200 is not compatible with the RF extenders. While I never used extender on my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I may have to stick to that for longer I guess. I may upgrade to the III.

Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.

 

[EOSR FAN]

Beautiful looking and compact lens. My GAS is really wanting to kick in. If I hadn't just bought EF70-200 f4 ii last year I'd be all over it. I can't imagine it will be any sharper but just look better with size, control ring and no adapter.

 

[Bert63]

Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.

I can agree with this. My 70-200L II f2.8 is one of my least used lenses...

 

[Del Paso]

So many new cuties to buy (or to dream of buying...)
I bitterly need a money-press.

 

[Marphoto]

Interesting lens to be sure, though I am waiting for the "great whites". Hopefully, the price will be reasonable as the cost of RF lenses has compelled me to keep and use my excellent EF glass. I understand the start up costs, need to recoup investment, declining sales volumes etc. however it still doesn't eliminate the pain for the rest of us.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I never liked the EF Version of the 70-200mm... too big, too bulky for so I'd always opt for the EF 100-400mm because it is only slighter heavier. The RF 70-200mm was already a game changer, but for an amateur shooter just not within the budget. If this one has the right pricing I'll preorder it asap and use it as a new hiking lense This one might weigh less the 1 KG!!! And, I could easily pack a wide-angle lens, the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm and the 100-400mm in my backpack Sooooooo excited

 

[mb66energy]

Hmmmmmm
It's so cute ... but on the other hand I have the mark i incarnation of the image stabilized f/4 lens which is gorgous
and works with my M50 and RP extremely well for photo and video.
Maybe if my EF version dies and I own a C70 or C50 ...

 

[Aaron D]

This looks fantastic. My EF version is history.

And for all those sweating "How sharp will this be?" take a deep breath! I's an L lens. A professional lens. Stop worrying about pixels and take photos.

 

[Ale_F]

looking at the first image comparison it was identical to 24-105.
Fantastic

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.

So it is 333g of weight? ;-)

I hope its 550g or so.

 

[AlP]

Where’ the side by side Coke can comparison? Oh and throw the EF 24-70 f4 IS on there too.

Here you are:

Sorry, no can available.