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

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
370
363
USA
wow..I want to know the price. I have the EF version 1 and love it. I feel like I'd bring this along more though, since its much smaller looking. I"m just worried they're going to price it at $2kUSD. At that point I might just upgrade my EF f4 version, to the f2.8 EF version, which can be had for less than $1500, and would give me some portrait capability.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cariboucoach

dwarven

EOS 90D
Dec 12, 2019
194
252
Having a 70-200 f/2.8 already it would be hard to justify buying this. But it's so compact and will probably be really light. Ugh, I'd have so much more money saved if I hadn't gotten into photography ,_,
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mpeeps

danfaz

RSIX
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
61
33
Having a 70-200 f/2.8 already it would be hard to justify buying this. But it's so compact and will probably be really light. Ugh, I'd have so much more money saved if I hadn't gotten into photography ,_,
I reckon I might sell my 2.8 for this, if the price differential is great enough. Even though the RF is lighter and smaller than the EF version when collapsed, I still use it very seldomly, as it's still a bit unwieldy on the smaller R bodies.
 

Aaron Lozano

EOS M50
Nov 12, 2019
29
27
Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.
Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflaky :)

We could call it "buy cheap, pay twice" just to show respect for those who cannot afford it and have no other option but the "cheap" one.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
190
277
Kenosha, WI
Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?
I would guarantee the f/2.8 would be better because at f/4 it's stopped down. That said, it's probably minimal, probably mostly vignetting not resolution, and the lens correction probably fixes that either way. "Weight" and "do you actually need f/2.8" are much bigger considerations in this case.
 

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,227
2,245
It looks nice. I have no problems with the f/4L trinity, if I was in the R ecosystem I might go that direction.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
469
679
What's crazy is, I've always referred to the RF 70-200 F/2.8 as "turning the 70-200 into more of just a 24-70." The F/4 version takes that a bit too literally! Looks almost odd to see the white paint on an identical chasis to the 24-105/24-70, but what an impressive, amazing lens.

This will be an absolutely perfect travel lens for most people. I am always madly in love with my F/2.8 version, and I can't imagine how light and easy this will be for most people.
 

Ziz

Zissou
Feb 13, 2020
8
17
zissou.com
I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8

And from a personal pov...
1. Is the white even needed on such a small lens?
2. The white is so eye-catching that is more easily spottable by both wildlife and thieves

Maybe Canon will be really clever and release a Limited Edition black one later :)
 

Fotofriend

CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
8
3
On addition to expectable superior image quality, especially the compact size (and weight probably) makes this a great representative of a mirror less system IMO, which shouldn’t consist of mainly bulky lenses. I highly appreciate portability and my best pics often were made with the note compact equipment I carried with me...
really looking forward to this lens and the new RF 50 1.8 (and hopefully moderate prices...)
 

Alex784

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jan 9, 2020
41
19
Canada
Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflaky :)

We could call it "buy cheap, pay twice" just to show respect for those who cannot afford it and have no other option but the "cheap" one.
It is my own personal rule based on my own (bad) experience and everyone is free to have his own ones.

I personally prefer to delay my purchase if I really cannot afford it, instead of buying something cheaper and regretting my choice every single time while I'll be using it.
 

danfaz

RSIX
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
61
33
Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.
These two lenses historically have been nearly identical in image quality. The only reason the f4 is cheaper is because it's smaller and has the slower aperture. Other than that, it's L quality through and through. And now, it seems every L is just stupid sharp, so I'm pretty sure this one will be, too.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,737
598
Davidson, NC
Now that we have such good IS in lenses and maybe even IBIS on top of that and sensors handle high ISOs so well, it would seem that an extra stop is rarely worth the extra money, weight, and size. With the extra money, you could buy a faster prime for portraits and such rather than relying on the zoom as a poor substitute. YMMV, of course, but I think that would be true for a lot of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron D

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
318
164
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
This looks pretty great. It would be a very nice, compact travel/hiking lens. I tend to buy when I have a need (or something is on a drastic discount), so not sure I’ll be getting one soon but it’s definitely on my list.

Currently, I’m using an adapted 70-300L for telephoto needs (also have a 200 prime that rarely sees the light). The Kenko 1.4x extender I have for it is not bad. Curious if they will come out with RF versions of their extenders.
 

DJL329

EOS R5
CR Pro
Aug 26, 2010
596
54
www.flickr.com
I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon
1. Now so small that it can be considered in the same vein as the 24-105 etc.
2. Differentiates it from the 70-200 f2.8

And from a personal pov...
1. Is the white even needed on such a small lens?
2. The white is so eye-catching that is more easily spottable by both wildlife and thieves

Maybe Canon will be really clever and release a Limited Edition black one later :)
Lenscoat already makes covers for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, including black, so that's an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pierre Lagarde