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.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 ,_,
Hope you allow me the observation, while a tad snowflakySince 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.
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.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?
It is my own personal rule based on my own (bad) experience and everyone is free to have his own ones.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.
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.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.
Lenscoat already makes covers for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, including black, so that's an option.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