Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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
-Brian
And here a comparison with the EF lens, although no surprises here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...)
really looking forward to this lens and the new RF 50 1.8 (and hopefully moderate prices...)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
