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

[[email protected]]

Continue reading...

Looking good Canon for No 1 spot in ML world, hopefully this lens 70-200 F4 can be used with the RF teleconvertors.

 

[AJ]

The EF 70-200/4L mk2 currently sells for about $1100-1200, and if I remember correctly it lauched at $1300. So for the RF I'm going to guess $1500 at launch, settling at $1300-1400 at some point in the future.

 

[sanj]

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

Please do not take my comment wrong but it makes ZERO difference to wildlife if a lens is white or black. Nor does it to a petty thief. Please.

 

[sanj]

Just because it is small does not make it a 'travel' or 'hiking' lens. This is an all-purpose lens including money work.

 

[DJL329]

Can anyone make out the diameter? Is it 77mm?

 

[RAKaye]

Looking carefully at the superimposed lens comparisons, it’s definitely a 77mm filter diameter.

 

[steen-ag]

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.
[/QUOTE

 

[erader]

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?

are you not familiar with canon ef lenses?

 

[Mike9129]

To all the people talking about size and weight of the rf 70-200 2.8 when it comes to hiking - it's an absolute pleasure compared to the old EF versions.

Still a little on the heavy side, but its size makes things so easy in a backpack compared to the older EF glass.

An f4 version can only improve this further!

 

[navastronia]

Just because it is small does not make it a 'travel' or 'hiking' lens. This is an all-purpose lens including money work.

I mean, it being small does help people travel and hike with it.

RE: all-purpose and money making: For indoor work, most photographers don't like to be limited to f/4. Because many events take place indoors (under normal, non-COVID circumstances), this lens might not be such a great investment for someone who shoots weddings, speaking engagements, etc. Just my two cents!

 

[Eowhiskass]

Sooo, 85, you have to wait)

 

[dichterDichter]

since the 2.8 is really expensive - especially when this is just a hobby - im thinking about the f4 and maybe another prime. i loved my 50mm 1.4 on my apsc. but would 1.8 make a big difference ti 2.8? im wondering if i should spend the money for the 2.8 instead of two lenses. arhg!

 

[Darecinema]

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

What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.

 

[Fischer]

Loved the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L when I had it. Not sure I can get along without the extra stop @f/2.8, but is the quality is there I am sure it will be a great lens for many users. The bokeh of the f/4 will be better than for the f/2.8 when shooting both @f/4. So its really about how much light you need. Also like that (at least) the bothersome extending lens barrel is short compared to the faster zoom.

 

[Rpaulsen]

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...

AF on the R series cameras can continue to work with an aperture as small as f/22. The only reason the f/2.8 70-200 is because that lens’ back element is right at the bayonet, and the teleconverters extend into the lens barrel. Until we see where the back element is, we won’t be able to tell if they will be compatible.

 

[Bert63]

What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.

Wildlife. Almost exclusively.

 

[Kiton]

I am so disappointed it's not black. It would have been a great marketing angle for Canon


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

Canon was black back in the film days. They moved to white so they would stand out in the crowd at the Olympics, World Cup, F1 car racing etc etc, I can't see them ever going back on that. Better place your hopes in a limited edition black version. At one point they used the white as an advantage to prevent over heating at long outdoor sports assignments etc. At the time they were the only major maker that was white.

 

[Marphoto]

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

If you have the RF 24-105 and EF 100-200, I don’t see what the RF 70-200 f/4 really adds for you? Perhaps you might consider selling your existing 100-400 and adding a 100-500 instead?

 

[zim]

Until we see where the back element is, we won’t be able to tell if they will be compatible.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. I reckon not compatible is running about a CR 5 at the moment

 

[SUNDOG04]

What kind of photography do you do mainly? I’m curious because I do a lot of outside portraits and the 70-200 is probably my most used lens (the EF70-200 2.8II) and I’d argue it’s one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. I also have the EF 85mm 1.4 IS which produces great portraits but even on my Canon 5D mark IV when I’m wide open at 1.4 nailing the focus on the eyes is about 50% whereas with the 2.8 70-200 I’m always sharp because of the greater DOF but the 200mm gives me a similar background blur/bokeh to the 85 at 1.4.

70-200 are also very useful for landscape.