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

SUNDOG04

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Mar 1, 2015
130
94
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 do recall the great photographer-artist, Art Wolfe using the f4 version. I am sure he preferred that over the f2.8 and surely cost had nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Starting out EOS R

EOS R5 - RF24-105mm F4L, RF70-200mm f2.8L
Feb 13, 2020
295
315
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?
Interesting question, I wondered the same thing with the RF 24-105 F4 V the RF 70-200 F2.8 when both set at 70mm & F4. I have both lenses and I cant identify why but I prefer the 70-200. It just seems better to me, although I haven't done a scientific back to back comparison. It's just a gut reaction.
 

Alex784

EOS R3
Jan 9, 2020
54
31
Canada
I do recall the great photographer-artist, Art Wolfe using the f4 version. I am sure he preferred that over the f2.8 and surely cost had nothing to do with it.
Maybe, but I have just checked his website, the gear section: he is using the f2.8 version... ;)
 

Starting out EOS R

EOS R5 - RF24-105mm F4L, RF70-200mm f2.8L
Feb 13, 2020
295
315
You are absolutely right about hiking: I never walk too far from my car. :) I am just wondering how much this stop might save money and/or weight and whether it's worth it from image quality perspective. We'll see.
With a decent strap, I've hiked 6/7 miles with the R5 & RF 70-200 attached. I'm sure that the F4 version will be lighter but the 2.8 isn't an issue weight wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Starting out EOS R

EOS R5 - RF24-105mm F4L, RF70-200mm f2.8L
Feb 13, 2020
295
315
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!
Absolutely love the RF 70-200 F2.8. It's hardly been off the R5 since I got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
758
975
With a decent strap, I've hiked 6/7 miles with the R5 & RF 70-200 attached. I'm sure that the F4 version will be lighter but the 2.8 isn't an issue weight wise.

The difference between the RF70-200 and the EF 70-200 F4 is only 280g. Not insignificant but hardly noticeable. A 5D Mark 4 with the 70-200 F4 is only 150g lighter than an R5 with the RF70-200 F2.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

fabao

RF 10-24 f/4???
Apr 26, 2019
32
54
Nice indeed. The 2.8 version already feels small. If you don't need 2.8 definitely get this one. But I just want to say I am still waiting for the 100-500 and the R5 to become in stock. To my surprise, saw that the 15-35 is also not available right now.
 

Aaron Lozano

EOS M50
Nov 12, 2019
33
28
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.

It can be personal but you commented publicly, hence I improved your naming convention by making it acceptable to a broader audience, nothing personal.

I (and many others) could easily buy an R5 and 5 or 6 3k lens , pay cash for them and go bonkers with the shutter. But I would be regretting it for a few Olympic periods, specially as my wife would either file a divorce if I did o_O. That's why my mental budget allows for up to ±€1K lens, by principle. €1.5K to 2K is already a "long stretchy stretch" and only happens if the lens is really something I got real wishes upon. (85mm 1.4 or 135 1.8...trigger that to me)

On the other hand, I don't think the lens will be flimsy or weakly built, it will surely be a great workhorse for outdoors and the IBIS+IS might make it a valid option for many photographers or enthusiasts like me. (Even if I am more of a Prime lens user)

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mpb001

EOS 90D
Sep 10, 2016
137
129
I have the original 70-200f4L non IS. Paid like $500 new. Still use it occasionally on my 5DIV. I would except this one to cost or list for like $1299, but with the IS and IS on R5-R6 bodies I think it will be well worth the price.
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
85
55
Wow! It looks amazing! I know, there were talks about can-size and etc. But when you see the actual picture - it's just wow! 70-200 the size of mid-range zoom! If the quality and magnification are on the same level, as f2.8 version - it will definitely be on my wish list for travel and for my wife (she doesn't like bulky equipment and, e.g. requires me to remove battery grip, when she is about to shoot a session).
BTW, it is interesting, that with mid-zoom size it is still white. I did expect that if it is so small, it will possibly be black. It could have some advantages, being less noticeable in certain situations (e.g. against criminals, knowing: white = expensive). But white has some advantages too (e.g. you will have less trouble to distinguish between this lens in your bag and other zooms with similar size and shape).
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
all focal lengths are useful for landscape.ALL
Whilst that can be true I find the landscapes that are most compelling in print form and sell best are ones that equate to a view out of a window, so many are too wide and many are too long. Not a hard and fast rule but something I have noticed over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,051
Whilst that can be true I find the landscapes that are most compelling in print form and sell best are ones that equate to a view out of a window, so many are too wide and many are too long. Not a hard and fast rule but something I have noticed over the years.
What appeals to most is usually the last thing I think of while shooting. The world has been long over saturated by average and typical landscape images. ymmv but I shoot for my own liking not what others may desire, the selling shooters out there are a tiny minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
What appeals to most is usually the last thing I think of while shooting. The world has been long over saturated by average and typical landscape images. ymmv but I shoot for my own liking not what others may desire, the selling shooters out there are a tiny minority.
Absolutely, I remember working at one art market where the most popular photographer by far was selling very stylized (I'm being polite) HDR monstrosities (oops I slipped), I thought if that is what people want I am happy to not make it.

But I believe my point was still valid, when looking at a landscape shot it often helps if the framing/fov/perspective is similarly 'natural' looking, which means often times the much favored ultrawide zooms can be 'too much'. Put another way, if I was told I could only shoot landscapes from now on and only with one lens, I'd choose a 24-70 not an ultra wide nor a tele. That won't be true for everybody, but my comment was a generalization from the beginning, of course 'any' lens can be used as a 'landscape' lens but a bell curve would point to the most useful and used focal range being shorter than a 70-200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,578
1,792
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 :)
I'd suggest that you take a black tele-lens to Death Valley in summertime...or to southern Italy.
You'd hope you had taken the white one (personal experience, after a few minutes, I could no longer take pictures).
 

neonlight

EOS 90D
Jul 10, 2015
141
19
I did not expect to see that the 100-400 II set a trend, but should have. I find, though, that the 100-400 II is harder to focus as the weight is extended. For (manual) focussing I actually prefer the older model. You held the focus at the extended part. Anyone else think so?
Apart from that it is very convenient to have lenses that squash down for packing. Was about to upgrade the 70-200 f/4 for the newer version but now I'll have to save for the RF and body.