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

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
819
683
www.flickr.com
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.
The 70-200mm is faster focusing and sharper... but it comes down to how many lenses I take with me. YMMV
1 lens = 24-105mm
Landscape/seascape: 2 lenses = 16-35mm/4 + 70-200mm/2.8
Waterfalls/hiking: 1 lens = 16-35mm/4
Low light/action/indoors: 2 lenses = 16-35mm/4 + 70-200mm/2.8 and maybe 24-105mm for karate sparring where the distance varies widely
Zoo = 100mm macro + 100-500mm
Astro 14mm/2.8 + 8-15mm/4
Underwater is 1 lens per setup with either: 100mm macro setup. Wide 16-35mm or if big subjects/fun = 8-15mm/4
 
Feb 13, 2020
8
5
Seattle
We have both the 2.8L and 4.0L EF 70-200 lenses. We usually reach for the lighter unless shooting out of our Jeep. Optically we cannot tell the difference. As we get older weight matters more than size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

PhotoGenerous

R5 + GAS
CR Pro
Apr 11, 2017
45
65
The RF 2.8 is already so small and light. I own one of each of the EF versions because of the weight difference (which will be sold soon). But with already owning the RF 2.8 70-200 it's hard to imagine any scenario where I might need this f/4 version.

Of course other people's weight tolerance is different than mine, and we don't know how much it weighs. And if you don't need 2.8, even smaller and lighter and cheaper is the better option if you want just one.

(That, or the act of finally selling lenses instead of hoarding to transition to RF is curbing my GAS, and I'm not as prone to coming up with reasons to buy every lens.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
422
455
USA
The more I think about this, the more I want it. I wish they would release a 24-70 f4 L IS. That would be so small, and with this a great travel combo.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starting out EOS R

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
410
259
Australia
Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
53
26
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

Yes, I can also easily buy one of these cameras - - and a small pile of lenses.

But do I want to?

I don't use this equipment professionally. . .for me it is a hobby. Not even my most expensive hobby.
Considering that my current EF lenses work just fine. . . and the cost. . . I just don't find the case for RF compelling.

BTW: I do have the 70-200/4L. . got it YEARS before the 70-200/4L-IS was released. . . it is a great lens; and I really liked the images I took with it.

I finally (functionally) replaced it with a 100-400/IS. . . about 15 years later. I just needed the longer reach more often than I needed the light weight.
I did look at the 70-200/2.8-IS. . .but for me the Weight penalty wasn't worth extra stop of light.

IF i was going for the RF line. . . .probably would just get the 100-500 for the telephoto and call it a day.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
309
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.
Weight and size trade off when you travel extensively to remote locations like Art and his peers. I was a f2.8 zoom die hard until I started doing more remote travel and dealing with light aircraft weight limits. I am also getting a bit older and the camera bag felt like it was getting heavier(and bigger). I flipped all my EF zooms to f4’s and have no regrets. I doubt most people could see any difference in optical quality f2.8 vs f4. My RF lenses will eventually include RF 24-105, RF 70-200 f4, RF 100-500 f4-f7.1, RF 1.4x TC, and RF 85 f2 for fun. Some might argue that I have overlap and don’t need the 70-200, but I prefer the lens in some situations.
 
Last edited:

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
309
Maybe, but I have just checked his website, the gear section: he is using the f2.8 version... ;)
his gear section is not always up to date and he has mentioned using the 70–200 f4 version and has also used the 24-70 f4. He uses both the f2.8 and f4 versions.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
819
683
www.flickr.com
Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.
Gotta love the word "crippled"!
Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm.
I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both

There is nothing stopping you from using your EF TCs + EF70-200mm f2.8 with a R mount adaptor as size doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Options are the beauty of the R mount system. Save money and keep your current EF lenses and they work fine (better AF in some cases).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
649
777
Gotta love the word "crippled"!
Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm.
I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both

There is nothing stopping you from using your EF TCs + EF70-200mm f2.8 with a R mount adaptor as size doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Options are the beauty of the R mount system. Save money and keep your current EF lenses and they work fine (better AF in some cases).

How does the TC work on the 100-500? You have to set the zoom to 300mm and mount the TC i understand. So if the focal length is at 250mm, you cannot even attach the TC or risk damaging the lens? And i suppose once you attached the TC, the lens need to be stored extended, cannot be collapsed.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,848
991
UK
www.flickr.com
My first L lens was the EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). It was affordable and the image quality blew me away, coming from budget/kit lenses. This will be a great multipurpose lens for casual strolls, especially if you like a bit of telephoto compression (which I do). Incidentally I also had the f/2.8 IS II and while it is also excellent, the vastly higher price (and extra bulk) made it a lot less fun, and by that point I was nitpicking where it was weak (e.g. sharpness at 200mm close to MFD). There's room for both, but making this one so small adds to its appeal - and I've normally been less enthusiastic about length-changing zooms.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Mar 1, 2015
110
51
The RF 2.8 is already so small and light. I own one of each of the EF versions because of the weight difference (which will be sold soon). But with already owning the RF 2.8 70-200 it's hard to imagine any scenario where I might need this f/4 version.

Of course other people's weight tolerance is different than mine, and we don't know how much it weighs. And if you don't need 2.8, even smaller and lighter and cheaper is the better option if you want just one.

(That, or the act of finally selling lenses instead of hoarding to transition to RF is curbing my GAS, and I'm not as prone to coming up with reasons to buy every lens.)
I agree regarding weight savings. Obviously the f4 will be affordable for a lot of people.
 
Oct 21, 2020
2
0
So I am wondering, is this lens small enough that there isn't a need for a tripod mount? It doesn't look like there is the traditional tripod ring around the lens. Views are only from the top so I guess we will wait and see. I also hope they include the lens hood. It doesn't show one in the pictures....
 

fabao

R5 or R6?
Apr 26, 2019
29
49
Gotta love the word "crippled"!
Canon had a choice: compact or allow TCs. They let their engineers loose and choose compact for both RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm. The latter is compatible with TCs only for a portion of the focal range.
Is it better for Canon to sell longer lenses because TCs can't be used? From a revenue perspective = yes. I bought the RF100-500mm because I couldn't use the RF 1.4/2x TCs with the RF70-200mm.
I was initially annoyed as I used EF1.4/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm f2.8ii as well but it was hard to argue with the small size of the RF70-200mm. Once all my EF gear was sold I was starting from scratch anyway on the longer end. My wallet was bare anyway... what was one more lens! I certainly have not regretted getting the RF100-500mm lens. My biggest choice is which one to take with me. FWIW, Ken Rockwell sold his RF70-200mm and is just keeping the RF100-500mm. I will keep both

There is nothing stopping you from using your EF TCs + EF70-200mm f2.8 with a R mount adaptor as size doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Options are the beauty of the R mount system. Save money and keep your current EF lenses and they work fine (better AF in some cases).

I vote compactness!
 

VegasCameraGuy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jul 9, 2020
193
157
Las Vegas, NV
www.flickr.com
Keep in mind that just because you have a 2.8f lens, you don't have to use it wide open. Typically most lenses peak at around f8 and with IS you can handhold slower shutter speeds and a higher (smaller hole) f-stop for increased sharpness. I handhold my 100-500mm at low shutter speeds and f8 with good results. Depth of Field with a Tele is generally small and using the lens wide open only exacerbates the DOF problem.