Correct, small enough it doesn't need a tripod mount.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....
Sure but this one is almost 50% black, extended even.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).
To be honest, the RF70-200 F2.8 comes with a collar but the only time I use it is when I want to do longer exposure and need to use a tripod. When handholding, I take it off as it's not that heavy and has a reasonable balance. The F4 version looks even smaller & lighter so I wouldn't have thought it will come with a collar and doesn't really need one.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....
Ive seen at least one professional photographer that uses a 70-200 f4 mounted on the body for landscape work and does not have a tripod collar mounted on the lens. I would never consider using the lens like that. But, I guess it is light enough to work with the f4. Still surprising, though.To be honest, the RF70-200 F2.8 comes with a collar but the only time I use it is when I want to do longer exposure and need to use a tripod. When handholding, I take it off as it's not that heavy and has a reasonable balance. The F4 version looks even smaller & lighter so I wouldn't have thought it will come with a collar and doesn't really need one.
Totally agree, unless you put ND filters, 5.6 to 8 is indeed the usual aperture for flash, and in a studio context a lighter, more compact and less intimidating lens will always be a plus for me. Also less costly ! I have ordered the 100-500 as the travel zoom, and paying $2,699 for a 70-200 that will probably get less use and that overlaps with the 24-105 and 100-500 would be hard to justify, whereas one can hope this new one is affordable as you suggest.This lens has to be amazing for studio work, which average aperture used with strobes are between 5.6 to 8, this lens will be a killer choice for studio photographers. Light, sharp, fast focus, well balanced. It's gonna be less than the F2.8, which is around $2600, so my guess is that Canon will introduce it at around $1400 then bring it down closer to $1100 in a couple of years
I don't have a RF TC but I believe the answer to all your questions is yes. See the online reviews which will show you the limitations. I wouldn't store the TC on the lens.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.
Hum, I do hope you allude to the match in compactness (more below on that) and not "better L lenses are too good for the RP", which would be IMHO some rather harsh words for the RP. In my (many) years of photography, buying great glass for a good body has always outdone buying lesser quality glass for a top notch body. I was using a Digital Rebel 450 in 2007 when I bought my first L, the 70-200 L IS 2.8, and it was amazing (it got better as I evolved to the 5D, etc... but it popped already on the non-pro bodies).Since you’re using RP, this F4 70200 suits you more
With the 24-105 L (or in a pinch the 35mm f:1.8) on one RP and this new 70-200 f:4 on the other, you will be able to walk around all day and take amazing pictures.
After having owned the 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk1 for many years I sold it and bought the 70-200 f:4 mk2. Optics, IS and AF were outstanding but it was a large and relatively heavy lens, not much more compact or lighter compared to the 2.8, probably because both designs were internal focus / internal zoom fixed length lenses. This helps maintain image quality and product consistency since there are no potentially compromising barrel lengthening mechanics to deal with, or breathing.I have the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II and it's a fantastic performing and handling lens, but every time I forget the adapter, I want a native option more... So, as much as I want the 2.8 version, I would be mighty tempted to trade mine in for this.
Aye for a lot of people it doesn't matter, but for me extenders are one of the ways I can justify getting a 70-200. It for most of the time I would use a 1.4x on it or even a 2x(which produces sharp results and fast AF on the Nikon). But a bare 70-200 to me is always used exclusively at 200 as a light lens for bigger animals.... honestly a 200mm fast focusing macro would be a better buy for my use cases. I could focus on a close deer, hedgehog, or right down to a spider with a 200mm macro. The 70-199 part only comes into play when I use it for company events and for weddings.