Is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z coming in two colours?

[TwoWheeler]

It kind of would make a bit of sense to me, Canon photographers like the white, I'm not sure about the temperature thing anymore. I'm sure the white paint would be $200 more.

No, the white paint is only fifty bucks more.

The other $150 is for the lens hood.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

As a stills shooter I would be fine with the black, honestly. Stands out less...

That said, I think I'd still stick with the EF version for action and utilize the smaller existing RF 70-200 when space is a factor.

 

[Wilk]

maar een 100-400 f/2.8 zou niet veel moeten verschillen van de 400 f/2.8 prime. Ik zou er wel eens naar willen kijken. Maar eerlijk gezegd heb ik gewoon de kleine 70-300 gebruikt en die was veel makkelijker vast te houden gedurende de dag...

I am waiting for a RF DO zoom lens.

 

[Walrus]

I don't recall a time when Canon released the same lens in two colours

 

[Ian K]

Typically the white lenses had Fluorite and or other UD/Super UD lenses in them, while the black didn't. I'm sure there are plenty of examples were that is no longer the case. Could it be differing optical designs being tried out with the final colour being chosen when they choose the final internals.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

I'd take the two grand I saved after buying an R5 Mk II instead of the R1 and buy one today in white!

 

[steven choi]

It looks like these two have the same dimensions. I believe this lens comes in two colors.

 

[stillviking]

I just hope size and weight are small enough! don't care about color tbh.

 

[chik0240]

I still don’t get why people have an issue with digital correction of distortion, but this is a telezoom lens, not a wide angle lens. The amount of native distortion will likely be mild, as it is on the current RF 70-200/2.8.

I don't have an issue on doing extra digital correction to make it perfrect, but not so for the 24-105 F2.8Z, that one basically do not do optical correction and rely on digital distortion correction, it will be a pain to edit the files in third party raw editors, same goes for 14-35, I would prefer old days optical correction together with some mild digital correction applied to taste, than to have an optically wider but not corrected lens necessay to have digital correction to make it non-fisheye lens

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't have an issue on doing extra digital correction to make it perfrect, but not so for the 24-105 F2.8Z, that one basically do not do optical correction and rely on digital distortion correction, it will be a pain to edit the files in third party raw editors, same goes for 14-35

Why would that be a problem? Are you using a deprecated RAW converter or one that doesn’t offer lens profiles? DxO PhotoLab automatically corrects the distortion for my RF 24-105/2.8 and RF 14-35/4, as does Adobe Camera RAW.