The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM announcement draws closer

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
288
218
USA
Has anyone seen the attainable framerates by various adapted EF lenses? If it exists I haven't seen it. Interested mostly for my 100-400 II and 70-200/2.8.
Its in the manuals that were previously linked for download on this site. At least the list that is capable of 12/20. Doesn't say what you can get with the other lenses, though the answer based on various youtube videos seems to be 9fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoTomOz

trulandphoto

Upstate NY attorney and photographer
Jul 19, 2011
71
18
trulandphotography.com
I'm a little surprised it has taken this long for a budget minded 50mm lens to make its way to the RF system. Hopefully we won't be waiting too much longer and hopefully the price won't be drastically higher than the hundred-ish dollars that have made the plastic fantastic such a big seller for them.
I will be more expensive. It has IS and the RF lens communication.

My guess is $349 US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoTomOz

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,512
168
66
Pricing for both will be key. The fast lenses have been expensive for many so Canon need to hit a home run on keen pricing.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
252
226
Its in the manuals that were previously linked for download on this site. At least the list that is capable of 12/20. Doesn't say what you can get with the other lenses, though the answer based on various youtube videos seems to be 9fps.
This doesn't answer your frame rate question, but it should be useful as another data point in how EF adapted lenses work on R5/R6. Just posted a few hours ago and shows the AF of an adapted Canon EF 400 f2.8 AND Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Again, just another data point and not proof of FPS.

 

Andy Westwood

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 10, 2016
94
110
UK
I’m going to stick with adapting my nifty fifty III and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM for now, saving so I can hopefully afford an R6 sooner or later.
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
252
226
Why? If the 2.8 doesn't it seems highly unlikely the 4 will.
This is one advantage of keeping/buying EF 70-200 or 100-400 lenses for the R cameras. You can use an EF-RF + EF 1.4x / 2x TC III + 70-200 or 100-400 II with the R bodies. I guess I should give this a test tomorrow to make sure it works.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
399
461
Why? If the 2.8 doesn't it seems highly unlikely the 4 will.
Seconded on this. The 2.8 70-200 doesn't take extenders in exchange for portability. There's no way that they would make the more portable 70-200 F/4 less portable than its bigger brother. That is, unless they decide to make the more expensive 2.8 lens more portable than the cheaper F/4 lens to convince more people to upgrade.

I love my RF 70-200 and honestly that lens on its own has been such a huge change for me. My go-to set up at the moment is the 1DX2 with a 24-70 and R5 with the RF 70-200, and it really just feels like I'm carrying two 24-70s. Way, way more comfortable using the RF 70-200 on the R5 than my old EF.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
274
135
Australia
I really love my EF 70-200 f4 L IS II and plan to keep it for the foreseeable future. It is a great lens and can adapt to my R5 and M6 II with the option of using the EF 1.4x TC III. I still have my 100-400 II, but it wll go as soon as I receive the RF 100-500 and validate the performance.
I would not bother updating the 70-200 f/4L IS II either it's so good and the ability to use a TC is very welcome. I'm hardly going to buy any RF glass when I get the R5, it's stupidly priced in Australia, far dearer than the equivalent EF and the longer tele options literally suck.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,036
679
Seconded on this. The 2.8 70-200 doesn't take extenders in exchange for portability. There's no way that they would make the more portable 70-200 F/4 less portable than its bigger brother. That is, unless they decide to make the more expensive 2.8 lens more portable than the cheaper F/4 lens to convince more people to upgrade.

I love my RF 70-200 and honestly that lens on its own has been such a huge change for me. My go-to set up at the moment is the 1DX2 with a 24-70 and R5 with the RF 70-200, and it really just feels like I'm carrying two 24-70s. Way, way more comfortable using the RF 70-200 on the R5 than my old EF.
Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and both are Internal zooming.

f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98

The 20mm flange distance needs to be subtracted from these.
So not a huge penalty in terms of size, still smaller than the EF f/4 versions with an RF adapter.

Either pay a premium for f/2.8 and reduced length or pay less for f/4, internal zooming, and teleconverter compatibilty. (Until they come out with an f/2.8 internal zooming lens, if they ever will)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
252
226
Nobody seems to be bothered to look at the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS patents. There are two, and both are Internal zooming.

f/2.8 length on the patent: 172.73 ~ 219.96 ~ 231.71
f/4 length on the patent 202.98 ~ 202.98 ~ 202.98

The 20mm flange distance needs to be subtracted from these.
So not a huge penalty in terms of size, still smaller than the EF f/4 versions with an RF adapter.

Either pay a premium for f/2.8 and reduced length or pay less for f/4, internal zooming, and teleconverter compatibilty. (Until they come out with an f/2.8 internal zooming lens, if they ever will)
I had a little trouble understating if your f4 referees in the last paragraph above is the RF or EF f4. If EF f4, you can ignore my comment which I based on assuming you meant RF f4. I didn't look at the patent, but I think it is more of an issue how far the rear element is recessed inside the lens tube rather than if the lens is internal focusing. Comparing the actual RF 1.4x TC vs EF 1.4x TC III, the RF protrudes a lot deeper into the lens tube EF 1.4x TC.
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,036
679
I had a little trouble understating if your f4 referees in the last paragraph above is the RF or EF f4. If EF f4, you can ignore my comment which I based on assuming you meant RF f4. I didn't look at the patent, but I think it is more of an issue how far the rear element is recessed inside the lens tube rather than if the lens is internal focusing. Comparing the actual RF 1.4x TC vs EF 1.4x TC III, the RF protrudes a lot deeper into the lens tube EF 1.4x TC.
As you said it yourself, just look at the patent. The rear element is not at the edge of the mount.
JPA 502016808_i_000017.jpg
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
252
226
As you said it yourself, just look at the patent. The rear element is not at the edge of the mount.
View attachment 192105
The problem is that the diagram does not have exact measurements. In addition, the part of the extender that protrudes into the lens barrel is 5/8 - 3/4 inch in length. There is no way to tell from the diagram the distance between the rear element and the mount. Here is a picture of the EF & RF TC's. You could be correct, but there is not enough information available to actually confirm that the RF 70-200 f4 L IS can accept the RF 1.4x TC. The RF TC is the one on the left.

1597225306576.jpeg
 
Last edited: