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

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
176
229
Kenosha, WI
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.
You'll be fine. I used 70-200 f/2.8 IS III > 2.0x extender II > 1.4x extender II > control ring adapter in the R (not the R5 yet), and was able to autofocus no problem. I would LOVE to replace all 3 with the RF equivalents but it's just not in the cards. I wish they'd make a reasonably sized RF zoom that starts at 200mm or so, then I could carry 2 lenses instead of the TC's... The 100-500mm doesn't go as long as I would like and 100mm overlaps too far.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
410
484
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 feel like Canon still has at least *something* up its sleeve for a lens like this, though.

One detail the patents would leave out is a lens being collapsible, if it is internal zoom and has a long backfocus for extenders there's room to collapse over. It would make a lot of sense for the 70-200 F/4 to be collapsible, which is a huge pick for people who hike or shoot landscapes. Plus, you'd get both extender use and small size in a bag.

That said, I could see Canon as seeing the extending zoom of the F/2.8 as a reason for people to upgrade. Just doesn't seem fair to backpackers to have to pick up the F/2.8 just to make room in a bag. Maybe they see the use of extenders as saving room, since it would let the lens also be a 400mm f/8, but who knows.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,638
531
S Florida
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'm not buying it. Canon made a conscious design decision with the f/2.8 to go for size and weight over extender compatibility. They will certainly stick to this decision with the f/4.0. Perhaps later on they will come out with a 70-200 f/2 and a f/3.5 or something similar that don't collapse and accept extenders, but not this time around. My 2 cents...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

sobrien

EOS M50
CR Pro
Apr 26, 2020
29
52
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.

View attachment 192106
What I find a bit curious is that Canon decided to give the RF 100-500 a way to overcome the large protrusion - i.e. a mechanism to prevent the rear element from bumping into the extender to allow it to be used at 300mm+ - but for whatever reason did not provide the RF 70-200 f/2.8 with a similar protective mechanism that might allow it to work at 200mm, say. I have not measured it but there seems to be plenty of space at the rear of the RF 70-200 when zoomed out. I wonder did Canon do that to encourage sales of the RF 100-500 (or rumoured 100-400 non-L) or is there some genuine technical reason for that?:unsure:
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
461
496
Why do teleconverters need that protruding part? Why cannot be completely flat? They might be 1cm bigger that way but at least could be mounted on almost any lens, like the RF 70-200
 

StandardLumen

I'm New Here
Jul 20, 2020
17
16
Why do teleconverters need that protruding part? Why cannot be completely flat? They might be 1cm bigger that way but at least could be mounted on almost any lens, like the RF 70-200
I'm not certain, but the extender being bigger rather than having the protruding piece is not the same, because it affects the distance to the lens elements. My guess is that this design will work with a variety of lenses that function similar to the new RF 100-500, where the extender can only be used with the lens at the longer focal lengths. This is a design that comes at the cost of some compatibility and flexibility, but means the lenses can all be smaller and lighter while still maintaining the same maximum focal lengths.
 

Bert63

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
772
1,560
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.

There is a page out of the manual for the R5 floating around in one of these threads that lists them all. I'm not sure which one it's in, but I'm pretty sure it came right out of the manual.

EDIT: It's page 896 of the R5 manual. All adapted lenses that can do 12FPS.

1.png


2.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fast351 and Joules

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
254
228
What I find a bit curious is that Canon decided to give the RF 100-500 a way to overcome the large protrusion - i.e. a mechanism to prevent the rear element from bumping into the extender to allow it to be used at 300mm+ - but for whatever reason did not provide the RF 70-200 f/2.8 with a similar protective mechanism that might allow it to work at 200mm, say. I have not measured it but there seems to be plenty of space at the rear of the RF 70-200 when zoomed out. I wonder did Canon do that to encourage sales of the RF 100-500 (or rumoured 100-400 non-L) or is there some genuine technical reason for that?:unsure:
Just a guess, but it may have something to do with TC design optimizations for the upcoming RF versions of the 300, 400, 500, 600 & 800. I found it interesting you had to bet at 300mm on the RF 100-500 before you could attach the TC. That happens to match the beginning of the super telephotos - 300mm F2.8. They might have been able to make it work at 200mm, but didn't feel it was necessary for the 70- 200mm if 200mm is the shortest focal length that can use the TC and you would loose the rest of the zoom range. I am hoping that is the case, because I would really like a 200-400 replacement stretched out to 200-500 w/integrated TC (and 2-3lbs lighter).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
234
129
I just hope things work out in the mid term so Canon continues to release ambitious and even daring lens designs.
 

Bdbtoys

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
126
90
Hefty Fifty is an understatement.

That sucker is so heavy it bends light OUTSIDE the shell, without the use of refraction.

If you know what I mean :D
For a 50 I guess it's kinda big... but it's about the same weight as the 24-70 f2.8... so not terrible. It's the 28-70 f2 that starts warping space/time.