The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM begins shipping this week

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,274
Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision green lit all the way through to production. I tried to set the control ring to a function I might want to change, and then found that it started changing that function when I didn't want it to since there are too many similar rings on a zoom that you can't help but occasionally mis-set it. I have set the control ring function to NONE - not only is it worthless to me, but it's worse than worthless as it just gets in the way.

Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous.

On the good side: The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L happens to be my favorite lens. Why? Because 1) it takes such beautiful photos and 2) ;) it covers the focal range (from 100) up to 500 and I use it for birding (or "cat-ing") almost always at 500mm. But on the bad side: The zoom is on the front of the long lens, where I don't want to support the weight of the long lens, and they make you have to release & re-position your hand to fully zoom between 100 to 500 - that's a lousy way to design a lens.

If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

slclick

ILFORD MULTIGRADE RC
Dec 17, 2013
4,548
2,893
If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!
Glass half full if you buy the adapter and use only EF glass. ALL of your control rings are in the same spot.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,274
Glass half full if you buy the adapter and use only EF glass. ALL of your control rings are in the same spot.

True...until you mount an RF lens. Then suddenly it's in the front...or maybe the middle, or the back, but not as far back.

As I am using a mix of lenses right now (and likely will be forever), this is a bit of an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -pekr- and usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
If you think about it, it's even worse than this. If you buy a control ring adapter, your control ring is "way in the back" which could be considered a fourth position!
I never thought of that. An EF lens user could get used to using the adapter control ring as their normal ring, and when they choose to put on a RF lens (if they do) then they would now have only the RF control ring which could be in any of 3 friggin positions. So indeed there could be 4 positions to consider for them. Bravo, Canon!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -pekr- and SteveC

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,775
1,460
If you have so many RF lens that a slight change in a position of a ring is impossible to overcome then well...

A lens doesn’t have an “oversight” if you ever seen those videos or read articles about how gear is designed and made and thought out you know the lens you bu is the absolute best it can possibly be at the time it’s made .

everything has a reason. Everything is a compromise.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
If you have so many RF lens that a slight change in a position of a ring is impossible to overcome then well...

A lens doesn’t have an “oversight” if you ever seen those videos or read articles about how gear is designed and made and thought out you know the lens you bu is the absolute best it can possibly be at the time it’s made .

everything has a reason. Everything is a compromise.
Everything is a compromise? Well yes, sometimes ...

... Canon chose not to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them nothing. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses.

Canon "chose" to not add that feature - there was no compromise needed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -pekr-

slclick

ILFORD MULTIGRADE RC
Dec 17, 2013
4,548
2,893
True...until you mount an RF lens. Then suddenly it's in the front...or maybe the middle, or the back, but not as far back.

As I am using a mix of lenses right now (and likely will be forever), this is a bit of an issue.
OK, so you had to take it back to where it all started with , well...what they started with which wasn't my point. It was a nonsensical full circle thing. Ok.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,775
1,460
Everything is a compromise? Well yes, sometimes ...

... Canon chose not to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them nothing. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses.

Canon "chose" to not add that feature - there was no compromise needed.
Without knowing why they made the choice, I cannot comment on whether it was the right choice. But Canon are not know for catering to third party products and honestly it makes sense. On my 200 f2 I had one of those feet, where I could unscrew and replace the original Canon foot. Canon made it replaceable and it took one minute to change.

the sum of all Canon’s choices are why they are where they are today and why I enjoy their products. Your mileage may vary.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
Without knowing why they made the choice, I cannot comment on whether it was the right choice. But Canon are not know for catering to third party products and honestly it makes sense. On my 200 f2 I had one of those feet, where I could unscrew and replace the original Canon foot. Canon made it replaceable and it took one minute to change.

the sum of all Canon’s choices are why they are where they are today and why I enjoy their products. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not talking about unscrewing a foot and screwing in another foot you have to buy and lug around. All you have to do is to add two A.S. indentations to the bottom edges of the tripod foot you are already sending out with every long lens with a tripod foot - just like Olympus did. That's showing that you actually care about the photographer and choose to add significant value when there is absolutely no downside or extra cost. To ignore doing that is just showing you don't really care about making the user experience as good as it can possibly be. What's so hard to see about that? They're not perfect! But maybe if enough people bring things like to their attention then they can decide to be more considerate of their users in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,775
1,460
I'm not talking about unscrewing a foot and screwing in another foot you have to buy and lug around. All you have to do is to add two A.S. indentations to the bottom edges of the tripod foot you are already sending out with every long lens with a tripod foot - just like Olympus did. That's showing that you actually care about the photographer and choose to add significant value when there is absolutely no downside or extra cost. To ignore doing that is just showing you don't really care about making the user experience as good as it can possibly be. What's so hard to see about that? They're not perfect! But maybe if enough people bring things like to their attention then they can decide to be more considerate of their users in the future.

how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,433
5,656
how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.
I just got a foot for my 100L Macro, I also need to buy a plate for it, something that in this day and age simply shouldn't be necessary, like windows in lens hoods to turn PL and variable ND filters, the bar has been raised and all new equipment should include these simple and obvious features.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and usern4cr

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,433
5,656
Everything is a compromise? Well yes, sometimes ...

... Canon chose not to put Arca-Swiss quick release grooves on the bottom side edges of their long lens tripod feet. It would have cost them nothing. It was so simple that Olympus put it on their 300mm f4 pro lens and it was wonderful. That lens has been out for years and surely Canon has looked it over carefully as they have most all other competitor's lenses.

Canon "chose" to not add that feature - there was no compromise needed.
I'm not sure it would be nothing because for a big company like Canon to do it there might be a royalty or licensing fee as Arca Swiss do hold patents, but given the prices we pay, the Tripod Mount Ring D for the 100L Macro is $192, I am sure any licensing fee could be absorbed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
how many people will be using a tiny 70-200 f4 on a tripod ? I acknowledge this is a bigger deal for you than me.
Well, a tiny 70-200 f4 shouldn't have a tripod foot in the first place! Does it come with one?

And as far as what lens people have when they put their camera on a tripod, I imagine people of all sorts and all lens types want to have the freedom to handhold their camera or put it on a tripod if they want to. So it will be a big deal for all those people who want to have the option to put their lens & camera on a tripod or not.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
I'm not sure it would be nothing because for a big company like Canon to do it there might be a royalty or licensing fee as Arca Swiss do hold patents, but given the prices we pay, the Tripod Mount Ring D for the 100L Macro is $192, I am sure any licensing fee could be absorbed!
It didn't occur to me that there might be a royalty fee. I guess that's possible - Thanks for the comment!

But if Olympus can do it on their long lenses (the 300mm f4 pro sells for a similar price as a RF 100-500L for example) then I don't see why Canon can't also do so. And if the royalty was really that much where it made a difference in the price of the lens, they could sell the lens without the tripod foot at a cheaper price and make the foot a separate purchase which then had the grooves (& royalty fee paid for) in it. I would have preferred that for the RF 70-200 f2.8L as I don't use the tripod foot anyway.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,775
1,460
Well, a tiny 70-200 f4 shouldn't have a tripod foot in the first place! Does it come with one?

And as far as what lens people have when they put their camera on a tripod, I imagine people of all sorts and all lens types want to have the freedom to handhold their camera or put it on a tripod if they want to. So it will be a big deal for all those people who want to have the option to put their lens & camera on a tripod or not.
And what would be the issue mounting the RF 70-200 f4 with plate on the body?
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,188
2,009
Kentucky, USA
And what would be the issue mounting the RF 70-200 f4 with plate on the body?
Do you mean having the RF 70-200 f4 on the body, and the body with a A-S plate, which is mounted to the tripod with A-S clamp?
If so, then this is the normal way of doing it, since Canon (or all the others) has never put A-S grooves on the front & back edges of their camera bottom (which I also wish they would do, but that's for another day).

All of the above has nothing to do with the RF 70-200 f4L having it's own tripod collar and foot. Does it come with it in the box or not?! So what's your point?
If it doesn't come with one, then that lens has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which are the long lenses that DO come with a tripod collar & foot in the box, OK?
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
Saw a number of chart shoots comparing it with the latest EF model. At 70mm the EF was better. Both in the center and the corners. At 200m the RF was better. Both in the center and the corners. People typically use their long zooms most at the far end, so it better that way around. But do not expect and overall upgrade from the previous model (which I find surprising). Already have the RF 70-200mm 2.8 so no worry for me. But it would have been nice to be able to go lighter and smaller too. If this is confirmed I'm an unlikely buyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,775
1,460
Do you mean having the RF 70-200 f4 on the body, and the body with a A-S plate, which is mounted to the tripod with A-S clamp?
If so, then this is the normal way of doing it, since Canon (or all the others) has never put A-S grooves on the front & back edges of their camera bottom (which I also wish they would do, but that's for another day).

All of the above has nothing to do with the RF 70-200 f4L having it's own tripod collar and foot. Does it come with it in the box or not?! So what's your point?
If it doesn't come with one, then that lens has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which are the long lenses that DO come with a tripod collar & foot in the box, OK?
And what was the title of this thread again?
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,697
419
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I think one of a massive attractions with this new f4 lens and the recent f2.8 variant is the compressed size at the 70mm end. Sure it's a little slower in use than the ef versions with their constant size. However, both those EF lenses take up a lot of camera bag space when moving gear about. These two lenses aren't much bigger in a camera bag than a standard zoom and that's a massive consideration. I think that the RF mount has a few advantages for sure. I think the ability to use older EF lenses like a TS-e17L and mount a polariser or an ND filter in the EF to RF mount (optional) is another serious factor. However...the camera bodies and their apparent "still developing" AF system is the system's achilles heel at the moment.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,717
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
But if Olympus can do it on their long lenses (the 300mm f4 pro sells for a similar price as a RF 100-500L for example) then I don't see why Canon can't also do so.
We don't know all the factors that contribute to Olympus fate and certainly there are many of them - but purely for the sake of argument pointing out that Olympus does something which Canon doesn't can't really be used as an argument for Canon to start doing it anymore.

I would also like to see an option for AS grooves on the collars, but the only long lens I own with a foot to begin with is my Sigma 150-600 mm C - which also does not have the grooves.

A few others things to think about:

My AS plates are getting some signs of wear from use with all the heavy equipment and some too hasty assemblies. I do prefer the optional attachment to wear down, rather than the first party accessory.

When brands like Sigma or Canon put a collar and foot in a lens, it likely weights more than a Olympus design with this feature. So the requirements for the manufacturing may be higher.

AS is not an official spec ( source) , it is just a rough dimension many accessories producers roughly target with their plates and clamps. But I don't think there even is an option to license it, so the height of this royalty isn't a factor. I rather believe Canon is not a fan of reverse engineering a spec that is not official and would prefer not to get in trouble if it turned out that their interpretation of the spec didn't match the one of some clamp manufacturer and gear was damaged due to incompatibility.

This lack of an official spec and license may also factor into considerations for marketing and legal documents. This could well contain aspects of Japanese law and copyright that we have no idea of, but Canon understands very well and believes the value added to certain customers is just not worth their perceived downsides.
 
Last edited: