Canon announced the development of the RF 1.4x and RF 2.0x teleconverters alongside the EOS R5 a few months ago and will be officially announced on Thursday.
Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter specifications:
- 7 elements in 4 groups
- Size: 71.2mm x 20.3mm (mounted) 40.7mm (total length)
- Weight: 225g
Canon RF 2.0x teleconverter specifications:
- 9 elements in 5 groups
- Size: 71.2mm x 39.3mm (mounted) 60.6mm (total length)
- Weight: 340g
Each of these teleconverters will be compatible with the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM.
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
I don’t think that was even a CR0 worthy rumor. Just pure wishful thinking by some people.
I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible.
It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.
We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible.
(edit: the above was soundly corrected by everyone below -- I haven't had a good look at that RF 70-200 yet.)
No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?
- A
Looking at the rearmost element of the RF70-200 and the frontmost element of the RF extenders doesn't make me think "That's possible!". Unless you drill a 2cm hole in the RF70-200.
Ah, so to get the RF 70-200 into that tiny footprint they burned that TC opportunity with a rear element design decision? That would be a waste.
Why would they do that? Aren't most of the space savings with that lens due to the new external zooming design anyway?
- A
Interesting concept. It is small enough for handheld shooting, but at 1600mm and f22, you will still need a tripod at midday.
Well, Canon did put in STM motors, it would be sad if they sat there unconnected.
I don't know the why or the how, just saying that with a lens that has an element sticking *into* the body and an extender with an element sticking *out* of the body, hoping for compatibility takes some serious blind faith.
We had a hint of that when the RF 70-200 came out and a bigger hint when the prototype RF TCs pictures came out months ago. The RF 70-200 is nearly the length of the RF 15-35 or 24-70, and it can fit in the camera bag on its end like the other RF 2.8 zooms. That's not a small thing. The RF system is lighter than the EF because the 70-200 and 100-500 are smaller/lighter than their EF 70-200 and 100-400 counterparts. The disadvantage is cost. For people that have both the 70-200 and 100-500, the fact that the 70-200 isn't compatible with TCs won't matter much. For those that can only afford one or want one telephoto zoom, then they might have to see what 3rd party manufacturers can do.
Allowing large rear elements close to the sensor is one of the primary selling points of the RF mount design, and the 70-200mm is designed to exploit that. Evidently Canon believes that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage of being incompatible with extenders.
Here's even more hoping that the new 2.0 is better than the last one.
When having to make choices regarding which equipment to bring, a 70-200 with TCs is a very strong contender against a 100-400 or 100-500, as the ability to not use the TCs opens up the benefits for low light and shallow DOF, and the ability to use them helps with reach when needed (which is often). Not having that TC option makes the applications of the two lenses completely different, meaning you are more likely to "need" both. Totally fine when size and weight (and money) are not an issue, but arguably a major drawback for those of us who are carrying gear around for hours on end and who are sick of arguing with airport check in staff about why we refuse to put items made of glass in our checked luggage.
I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).
- A