Canon will be announcing the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM alongside the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8, which leaked earlier this week.
For scale, here is a size comparison between the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and it’s big brother, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Both of these lenses have been long-rumored and should be big sellers for Canon. I expect an official announcement from Canon early next week.
Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.
Probably it will be the "little sibling" like the EF 70-200 F4 L. That old EF lens has great image quality. All RF lenses are very sharp, so probably this new one will be great too in all aspects. The main decision should be other factors like budget and use case.
PBD did a better job already at comparing it to the RF 70-200 mm 2.8:
www.canonrumors.com
I wouldn't expect to save a lot of money by selling an f/2.8 and buying an f/4, considering that you'd sell at lower price and would pay taxes on the new one...
I guess you never took a hike with you F2.8 collection. The EF F4 L lenses were built with the same quality but half price and half weigth. I would not expect this to be any different.
I have the 2.8 version, non IS. Great lens, but bulky and heavy (I think something like 3.2 lbs.) so very seldom carry far from the car in the field. This f4 lens would suit me fine, if I were able to afford a mirrorless body in the first place.
You are absolutely right about hiking: I never walk too far from my car.
I am just wondering how much this stop might save money and/or weight and whether it's worth it from image quality perspective. We'll see.
The AF is supposed to still be working at f/8, no ? If it is f/5.6, then you might use a 1.4x one...
Well, not a Canon one at least. Physically, TCs don't fit on the RF 70-200 2.8 if they portrude at all into the lens. And I don't see why this would be different for this cheaper, more compact one.
Indeed, it is very disappointing (I've just read an article about that: I'm still using EF mount body so I don't have this problem yet).
Presumably they decided the size and weight reduction was more important than the ability to mount a TC.
