Close Menu

    Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

    By Updated:146 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    canon70200f4 - Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

    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.

    rf70200sc - Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L 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.

    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.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    146 comments


    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 504

    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 505
    1. And here (copied from the lenses Forum) two size comparisons, one with the 24-105 f/4 and the other with the 24-70 f/2.8:
      1604144797314.png1604144810075.png
      This will be a fantastic hiking or trekking lens! Curious about the price though...
    2. Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
      Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 lens set on f/4 or native f/4 one?
    3. Image quality will likely be similar, based on the EF 70-200 lenses. It's the same choice as always between f/2.8 and f/4 zooms...a larger, more expensive lens with one stop larger aperture, or a smaller, less expensive lens with a slower aperture. Take your pick.
    5. Woha this is sexy, I have the RF 70-200 2.8 but if image quality is good enough and price very low, I could consider to switch to this one to save money for another one good lens! I have to analyze the shoots I did under f4
    6. Take your pick.
      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.
    7. Is it just a cheaper (and maybe lighter) version of Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
      Which one is supposed to produce better images: f/2.8 set on f/4 or 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.
    8. Edit: I should have read the other thread before wasting space here :ROFLMAO: PBD did a better job already at comparing it to the RF 70-200 mm 2.8:

      Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon

      I am definitely interested in it. I hope the price is reasonable. Like $1249 would be a good starting price. If it is $2k then I am going to rethink the whole RF system for me personally as they are not pricing the lenses reasonable. Every direct EF to RF replacement is extremely expensive.
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com

      size_comp.gif
    9. Woha this is sexy, I have the RF 70-200 2.8 but if image quality is good enough and price very low, I could consider to switch to this one to save money for another one good lens! I have to analyze the shoots I did under f4
      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...
    10. 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.

      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.
    11. 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 woul'll pay taxes on the new one...
      Yes but not now, next year.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
      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.
    14. A f/4 70-200 would be a great lens to get into the Canon R but it is disappointing that'll mean no TC support. I don't know about a 2.8 vs 4.0 now, the new RF 2.8 is quite light so I canny imagine people owning both a f/4.0 and f/2.8 like I know a few did on EF (The f/4.0 being the preferred 'outside' lens).
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. I'm excited about this lens.

      When I bought my EOS R I also bought the RF28-70mm f/2, a simply gorgeous lens (if a bit heavy). I like the idea of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, it seems like the natural complement to the 28-70. But I just can't justify spending $2600 (or more) for every lens. I'm thinking that with the IS and the ISO capabilities of the EOS R this lens will suit my needs...assuming it sells for about $1000 less than the f/2.8.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment