It's "not compatible" with the EF extenders, not the RF. Someone in the R Facebook group actually called Canon, and Canon confirmed the new RF TCs would work with the RF 70-200. The photos of the open RF TCs are just mockups likely RF externals with the old EF internals. If you look at other photos of the RF TCs with the caps on, the caps are just barely taller than a regular cap.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I was thinking about this whole teleconverter issue, and while I think it would be quite odd, the amount of space between the back of the lens element of the RF 70-200 and the length of the protrusion of the teleconverters appears to be the exact same...
It probably would not work due to the risk to the rear element of the 70-200, so it is probably wishful thinking that they may have some solution.
Why should the tag "not compatible" in a RF lens spec being valid for EF?
How should an EF extender ever connect directly to a RF lens?
Sorry, this all doesn't make sense.
We don't know but if they couldn't pull off faster than 1/60 in a 20MP flagship $7K body then the chances they can pull off faster in a 45MP high end body is very unlikely.
I'll be the first to congratulate them if they do and I'm likely buying the camera regardless as I stated up thread.
But if anyone is going to be eating crow when it comes to predicting the readout speed, I'd be betting on you two
You can check out the distortion from the 1/60th readout of the 1DXIII at the 18:06 mark of Gordan's excellent review video.
If Canon is crushing their current Cinema line with the R5 (which they will be), then stepping over the dead body of the last 1DX will be child's play
greenfield wrote:
Why should the tag "not compatible" in a RF lens spec being valid for EF?
How should an EF extender ever connect directly to a RF lens?
Sorry, this all doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense is thinking Canon would chart compatibility for a future product.
EF Extender Compatiblity Not Compatible. That is a true statement. EF Extenders are the only extenders available right now.
Given that Canon designed their EF extenders to be "inserted" into the EF lenses (whereas 3rd party TC's typically are not), the change in flange distance has offered the R lenses a design opportunity for the rear element to be so close to the end of the barrel that "insertion" isn't an option.
My point here is that Canon took their TC's to optimal design for the glass, even to the third gen of TC's. I see no reason that Canon wouldn't do the same (optimal design) for an RF TC (albeit flush like 3rd party or older TC's). I mean, even if it is only for the 70-200/2.8 ... it'll still sell well, since the 70-200/2.8 + TC is such a longstanding combo ... even if they aren't in a hurry to do so.
We've got a really long way to go in the RF game, but I have every confidence that they'll bring an RF TC to the table to mate up with the 70-200/2.8, etc.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It's "not compatible" with the EF extenders, not the RF. Someone in the R Facebook group actually called Canon, and Canon confirmed the new RF TCs would work with the RF 70-200. The photos of the open RF TCs are just mockups likely RF externals with the old EF internals. If you look at other photos of the RF TCs with the caps on, the caps are just barely taller than a regular cap.
---------------------------------------------
Who did this someone talk to at Canon? There is no way you would be able to get someone on the phone that has any knowledge of this at this early stage.
Why would Canon show product shots with a large protrusion when there won't be?
I'm sorry but it is very wishful thinking that it will mount on the 70-200RF (at least at 70mm) given the product photos.
The Sony front caps for the TCs that have very similar protrusions to the ones in Canon's product images for the RF versions are not any bigger than a typical EF front TC cap. Yet the Sony protrusions are pretty massive and look about the same as the Canon images.
I sure hope that they will mount and work with the 70-200RF as I think the use of TCs (especially the 1.4) has been a common practice for 70-200/2.8 owners. But nothing we have seen gives any indication they will.
I do agree that the "Not Compatible" line on the UK site is a little suspicious and I don't put a lot of faith in that line confirming it. I don't know if anyone knows if that line existed there before the RF Extenders were shown off. It could certainly be old reference to EF extenders even though that seems odd to add also. Still I can't find that same sort of info on other countries pages for the 70-200RF.
Yes, Arbi, but those converters do not look in any way like those showing the extended middle tubes from the picture one page ago in my opinion.
Anyway, why does here a discussion take place about if or if not any future Canon product might fit or not to any existing RF lens? I thought this thread is concerning the new R5 BODY?
Ralph Conway wrote:
Yes, Arbi, but those converters do not look in any way like those showing the extended middle tubes from the picture one page ago in my opinion.
Anyway, why does here a discussion take place about if or if not any future Canon product might fit or not to any existing RF lens? I thought this thread is concerning the new R5 BODY?
How do they not look the same? They have the exact same body casing with the lens end of the TC narrowing down in a nice curve just like the product shots do. For whatever reason the frame I grabbed from YouTube vid in the second shot is missing color information showing the red mounting indicator but that can be seen in the DPReview shot (1st image). Those were of the same WPPI display case.
Discussions flow...that is how the world works...who cares if the discussion flows over to TCs for a few pages....if you want it back on course then get it back on course.
arbitrage wrote:
How do they not look the same? They have the exact same body casing with the lens end of the TC narrowing down in a nice curve just like the product shots do. For whatever reason the frame I grabbed from YouTube vid in the second shot is missing color information showing the red mounting indicator but that can be seen in the DPReview shot (1st image). Those were of the same WPPI display case.
Discussions flow...that is how the world works...who cares if the discussion flows over to TCs for a few pages....if you want it back on course then get it back on course....Show more →
Hmm, now that you put them side-by-side, I can see this going either way. It's really hard to tell with the different angles.
I'm wondering if Canon will simply update the firmware of the R/RP/R5 to limit the AF range depending on the zoom setting so as to not hit the rear element. Or the firmware in the lens when connected to the TCs could have instructions to limit its focusing range dependent on focal length. I've always wondered why they never did this for lenses like the EF 70-300L that work with TCs at longer focal lengths but not at the widest probably because there were too many legacy bodies that would require updating and/or the EF lens electronics are not sophisticated enough.
If they did this for the RF 70-200 f/2.8, it would mean we could use the TCs but they could only focus through the full distance range from say 125-200mm and at 70-125mm would be limited to 10m to infinity or something like that (and less flexibility with the 2x of course). This would be fine for me since the highest magnification at MFD on the 70-200 is at 200 anyways.
@ arbitage:
You are right, they look the same. That was not the difference I mentioned. Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I would imagine, the caps would not fit like shown in the first pic whwn the outcoming tubes lens tubes would be so long like shown in the second one.
And concerning the theme change: Did you see the smiley at the end of my post?
After seeing these images near each other I was going to agree that it didn't look like the same TC and there was no way that cap would fit over the protrusion. So I merged them together then scaled and aligned them.
Sure looks like they are the same and it would fit inside the cap.
I'm chalking it up to an "optical" illusion that they were different. .
highdesertmesa wrote:
Hmm, now that you put them side-by-side, I can see this going either way. It's really hard to tell with the different angles.
I'm wondering if Canon will simply update the firmware of the R/RP/R5 to limit the AF range depending on the zoom setting so as to not hit the rear element. Or the firmware in the lens when connected to the TCs could have instructions to limit its focusing range dependent on focal length. I've always wondered why they never did this for lenses like the EF 70-300L that work with TCs at longer focal lengths but not at the widest probably because there were too many legacy bodies that would require updating and/or the EF lens electronics are not sophisticated enough.
If they did this for the RF 70-200 f/2.8, it would mean we could use the TCs but they could only focus through the full distance range from say 125-200mm and at 70-125mm would be limited to 10m to infinity or something like that (and less flexibility with the 2x of course). This would be fine for me since the highest magnification at MFD on the 70-200 is at 200 anyways. ...Show more →
The rear lens element moves through zoom, not AF. It is controlled by the user so no such firmware is possible.
lighthound wrote:
After seeing these images near each other I was going to agree that it didn't look like the same TC and there was no way that cap would fit over the protrusion. So I merged them together then scaled and aligned them.
Sure looks like they are the same and it would fit inside the cap.
I'm chalking it up to an "optical" illusion that they were different. .
Huh! Thank you "lighthound". MY optical perception seems more like it has been an illusion.
I still suppose if one is careful you can set your lens to 200, mount the TC and lock it out there with the friction ring to prevent yourself from accidentally zooming back. I'd think most wanting a TC on that lens are looking for the long end anyways. Unless there is something in the mounts that prevent it from mounting (like some tab or pin placement?)
There is no friction ring. The lock only works at 70mm.
However, there is a open air gap between the lens body and rear element when fully extended. Maybe something could be attached to the front of the TC that goes between the body and rear element that locks the zoom position.
