Unless I missed another thread on the new Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 IS L ... here's a video on Youtube. I was almost ready to buy an EF today, and thought "hmmm .. I should wait and see what the RF costs and looks like". It's a tad bigger than the "coke can" rumor got me to envision. Aside from the higher price, I may prefer the longer leaner EF model's form. But the shorter one looks handy for upright storing in a bag's cube.
In the 2nd video where Gordon puts them side by side, the RF seems quite a bit smaller.
That new 70/200 looks pretty sweet!! Would make a nice travel lens for those that MUST take a 70/200.
I own two 70-200's, the 2.8 mkll that's one of my sports work horses and the f4 non IS that I use for travel, but I don't often take a 70-200 if travel involves a plane.
The non IS f4 is very small and probably lighter than the RF, and it's very sharp too.
I don't often use IS and when it gets that slow outside I break out my tripod!!!
The RF is 10g lighter than the EF non-IS version, but that's without the adapter. Since the adapter is another 100g or so, the new lens will be a fair bit lighter. Also, since the weight isn't distributed far from the camera when carrying, it'll feel even lighter in use. JohnSil wrote:
That new 70/200 looks pretty sweet!! Would make a nice travel lens for those that MUST take a 70/200.
I own two 70-200's, the 2.8 mkll that's one of my sports work horses and the f4 non IS that I use for travel, but I don't often take a 70-200 if travel involves a plane.
The non IS f4 is very small and probably lighter than the RF, and it's very sharp too.
I don't often use IS and when it gets that slow outside I break out my tripod!!!
Jman13 wrote:
The RF is 10g lighter than the EF non-IS version, but that's without the adapter. Since the adapter is another 100g or so, the new lens will be a fair bit lighter. Also, since the weight isn't distributed far from the camera when carrying, it'll feel even lighter in use.
For an all-RF shooter, the 100g would cut 100g. Presently, I use EF and RF so the adapter is always in my bag. For me, expense is the biggest deterrent for the first months ahead. One other thought ... I still use the 5DS, where EF zooms work on my EF and RF bodies.
The biggest issue I have with the EF 70-200 F4L IS is that it barely fits in most camera bags WITHOUT the adapter. With the adapter on it, it only seems to fit in tall laptop size messenger bags or backpacks. With it mounted on camera, I'm down to only backpacks.
This new RF 70-200 F4 is 24-105L sized. This means it will fit in almost any camera bag, even smaller to medium ones. And even attached to the camera. I'd be able to keep camera, 24-105, 70-200 and a prime lens in a small shoulder or sling bag.
If image quality is better or weight is lighter, that's a bonus. But I don't have any complaints about those even on the older EF version 1.
The only thing stopping me from pre-order is the price. My EF lens is going to net like $500 resale. The new one is $1700 with tax. That's a big upgrade price for very similar photos. If it weren't for the compact size I wouldn't even consider it.
Ouch. $1600 for f/4 that weighs about the same as 80's alts. Needs to be optically great. I'd be more interested in a used 70-200/2.8 vII at this price, if they're still going for that or less.
These RF 70-200's are certainly highly priced, and it creates a dilemma. I very much value the compact size, especially in an f/2.8 version since the normal DSLR versions are so heavy and unwieldy for daily carry. I have the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for my Sony, and it's wonderful to have speed in a 70-200-ish lens that's tiny (and while it's a 180mm, at portrait distances, it's actually the same amount of reach as the RF 70-200/2.8, as that lens focal shortens considerably at closer focusing distances).)
I've been renting an RF 70-200/2.8 for the past week, and it's a really, really nice lens, and I would love to have it for the speed and compact size, but I just don't think I can justify the insane $2,700 cost for it, even if I think it ultimately would be the way to go in a perfect world. On the other hand, having a 70-200mm in a lens the size of the 24-105 is very, very appealing. And while I think $1600 is still very steep for such a lens, the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking I'm going to go that route. I have the EF 70-200/4 IS right now, and it's a great lens optically, but the IS is very loud, and it doesn't do the hybrid IS, so stabilization is about 2 stops worse than what I'd get with the RF...and as mentioned above, it's SO long with the adapter, and won't fit in any of my bags with the lens mounted to the camera.
So, it's quite possible I'll pick one up. And then hope within a year or so, Tamron ports over their 70-180 for RF mount, and then I can have the best of both worlds for the same price as the RF f/2.8.
tkbslc wrote:
...This new RF 70-200 F4 is 24-105L sized. This means it will fit in almost any camera bag, even smaller to medium ones. And even attached to the camera. I'd be able to keep camera, 24-105, 70-200 and a prime lens in a small shoulder or sling bag...
Right now, my R5 + RF 70-200 f/2.8 will fit by itself in the Think Tank Turnstyle 10 V2 sling, but the f/4 version would let me fit another lens in there easily. But I don't like the idea of having both versions, and I'm not sure I want to give up the 2.8. If I give up the 2.8, I'd probably also sell the 15-35 f/2.8 and wait for the f/4 version (or buy the EF 16-35 f/4 in the interim).
In the bag pictured, I'm pretty sure I could fit the body, the rumored RF 14-35 f/4, the RF 70-200 f/4, and the nifty-RF 50 f/1.8.
tkbslc wrote:
The biggest issue I have with the EF 70-200 F4L IS is that it barely fits in most camera bags WITHOUT the adapter. With the adapter on it, it only seems to fit in tall laptop size messenger bags or backpacks. With it mounted on camera, I'm down to only backpacks.
Ever seen those small green Canon camera backpacks stocked at places like Best Buy? More like a day pack. I've bushwhacked with one in the redwoods for 10 years. I can easily fit my Canon 5DS with a 70-200mm 2.8 ... let alone an f/4. Plus I can get a second body and small lens, or two small lenses extra if needed. So I'm curious if you're referring to the shoulder or messenger type bags that are like big purses.
In my regular Lowepro, I could fit a full frame body, the 70-200mm plus a 100-400mm and maybe two other primes.
mdvaden wrote:
Ever seen those small green Canon camera backpacks stocked at places like Best Buy? More like a day pack. I've bushwhacked with one in the redwoods for 10 years. I can easily fit my Canon 5DS with a 70-200mm 2.8 ... let alone an f/4. Plus I can get a second body and small lens, or two small lenses extra if needed. So I'm curious if you're referring to the shoulder or messenger type bags that are like big purses.
In my regular Lowepro, I could fit a full frame body, the 70-200mm plus a 100-400mm and maybe two other primes.
I despise backpacks. I have to take them off and set them down to change lenses. And they are susceptible to disaster if a zipper comes loose as everything would fall out the back.
Seems a bit childish to call shoulder bags "purses", but that's the only kind of bag I would consider.
tkbslc wrote:
I despise backpacks. I have to take them off and set them down to change lenses. And they are susceptible to disaster if a zipper comes loose as everything would fall out the back.
Seems a bit childish to call shoulder bags "purses", but that's the only kind of bag I would consider.
That's what a photographer said about the cheap Canon pack years ago -- the zipper thing, etc.. 10 years heavy bushwhacking put that claim to rest.I've heard of photographers slipping before and their camera bags impacting and breaking gear. Same with packs, actually
**************
Back to the lens at hand ... the RF 70-200mm f4
A couple folks suggested the shorter length should could feel lighter due to the lens being closer to the body. That may depend on the percentage of weight when the RF lens is fully extended because then it's not all close anymore.
The EF and RF are both so light, it's as if both barely need any tripod collar ring.
mdvaden wrote:
Ever seen those small green Canon camera backpacks stocked at places like Best Buy? More like a day pack. I've bushwhacked with one in the redwoods for 10 years. I can easily fit my Canon 5DS with a 70-200mm 2.8 ... let alone an f/4. Plus I can get a second body and small lens, or two small lenses extra if needed. So I'm curious if you're referring to the shoulder or messenger type bags that are like big purses.
In my regular Lowepro, I could fit a full frame body, the 70-200mm plus a 100-400mm and maybe two other primes.
That green canon bag is actually pretty nice. Its my main bag for anything where I want more than one lens.
An interesting thing I found out while doing a quick test of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L with my EF 70-200/4L IS and my Tamron 70-180/2.8 for Sony:
While a lot of 70-200mm lenses will significantly shorten focal length when focusing closer than infinity, Canon's EF mount 70-200 lenses always somewhat resisted this. Nikon's shorten considerably. Sony's do....and now Canon's RF mount 70-200 (at least the f/2.8 version) does as well. Pretty massively too.
Compared to the EF 70-200/4, the RF 70-200/2.8 at 200mm and around a 1.5m focus distance is very nearly the same framing as the EF 70-200/4 IS at 135mm. If the EF version is 'true', then the RF 70-200/2.8 shortens to around 140-145mm when focused at this distance.
The Tamron 70-180/2.8 at 180mm is actually a little longer at this focus distance than the RF 70-200/2.8 is at 200mm (though still shorter significantly than the EF 70-200/4.
I hope the RF 70-200/4L IS is more like the EF version, rather than the RF 70-200/2.8, but given the extending zoom, I'm thinking it probably shortens quite a bit as well.
These differences should go away at infinity, but it's definitely worth noting.
Jman13 wrote:
An interesting thing I found out while doing a quick test of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L with my EF 70-200/4L IS and my Tamron 70-180/2.8 for Sony:
While a lot of 70-200mm lenses will significantly shorten focal length when focusing closer than infinity, Canon's EF mount 70-200 lenses always somewhat resisted this. Nikon's shorten considerably. Sony's do....and now Canon's RF mount 70-200 (at least the f/2.8 version) does as well. Pretty massively too.
Compared to the EF 70-200/4, the RF 70-200/2.8 at 200mm and around a 1.5m focus distance is very nearly the same framing as the EF 70-200/4 IS at 135mm. If the EF version is 'true', then the RF 70-200/2.8 shortens to around 140-145mm when focused at this distance.
The Tamron 70-180/2.8 at 180mm is actually a little longer at this focus distance than the RF 70-200/2.8 is at 200mm (though still shorter significantly than the EF 70-200/4.
I hope the RF 70-200/4L IS is more like the EF version, rather than the RF 70-200/2.8, but given the extending zoom, I'm thinking it probably shortens quite a bit as well.
These differences should go away at infinity, but it's definitely worth noting.
Jman13 wrote:
An interesting thing I found out while doing a quick test of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L with my EF 70-200/4L IS and my Tamron 70-180/2.8 for Sony:
While a lot of 70-200mm lenses will significantly shorten focal length when focusing closer than infinity, Canon's EF mount 70-200 lenses always somewhat resisted this. Nikon's shorten considerably. Sony's do....and now Canon's RF mount 70-200 (at least the f/2.8 version) does as well. Pretty massively too.
Compared to the EF 70-200/4, the RF 70-200/2.8 at 200mm and around a 1.5m focus distance is very nearly the same framing as the EF 70-200/4 IS at 135mm. If the EF version is 'true', then the RF 70-200/2.8 shortens to around 140-145mm when focused at this distance.
The Tamron 70-180/2.8 at 180mm is actually a little longer at this focus distance than the RF 70-200/2.8 is at 200mm (though still shorter significantly than the EF 70-200/4.
I hope the RF 70-200/4L IS is more like the EF version, rather than the RF 70-200/2.8, but given the extending zoom, I'm thinking it probably shortens quite a bit as well.
These differences should go away at infinity, but it's definitely worth noting.
Yikes, that RF f/2.8 is awful though not a surprise due to the compromised design. Is the f/4 RF just as bad? Is the field any flatter on the RF lenses than the older 70-200/4 IS or IS II?
mdvaden wrote:
That's what a photographer said about the cheap Canon pack years ago -- the zipper thing, etc.. 10 years heavy bushwhacking put that claim to rest.I've heard of photographers slipping before and their camera bags impacting and breaking gear. Same with packs, actually
**************
Well I've had all kinds of backpacks in my life for schooling and work. Having a zipper only partially closed or working it's way down is not uncommon. Either way, my main complaint is having to set down the bag down (often on the ground) in order to open it safely and swap lenses. I've tried one before and quickly passed it on.
Not sure why my bag preference is in question here. Main point is that the adapted 70-200 needs a very big bag and the new RF 70-200 will not.
