AmbientMike wrote:
Telephotos have to be longer on mirrorless to make up the shorter flange to sensor difference. I'd imagine this is at least part of the reason they made them like this, so they can be stored smaller.
They definitely made it this way to be stored smaller, but I disagree that they're made to be longer on mirrorless. That's not what I experienced using the RF70-200/2.8. Extended to 200mm it was about as long, if perhaps slightly less, than my EF70-200/4L IS without the RF adapter. The RF 70-200 has its rear element very close to the lens mount, therefore it's only about an inch from the sensor. I'm sure if Canon wanted to, they could have designed it so the rear element was a couple inches away and the lens could have accepted a TC. But I guess they prioritized the extending design in order to offer a lens unique in this particular category. Yes, this decision is a compromise. Some will prefer its compactness. Others will lament the loss of TC compatibility, or the 'solidity' of the internal zoom design... At least use of the EF versions is a viable option.
khurram1 wrote:
I was with CPS for over 25 years, but cancelled it after they got rid of the CPS equipment purchase discount. Upgrades were much more economical, when you are able to buy a lens at CPS price, so you don’t take as much of a hit when you sell, and than can also get CPS pricing on the replacement.
I am with you in the t/C’s now. Don’t use mine as much, but I don’t think I could ever give up the 2.8 for a 70-200 lens. I did “downgrade” from my 16-35 f2.8LII to a 16-35 F4L (and now the RF 14-35L), since I rarely have shot at 2.8 with thr UWA, with the exception of when I used to shoot basketball. For the 24-70 and the 70-200, I do shoot a lot at 2.8, so I couldn’t see myself going with the F4 versions of those lenses. I’ve pretty much shot with 2.8 zooms since around 1996. ...Show more →
I wish we had the same refurb options from Canon Canada as are available from Canon USA. There were some pretty good deals today at the USA store on a few lower-end lenses that I would have bought... It would partly make up for the loss of CPS pricing.
That's the thing I like about the RF70-200/2.8 - you get an f/2.8 lens without all the mass/bulk of the EF versions, which at least for me, was a primary reason I went to the EF f/4 version.
I also did a CPS test drive of the RF24-70/2.8 the week I had the RF70-200. It was a very nice events combo. But I wasn't overly happy with the 24-70, optically. It was not good across the frame at certain focal lengths and might actually have been somewhat tilted. Perhaps copy variation. Its bokeh quality didn't appeal to me at the wide end. And at 70mm the 70-200's bokeh quality was noticeably better, IMO. After using the 28-70/2 a few times, I think it has ruined me for any other XX-70 zooms. The 28-70's rendering is so consistent across its zoom range, and so prime-like... It makes its size an acceptable compromise, at least for me. Anyway, I digress.
I want my cake and want to eat it, but physics is getting in the way😆
If the throw of the zoom ring wasn’t so long, it would just be a question of do I want to take the upgrade cost hit - my wife still doesn’t get the need/want to upgrade, when cell phones take such good pictures 🙄
AmbientMike wrote:
It doesn't sound like you liked it much. So no, I haven't used it, but unless you can get a longer term loan as previously suggested you seem to prefer the ef lens you already have.
Telephotos have to be longer on mirrorless to make up the shorter flange to sensor difference. I'd imagine this is at least part of the reason they made them like this, so they can be stored smaller.
Thanks for your perspective of the lens with your wrist issues.
I found that while the lens was lighter, the shorter length, fatter girth, and longer zoom rotation made if seem harder on the wrist, but it could be I just need more time with the lens.🤔
Usually I wouldn’t go from one end of the zoom to the other. there are times I have done that, But I probably i probably wouldn’t need to more than 10-20% of the time using the lens.
jtford9 wrote:
I’ve had 4 operations on my hands and wrists. Left hand had 2 broken bones that were pinned together and have an interesting curve to them. Right wrist was fractured and dislocated in a basketball game in my 20’s, by the time I was in my 50’s I had to have 2 bones removed from the wrist, a bone graft and a plate with 7 screws.
I use an R3 and a gripped R5 and only RF lenses. The adapters on EF lenses were a hassle I didn’t need and I find even the heaviest RF lenses balance well in my left hand with their weight comfortably positioned towards the back of the lens. I do have big hands (6’4”) so cradling a lens and camera in one hand is ok.
I really like using the RF70-200, it’s light, much lighter than the EF, and the extending focusing still keeps the weight next to the body where I can handle it. Shooting one handed with my right hand is a problem with almost every camera/lens combo because the wrist plate doesn’t allow flexibility. Front heavy lenses cause pressure and pain. The RF 70-200 extended doesn’t add much weight towards the front so it’s doable, at least for a while.
I never once used a TC on the EF 70-200 so I don’t miss not being able to use them on the RF. I also don’t find the the focus ring throw to be an issue because in my shooting I rarely find myself needing to go from one end of the focal range to the other that often. I find I’m usually somewhere at one end or the other and towards the 135mm middle. ...Show more →
Yeah, we definitely get screwed in Canada. Naturally, the only real significant rebate Canon had on an RF I as for the 14-35L (which I believe is still on). Of course that is the one RF lens I bought on pre-order on its initial release.
From what I understand, Canon Canada gets it’s supply from Canon USA, so there is probably an internal markup, and the refurbished stock never seem to make its way up north.
I thought long and hard about the 28-70L, but as my main interest is landscape now, I think I’d miss the 24mm, and not sure if I’d want the extra weight on long hiking trips. The 24-70 f2.8L. If I could afford to have both, the 28-70 would definitely be on my list. I tried that on one of the Canon road shows when the R5 was released and absolutely loved it.
rscheffler wrote:
I wish we had the same refurb options from Canon Canada as are available from Canon USA. There were some pretty good deals today at the USA store on a few lower-end lenses that I would have bought... It would partly make up for the loss of CPS pricing.
That's the thing I like about the RF70-200/2.8 - you get an f/2.8 lens without all the mass/bulk of the EF versions, which at least for me, was a primary reason I went to the EF f/4 version.
I also did a CPS test drive of the RF24-70/2.8 the week I had the RF70-200. It was a very nice events combo. But I wasn't overly happy with the 24-70, optically. It was not good across the frame at certain focal lengths and might actually have been somewhat tilted. Perhaps copy variation. Its bokeh quality didn't appeal to me at the wide end. And at 70mm the 70-200's bokeh quality was noticeably better, IMO. After using the 28-70/2 a few times, I think it has ruined me for any other XX-70 zooms. The 28-70's rendering is so consistent across its zoom range, and so prime-like... It makes its size an acceptable compromise, at least for me. Anyway, I digress. ...Show more →
khurram1 wrote:
...From what I understand, Canon Canada gets it’s supply from Canon USA, ...
Canon Canada is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canon USA. I think most Canon products for Canada come directly from Japan, which is less expensive than trans-shipping through the USA, but Canon Canada is owned and controlled by Canon USA.
I liked the user experience of the RF24-70 but was turned off by the optical problems I saw in the copy I test drove, which looked pretty much like the same problems I have experienced with the EF version, including field curvature at some focal lengths that was stronger than I prefer. I haven't yet seen this from two copies of the 28-70 in CC's CPS pool.
khurram1 wrote:
...From what I understand, Canon Canada gets it’s supply from Canon USA, ...
jcolwell wrote:
Canon Canada is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canon USA. I think most Canon products for Canada come directly from Japan
Yes, this is also my understanding. Some comes by ship to Vancouver (more now I think than previously) and some by air freight to Toronto.
One thing I missed with the old EF 70-200 MK2 was that I can zoom with just my thumb under the lens and can precisely stop at the range I want because the zoom ring is so smooth. I can't do that with the new RF.
patotts wrote:
It all depends on how you use your 70-200. If you use it for travel, portraits, etc - the push/pull operations of the RF zoom will do just fine. If you don't need a teleconverter, the RF is a great choice.
For my needs, the missing TC is more of a real problem.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The one issue that I have seen was the "zoom creep" issue on the old 24-105mm f/4, but that's pretty much it.
Dan
That issue is very much present in RF 70-200mm f/2.8. If there is a zoom lock somewhere, I've missed it. I planned on using it also as variable focal length tube lens in my vertical stacking system, but that seems impossible.
