Buckeye2604 wrote:
The whole basis to your view is based on the hypothetical that Nikon could have made the equivalent lens in a smaller package. I doubt that’s possible and canon figuring out how to make their already inferior product smaller doesn’t support your view that it could be done.
My view is: Nikon could have offered two *different* products instead of two *similar* 70-200/2.8 zooms (F- and Z-mount); a compact S lens, with minimal shortcomings (i.e. no TCs), and the already existing 70-200/2.8 FL:
Ripolini wrote:
A Canon shooter having a R body can decide to use EITHER the (state-of-the-art) EF-L 70-200/2.8 IS II OR the more compact RF 70-200/2.8.
Neither you nor me can decide to use a smaller, lighter 70-200/2.8 on our Z cameras. Simple as that.
About the RF 70-200/2.8, "despite the reduced proportions, overall image quality was not sacrificed (a bit more peripheral shading) and even improved in some regards (better flare resistance)" (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx).
