I'm mainly addressing backcountry photography here, where minimizing gear size and weight overall is pretty critical. (Its the told "watch the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves" business.)
So, I never carry the big 100-400 into the backcountry on my back. (I'd consider it on pack-animal supported trips if I was otherwise well within my weight allotment.) I like the 70-200 focal length a lot for landscape photography, so I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L, which is shorter than the f/2.8 version and thinner than that or the 100-400. With the 1.4x TC, which is pretty small, I get a bit more reach, and that comes in handy at times.
So the loss of the ability to use a TC with a small 70-200mm f/4 lens is a negative for me. The small packed size of the RF 70-200mm f/4 is a plus, but enough of a plus to cancel out the negative of the TC? Not sure.
Weight and bulk become more significant factors when traveling on foot, and especially if you are out for more than an overnight. I've gone with just one or two lenses on occasion, though it is hard for me to go with fewer than three. On two occasions I went with only one zoom lens, and in one case I relied on a cropped sensor camera.
One of my backcountry photography buddies does like the 100-400, which he combines with a 24-105. (Of course, he's also notorious among Sierra photographers for a few things, including the fact that for a while he went into the backcountry carrying a FF digital system, and both MF and LF (!) film gear. His pack tends to be... large. Larger than I've carried in decades.
I continue to use the 5DsR for most stuff at this point. It does a great job, so I'm in no hurry to move to something else. I'll move, but there's no urgency.
Dan
highdesertmesa wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: EB-1 wrote:
The lens is crippled by the lack of both TC compatibility and tripod mount, so I'd say versatility is quite less than the past three 70-200/4 lenses.
If the lens is really good, I might have to figure out a tripod collar. There should be third party TCs at some point.
EBH
For me the more significant concern would be TC compatibility issue. When I put together a lighter backcountry kit I use the EF 70-200mm f/4L with the 1.4X TC for a bit more reach... rather than carrying the much larger and heavier 100-400. While the small packed size of the RF version is quite appealing, that appeal is somewhat negated by the potential to not have a TC.
The collar issue is, for me, a non-issue with these smaller lenses. I also have the f/2.8 EF version of the lens and the collar seems pretty darned important for tripod-based use of that lens, but I find it less so with the f/4... to the point that I never use a collar on my EF 70-200mm f/4 and would likely not use it with the RF version.
There are so many pieces in motion with the move the R system that I'm going slowly, continuing with my current equipment until things shake out a bit more.
The RF 100-500 is only 1365g (versus 70-200 + 1.4x @ 1005g), so to me that's worth the extra 360g to get 500mm and not have to use a TC. And the 100-500 is only 0.14" longer than the 70-200 + 1.4x together, so they are basically the same length.
Something else to consider is it's already the same IQ to crop and enlarge versus the 1.4x on the R5 with the 100-500 – so one might use that to consider just cropping with the 70-200 and never need a 1.4x. Aren't you waiting to see how the R5S turns out? At ~90mp, surely cropping and never needing the 1.4x will be the way to go.
Feb 17, 2021 at 11:33 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #15505524 « Canon RF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM »
