Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.
It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.
While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring
Upvote
0
Might be cheaper than some were predicting, but A$2700 still seems insane to me! I am OK with my DSLR and EF lenses for now, but if/when I go mirrorless I am not at all sure it will be with Canon, given Canon's pricing. Some of the lenses available in the Sony system seem much better value for my purposes.
Upvote
0
I agree that my EF70-200 f2.8ii was heavy and enormous compared to my RF 70-200 f2.8. My wife even commented at the time that I have to get it as she constantly couldn't see why I was lugging around all this equipment... that is.. when we were travelling back in the day!While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring
I have never used my EF24-105mm for landscape. I have used my EF70-200mm for landscape/ long exposures though and I definitely needed the tripod ring to balance the weight rather using the tripod mount on the body. Less needed now with the RF70-200 f.28 being lighter and weight is closer to the back of the lens but the ring will still be useful.
With the size/weight of the rf70-200/4, there is even less of a need for a tripod ring IMHO.. ie just use the body tripod mount.
Upvote
0
The Sony f2.8 variant is about 18% cheaper at the moment.
That is the beauty of EF->RF conversion. Pick your moments to make the jump. I've seen R5 bodies second hand already plus RF lenses popping up in used markets already. If you want to stick to Canon then it will only get cheaper but that could be the same for Sony as well. First adopters will always pay a premium. I bought my RF70-200/2.8 4 months before getting my R5 because it was 15% off and the 5 year warranty wasn't too affected.
If you are moving to Sony bodies and continue to use Canon EF glass there are definite cons to that option compared to EF lenses on RF bodies. The Metabones etc adapters are getting better but you need to factor in the adapter cost and quality as well.
I think that it is clear that the R5 is the best overall hybrid at the moment. Sony/Panasonic have better bodies for long form videos.
The next Sony body focusing on stills will be very interesting to see if they can beat the R5 overall. Its thermal performance with high density sensor/frame rate has to be better than the R5 or it will be instantly dismissed as underperforming (but still probably be great
)
Upvote
0
I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resistThe Sony f2.8 variant is about 18% cheaper at the moment.
That is the beauty of EF->RF conversion. Pick your moments to make the jump. I've seen R5 bodies second hand already plus RF lenses popping up in used markets already. If you want to stick to Canon then it will only get cheaper but that could be the same for Sony as well. First adopters will always pay a premium. I bought my RF70-200/2.8 4 months before getting my R5 because it was 15% off and the 5 year warranty wasn't too affected.
If you are moving to Sony bodies and continue to use Canon EF glass there are definite cons to that option compared to EF lenses on RF bodies. The Metabones etc adapters are getting better but you need to factor in the adapter cost and quality as well.
I think that it is clear that the R5 is the best overall hybrid at the moment. Sony/Panasonic have better bodies for long form videos.
The next Sony body focusing on stills will be very interesting to see if they can beat the R5 overall. Its thermal performance with high density sensor/frame rate has to be better than the R5 or it will be instantly dismissed as underperforming (but still probably be great
I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.
Upvote
0
On my RF 70-200 F/2.8, I've almost always had the tripod ring off to make the lens slightly more compact, and it's been great! The big perk to me is that, when using a tripod, it's easy to switch between a wide angle zoom and the 70-200, all while keeping the R5 connected to the tripod. In the past, I'd have to take them off the tripod, swap the lens, have a plate on both the 70-200 and camera, and then place them back on the tripod.
Balance-wise, it doesn't feel all that different from using a 24-70 f/2.8 on a tripod. On my EF 70-200, I always kept the tripod ring on as a nice grip for the hand, since the lens was going to be huge with or without the tripod ring.
As the RF 70-200 F/4 doesn't weight all that much more than an EOS RP, and weighs less than the EOS R5, I'm sure the balance will be even better.
Upvote
0
If Wikipedia is to be believed then Sony opened up their E mount specifications in 2011 and there are 17 3rd party lens manufacturers that have signed up. 9 years is a long time for 3rd parties to build up native products and for their pricing to plateau.I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist
There's no doubt that the lack of 3rd party lenses leaves a lot of gaps in the Canon's native RF lineup today. But if you combine the adapted EF and EF-s lenses and 3rd party EF lenses then there is a very broad range in price/focal length and quality. RF lenses L lenses are best in class (except RF24-105mm/4 which is reasonable) and have a premium associated with them.
Tamron/Sigma etc will make RF mount lenses but probably only the EF protocols so Canon natives will only make use of the 5 axis combined stabilisation.
Canon is playing a long game here any taking profits wherever possible to maintain fiscal viability. Sony really didn't have a choice back in 2011. They needed lenses quickly and couldn't do it all themselves and the only way to break into the Canon/Nikon body market was to have smaller and better specs (we all know their limitations) that meant that users could adapt existing lenses and a broad range of 3rd parties. Canon and Nikon did drop the ball by letting Sony carve out their niche. Ultimately, Nikon looks to be on the losing side at the moment.
With a declining market, profits have to be king and yes - we are paying them
Upvote
0
Definitely used my EF70-200mm's tripod ring as a handle as I don't use a strap. With the RF70-200mm I don't need it ie I can carry by holding just the lens and body in one hand. The ring stays on my RF100-500mm though
Upvote
0
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)If Wikipedia is to be believed then Sony opened up their E mount specifications in 2011 and there are 17 3rd party lens manufacturers that have signed up. 9 years is a long time for 3rd parties to build up native products and for their pricing to plateau.
There's no doubt that the lack of 3rd party lenses leaves a lot of gaps in the Canon's native RF lineup today. But if you combine the adapted EF and EF-s lenses and 3rd party EF lenses then there is a very broad range in price/focal length and quality. RF lenses L lenses are best in class (except RF24-105mm/4 which is reasonable) and have a premium associated with them.
Tamron/Sigma etc will make RF mount lenses but probably only the EF protocols so Canon natives will only make use of the 5 axis combined stabilisation.
Canon is playing a long game here any taking profits wherever possible to maintain fiscal viability. Sony really didn't have a choice back in 2011. They needed lenses quickly and couldn't do it all themselves and the only way to break into the Canon/Nikon body market was to have smaller and better specs (we all know their limitations) that meant that users could adapt existing lenses and a broad range of 3rd parties. Canon and Nikon did drop the ball by letting Sony carve out their niche. Ultimately, Nikon looks to be on the losing side at the moment.
With a declining market, profits have to be king and yes - we are paying them
I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).
Upvote
0
Prices in Germany (incl. VAT):
Keep in mind that German prices include taxes (VAT) while US don't.
Add that up and the difference is not that big anymore.
- 225,- € for the RF 50mm f1.8 STM
- 1755,- € for the RF 70-200mm f4.0 L IS USM
Sorry, Del Paso, I missed your post.Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
Keep in mind that German prices include taxes (VAT) while US don't.
Add that up and the difference is not that big anymore.
Upvote
0
And VAT in Germany has been lowered for the time being, the instructor of my last workshop was really happy with the price of the Z7 he bought in Germany during a business trip a few weeks ago. He likes the camera as well
Upvote
0
Agreed, staying with my DSLR for now and then we will see.
R5 costs about 6000 USD here in Sweden including VAT. The RF extenders goes for almost twice the price of their EF counterparts. And so it continues.
Can buy a brand new EF 70-200 2.8L IS III for about the same price as the new RF 70-200 4L IS.
Upvote
0
TC compatibility? Nope.... like the RF f2.8 
Way to expensive... and only 65g less heavy then the 70-200 4.0L IS MK1.
And you said here it is less good in picture quality? What a shame again... if this is true.
Way to expensive... and only 65g less heavy then the 70-200 4.0L IS MK1.
And you said here it is less good in picture quality? What a shame again... if this is true.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
TC compatibility? Nope.... like the RF f2.8
Way to expensive... and only 65g less heavy then the 70-200 4.0L IS MK1.
And you said here it is less good in picture quality? What a shame again... if this is true.
Only 5g less than the non IS 70-200mm f/4.0 which becomes quite a wee bit better with IBIS.
Upvote
0
I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.
It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.
While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring
One of the arguments for internal zoom is that it doesn't suck in air every time the lens extends. That is another opportunity for dust to make it's way inside your lens where it can't be easily cleaned. I think all the L lenses have filters to keep this airborne dust out, but it is still a possibility on lenses that extend. Filters and seals will eventually wear out.
For how I use my gear, I would rather have a more compact lens. But, there are sound arguments for internal zoom lenses.
Upvote
0
I agree. Great equipment, but expensive and doubt I could afford to buy Canon gear. I always strongly have stuck the Canon lenses as well. There is a review of the the RF 70-200 and he compares to a Tamron 70-180. I think a lot of us are all assuming new designed RF lenses are optically perfect. His tests show they are not, not that I think is the most important thing or it matters at all. But an interesting, long, review.I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist
Upvote
0
Similar threads
