The Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM begins shipping this week

[Fischer]

Canon put the control ring in 3 different positions on different RF lenses (front usually, middle on some, back on some). It's ridiculous, and an embarassment to think that a company like Canon could have such a bad design decision ...

Also, in zooms they put the zoom at different front/back positions on different RF lenses. You get used to it on one, and it's reversed on another - also ridiculous. ...

So true. I always check where the control ring is before I mount a lens, to avoid messing up.

Nitpicking, I am also no fan of the new lens and mount covers. Too difficult to set right without looking. They should have had some tactile guide like a small bump etc. Think the R 50mm came with an indent on the rear - not great btw but at least a try - so guessing Canon already knows its a bummer and will start addressing it.

 

[usern4cr]

We don't know all the factors that contribute to Olympus fate and certainly there are many of them - but purely for the sake of argument pointing out that Olympus does something which Canon doesn't can't really be used as an argument for Canon to start doing it anymore.

I would also like to see an option for AS grooves on the collars, but the only long lens I own with a foot to begin with is my Sigma 150-600 mm C - which also does not have the grooves.

A few others things to think about:

My AS plates are getting some signs of wear from use with all the heavy equipment and some too hasty assemblies. I do prefer the optional attachment to wear down, rather than the first party accessory.

When brands like Sigma or Canon put a collar and foot in a lens, it likely weights more than a Olympus design with this feature. So the requirements for the manufacturing may be higher.

AS is not an official spec ( source) , it is just a rough dimension many accessories producers roughly target with their plates and clamps. But I don't think there even is an option to license it, so the height of this royalty isn't a factor. I rather believe Canon is not a fan of reverse engineering a spec that is not official and would prefer not to get in trouble if it turned out that their interpretation of the spec didn't match the one of some clamp manufacturer and gear was damaged due to incompatibility.

This lack of an official spec and license may also factor into considerations for marketing and legal documents. This could well contain aspects of Japanese law and copyright that we have no idea of, but Canon understands very well and believes the value added to certain customers is just not worth their perceived downsides.

Thanks for the thorough feedback. Maybe that's the reason they passed on putting A.S. grooves on their heavier lenses, and out of inertia they don't on their lighter weight lenses with a collar & foot.

 

[mangobutter]

Still contemplating the RF 70-200 F4L. The small form factor and white hood are very tempting.

I'm hesitant, however, for the following reasons:

1) IQ. I saw a youtube review video online showing this lens to have weak 70mm performance wide open in the corners. 200mm looked good. I want to see more IQ tests.

2) IQ-2. I've found many times when Canon updates to an RF version of a similar EF lens, the RF version is sharper but has worse bokeh--such as the RF 85 Macro vs the 30-year old EF. The EF has noticeably smoother background. I'm hoping that isn't the case here. I've seen a couple review photos where the bokeh wasn't that smooth. Outlier, or just a really harsh BG, not sure. Will need to see more testing.

3) No teleconverter capability. I use my current EF 70-200 F4 Version 2 with a 1.4x and it gives nice results. Absolute bummer these lenses don't have TC capability. I know it's due to the size... but I'm losing out on essentially a 300mm lens. I was out shooting over the weekend and got shots I wouldn't have otherwise been able to get without 200mm+ capability. Yeah I thought of just keeping both lenses if I get the RF.

4) Price. $1600 is a hell of a lot (for an F4 zoom). So I'm contemplating at this point, why not spend the extra $1000 and get the 2.8 version.

 

[usern4cr]

Still contemplating the RF 70-200 F4L. The small form factor and white hood are very tempting.

I'm hesitant, however, for the following reasons:

1) IQ. I saw a youtube review video online showing this lens to have weak 70mm performance wide open in the corners. 200mm looked good. I want to see more IQ tests.

2) IQ-2. I've found many times when Canon updates to an RF version of a similar EF lens, the RF version is sharper but has worse bokeh--such as the RF 85 Macro vs the 30-year old EF. The EF has noticeably smoother background. I'm hoping that isn't the case here. I've seen a couple review photos where the bokeh wasn't that smooth. Outlier, or just a really harsh BG, not sure. Will need to see more testing.

3) No teleconverter capability. I use my current EF 70-200 F4 Version 2 with a 1.4x and it gives nice results. Absolute bummer these lenses don't have TC capability. I know it's due to the size... but I'm losing out on essentially a 300mm lens. I was out shooting over the weekend and got shots I wouldn't have otherwise been able to get without 200mm+ capability. Yeah I thought of just keeping both lenses if I get the RF.

4) Price. $1600 is a hell of a lot (for an F4 zoom). So I'm contemplating at this point, why not spend the extra $1000 and get the 2.8 version.

If bokeh is a big concern of yours, and you can tolerate a bit more weight & size and the cost, I'd suggest you get the RF 70-200 f2.8L version. It's really great. But in all fairness, I have not used the f4L version and so YMMV.

 

[mangobutter]

Yeah I am not really referring to amount of bokeh, but mostly quality of bokeh. I'm past the thin DOF bandwagon already. I just don't want harsh looking stuff. I understand it's an F4 zoom and it won't be winning any awards, but as long as it's not bad or distracting, I can live with it. My original cheapo 70-200 F4L (non IS) would take fantastic headshots at F4 with totally smooth BGs. If anyone can post samples up that would be great. not too many up yet

 

[Bdbtoys]

So, I made a big list about why I may get the f4's at some point and that was for lightweight travel. However I think I have another reason to get the f4 trinity. And that is specifically for travel in areas where I don't want to draw attention. I am a bit worried that the 2.8's draw a little too much attention (good thing I don't have the 28-70 ) and the 100-500 is a head turner. So may use the f4's to keep good quality w/ a smaller form factor. The recent robbery post has me thinking about that. It's not like I didn't need a good excuse to get the f4's.

[Edit] - Crap, forgot it was white. Why did they do that... it would have been a perfect sleeper paired with the other f4.

 

[Rivermist]

I have the RF 70-200 f2.8L and it is a wonderful lens. Also compact and relatively light. Since you want to add a 70-200 for portrait use, I would strongly suggest you get the f2.8 version instead of the f4 version as that's the most useful reason IMHO to get the bigger aperture in that focal range. But if you shoot your indoor portraits at f5.6 then you won't be getting the f2.8 benefit. For anything outdoors where you do want a nice background blur, I'd strongly suggest the f2.8 version as well, but that's just my opinion. But if you mainly want outdoor landscape shots instead of portrait shots then the f4 version would be fine and more portable. Also f4 at 200mm will still give you enough background blur where you'd probably be happy, but just not as much as f2.8.

In a perfect world you are right, the 2.8 is a gem and as said my EF 2.8 IS mk1 was a trusted companion in studio and outdoors for over 10 years. I later tried the EF 4.0 L IS mk2 but it was disappointing in that while it was much lighter it was barely more compact. The RF offering adds an element of compactness to the f:4 design, 26mm (1 inch) shorter and 7mm less in diameter. The humbling truth is that the metric that may matter most to me is the price differential, $1,000, between excellent and perfect.

 

[GMAX]

Received mine today. Tiny little thing for special usecases (Travel, street, landscape) Will keep my EF 2.8 II, but this one is just amazing (by size) Hope picture quality will stand on par, not yet tested

 

[JoeDavid]

Received mine today. Tiny little thing for special usecases (Travel, street, landscape) Will keep my EF 2.8 II, but this one is just amazing (by size) Hope picture quality will stand on par, not yet tested

I received one today as well. I won't get to do too much with it until the weekend but I did take a couple of shots with it on an R5. It looks like it is sharp wide open like the other RF L lenses and the lighter weight is very nice compared to the f2.8 version. If I don't need the extra stop, this looks like the "go to" 70-200mm but I'll have to do more comparisons first. One thing to note is that Adobe doesn't have a lens profile for it yet. There appeared to be some vignetting at 70 but from around 100 on up there was very little to none.

 

[filmmakerken]

Mine arrived today. It's beautiful.
It's only slightly bigger and heavier than the EF 17-40mm f4...about the same when I put the EF to RF adapter on the 17-40.
I haven't put it through any real testing yet.

 

[vrpanorama.ca]

I got mine too, super sharp, super fast, portable. Frankly the bokeh is very pleasing. Frankly a major step forward in technology. Will fully test next week in a three days shooting. But I am not into wedding, or my work is not involving often portraits, so need for me to get the 2.8

 

[hawkjody]

Got mine - WOW - this lens is Very light and portable - only a few mm longer the an the 24-105. But lighter - very good feel in the hand - ( attended to my R5) - have left it attached all week shooting random scenes as well as some test patterns at different focal lengths and F-stops to evaluate sharpness - - Looking Pretty Da__n Good ! The animal tracking (photographing the dog in the yard running around) is spot on. Since I’m 90+% a landscape photographer don’t miss the F2.8 at all -