The Canon RF lens range - a problem for Canon?

[Django]

hmm.. the RF 70-200mm f4 IS seems like the one RF lens to actually by lighter, way more compact, shorter focus distance etc than its EF counterpart:

so much more practical than the EF + adapter:

..that got you looking like a 90s paparazzi!

[gt3rs]

14 minutes ago, Django said:

hmm.. the RF 70-200mm f4 IS seems like the one RF lens to actually by lighter, way more compact, shorter focus distance etc than its EF counterpart:

so much more practical than the EF + adapter:

..that got you looking like a 90s paparazzi!

Is also 1400 USD + tripod collar vs. 500 USD used.... and I think is a bit the point I'm trying to make this middle ground lenses are more hard to justify that cheap or the really expensive one.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Django said:

the RF 70-200mm f4 IS seems like the one RF lens to actually by lighter, way more compact

I really like this lens (on paper) for any fantasy Canon RF set up.

I'm happy with an f4 at these kinds of focal lengths as the only time I have any use for such a thing (and I use an f4 70-200 in L Mount) is ceremonies & speeches at weddings which for me are mostly outdoors and if in the evening, I light them.

RF mount for me, lack a compact 28-70/75 such as Sigma and Tamron offer.

I really do not want to switch one big set up for another going forward. It would have to be something very special indeed to be anywhere near my current 2.8kg weapon system of choice.

The Canon RF equivalent pairing this 70-200 zoom with an R3 body is a whopping 1kg less.

So great lightweight (for it's size) camera body in the R3 and great 70-200mm f4, huge & heavy 28-70mm f2 and the rest is a bit meh to me.

They may be the market leader but imagine how much more share they would have if they had a decent set of native or third party RF glass available...

[Django]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Is also 1400 USD + tripod collar vs. 500 USD used.... and I think is a bit the point I'm trying to make this middle ground lenses are more hard to justify that cheap or the really expensive one.

right yet my point is it depends! what you may find to be a "middle ground lens" may actually be a game changer to others just by the nature of its compact size and weight. this is actually the one RF lens that reverses what pundits complain about in RF, that they are usually bigger and heavier than EF. quite the contrary in the case of this lens! And to some that alone may make it worth the upgrade price (not to mention optical performance enhancements).

case in point:

55 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I really like this lens (on paper) for any fantasy Canon RF set up.

I'm happy with an f4 at these kinds of focal lengths as the only time I have any use for such a thing (and I use an f4 70-200 in L Mount) is ceremonies & speeches at weddings which for me are mostly outdoors and if in the evening, I light them.

RF mount for me, lack a compact 28-70/75 such as Sigma and Tamron offer.

I really do not want to switch one big set up for another going forward. It would have to be something very special indeed to be anywhere near my current 2.8kg weapon system of choice.

The Canon RF equivalent pairing this 70-200 zoom with an R3 body is a whopping 1kg less.

So great lightweight (for it's size) camera body in the R3 and great 70-200mm f4, huge & heavy 28-70mm f2 and the rest is a bit meh to me.

FYI there is a lighter and much cheaper RF option than the 28-70mm f2 and that is the 24-70mm f2.8 IS.

And don't forget you can also adapt the EF versions, including Sigmas & Tamrons.

[homestar_kevin]

This is one area I think Nikon really deserves some credit for their approach with releases the 1.8 S primes first and building out from there. They're all pretty affordable, uniform, and of great quality. Still not a 135mm or 28mm 1.8 primes, but the rest of the line up is filled out.

Panasonic has done the same approach. Canon seems to be on a different orbit entirely. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Django said:

And don't forget you can also adapt the EF versions, including Sigmas & Tamrons

But I think only the old Sigmas and Tamrons so nothing like the latest 28-70mm f2.8 from Sigma which I think is L and E only or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which I believe is E only?

I'm not personally interested in a system where I would need to adapt bigger and older lenses, but smaller/more compact and lighter though can understand why others might due to having the lenses or because older stuff can be bought 'cheap' used.

That Canon RF 24-70 is pushing 1kg. I really want to get away from stuff like that.

To be honest, I don't know that much about the cheaper/lighter RF primes other than that they are not that highly regarded whereas Nikon's Z 1.8's and Lumix 1.8's and Sigma's f2 Contemporaries are.

As it stands, Canon have only 2 lenses in RF that interest me and to be honest, they are MORE than enough to build a system off and it's not totally out of the question; R3 + 28-70mm all day long except C&S flip to that 70-200 f4 and job done.

But is that the best option for me based on what else is out there?

It's on the list but I need hands on in Paris this Winter...

[Ty Harper]

5 hours ago, Django said:

hmm.. the RF 70-200mm f4 IS seems like the one RF lens to actually by lighter, way more compact, shorter focus distance etc than its EF counterpart:

You're probably right - but coming from an EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS (MKI, II & III) the EF 70-200 f4 IS is still a massive difference on all fronts (I had no idea it was THAT much smaller than the f/2.8 models) - especially price-wise (picked mine up for like $500 CAD). Can the RF f/4 version fit in your pocket the way the EF f/4 version can?

[Django]

18 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

You're probably right - but coming from an EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS (MKI, II & III) the EF 70-200 f4 IS is still a massive difference on all fronts (I had no idea it was THAT much smaller than the f/2.8 models) - especially price-wise (picked mine up for like $500 CAD). Can the RF f/4 version fit in your pocket the way the EF f/4 version can?

I own neither but specs indicate the RF f4 is shorter than the EF f4 (119mm vs 170mm) a little wider (83mm vs 76mm) and a little lighter. Its about the size of the EF 16-35mm:

[Django]

19 hours ago, MrSMW said:

But I think only the old Sigmas and Tamrons so nothing like the latest 28-70mm f2.8 from Sigma which I think is L and E only or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which I believe is E only?

I'm not personally interested in a system where I would need to adapt bigger and older lenses, but smaller/more compact and lighter though can understand why others might due to having the lenses or because older stuff can be bought 'cheap' used.

That Canon RF 24-70 is pushing 1kg. I really want to get away from stuff like that.

To be honest, I don't know that much about the cheaper/lighter RF primes other than that they are not that highly regarded whereas Nikon's Z 1.8's and Lumix 1.8's and Sigma's f2 Contemporaries are.

As it stands, Canon have only 2 lenses in RF that interest me and to be honest, they are MORE than enough to build a system off and it's not totally out of the question; R3 + 28-70mm all day long except C&S flip to that 70-200 f4 and job done.

But is that the best option for me based on what else is out there?

It's on the list but I need hands on in Paris this Winter...

The RF STM primes are really not bad for their price. 200 bucks for the nifty fifty, 300 for the 16mm f2.8. The 50mm f1.8 has aspherical element despite the giveaway price. Rockwell even claims "In actual use this Canon lens is as sharp as the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, but the foolish Nikon Z lens is 2½ times as heavy, over twice as long and three times as expensive! Is there any wonder why Nikon has fallen from number one in the 1980s to number three today? " of course sharpness isn't everything but that's still pretty funny hyperbole lol.

The RF 35mm and the 85mm STMs cost a bit more but have IS and macro which is really nice. 

They are kinda noisy and have breathing which is sucky for video. The Nikon primes are silent and have breathing comp so yeah advantage Nikon for hybrid use. Guess you get what you pay for!

Now the RF 28-70mm f2 is considered a marvel/gem. Some say its a bag of primes in one lens. Heavy & expensive though.

You almost have to pair it to an R3 for proper balance. I'm sure that combo would be deadly for ultimate versatility, IQ & performance.

[MrSMW]

27 minutes ago, Django said:

Now the RF 28-70mm f2 is considered a marvel/gem. Some say its a bag of primes in one lens. Heavy & expensive though.

You almost have to pair it to an R3 for proper balance. I'm sure that combo would be deadly for ultimate versatility, IQ & performance.

It's the No.2 combo on my list of 3 options.

As I've said before, I could live with this kind of size and weight if it had enough merit...

My current combo of S1H + battery grip + Leica 24-90 f2.8-4 is superb except in 2 areas and that is size & weight, plus that lens is a leeeetle slow in low light and I wish it was a constant aperture f2.8. The rendering in combo with the OLPF S1H sensor is stunningly good.

The R3 and 28-70 beats it on weight, but not by much, - around 300g or something so 2.5kg vs 2.8kg, not that big of a deal.

It will be faster re. AF for sure and probably slightly more accurate and has much better low light performance...but, sacrifices 20mm at the long end and that is a lot as I shoot 90mm a lot.

The 24mm vs 28mm at the wide end...I actually prefer 28mm which for me is the point at which going wider, especially with people on the edges of a frame, it starts getting a bit meh for me.

So as a combo, it is enough to beat out my current set up, but then it also needs a longer lens such as that compact 70-200 f4...but that then causes me issues during ceremonies when I want/need both long and wide.

The bottom line is it could work, but the reality is there is a better option for me and as things stand, that is where I will be going.

For me it's always this balance between number of bodies vs primes or zooms and the reality is that much as I prefer primes in principle, the reality is I need a zoom based set up or it's 4 versus 3 bodies.

I started this year with 4 and finished (this weekend actually) on 3.

2 is potentially on the horizon...

[Django]

13 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

It's the No.2 combo on my list of 3 options.

As I've said before, I could live with this kind of size and weight if it had enough merit...

My current combo of S1H + battery grip + Leica 24-90 f2.8-4 is superb except in 2 areas and that is size & weight, plus that lens is a leeeetle slow in low light and I wish it was a constant aperture f2.8. The rendering in combo with the OLPF S1H sensor is stunningly good.

The R3 and 28-70 beats it on weight, but not by much, - around 300g or something so 2.5kg vs 2.8kg, not that big of a deal.

It will be faster re. AF for sure and probably slightly more accurate and has much better low light performance...but, sacrifices 20mm at the long end and that is a lot as I shoot 90mm a lot.

The 24mm vs 28mm at the wide end...I actually prefer 28mm which for me is the point at which going wider, especially with people on the edges of a frame, it starts getting a bit meh for me.

So as a combo, it is enough to beat out my current set up, but then it also needs a longer lens such as that compact 70-200 f4...but that then causes me issues during ceremonies when I want/need both long and wide.

The bottom line is it could work, but the reality is there is a better option for me and as things stand, that is where I will be going.

For me it's always this balance between number of bodies vs primes or zooms and the reality is that much as I prefer primes in principle, the reality is I need a zoom based set up or it's 4 versus 3 bodies.

I started this year with 4 and finished (this weekend actually) on 3.

2 is potentially on the horizon...

I hear you, wedding photography is probably one of the most demanding types of shoot and you include videography which is even more taxing. I'm not even quite sure how you do it all but I can only imagine the math involved when it comes to gear. I'm sure every gram counts at the end of the day!

[Kubrickian]

I do wedding videography and photography, but I'm also branching out into being the officiant as well. And some catering for the reception. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Kubrickian said:

I do wedding videography and photography, but I'm also branching out into being the officiant as well. And some catering for the reception. 

?

[Ty Harper]

4 hours ago, Django said:

I own neither but specs indicate the RF f4 is shorter than the EF f4 (119mm vs 170mm) a little wider (83mm vs 76mm) and a little lighter. Its about the size of the EF 16-35mm:

Ah ok - and from what we're learning the MKII version will zoom internally making it even more compelling! That said there's something about being able to easily fit the EF 70-200mm f4 IS in your pocket (bcuz it's so thin) that I love.

[ntblowz]

2 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Ah ok - and from what we're learning the MKII version will zoom internally making it even more compelling! That said there's something about being able to easily fit the EF 70-200mm f4 IS in your pocket (bcuz it's so thin) that I love.

But if MKII is internal it will be longer for sure. I guess people can pick MK I for compact and MKII for better environmental protection.

[Ty Harper]

11 hours ago, ntblowz said:

But if MKII is internal it will be longer for sure. I guess people can pick MK I for compact and MKII for better environmental protection.

For sure! I should've said "more compelling, for some" bcuz alot of people refer the fixed length style. Especially run n gun shooters using a gimbal (which is another reason many have stuck with their EF versions). Personally I prefer fixed - but nowadays I also value an L-level zoom that is pocket-sized (i.e narrow/longer vs thicker/shorter). Also the RF versions end up being similar in length to the EF f/4 version once they're extended.

All that to say, I think Canon missed a great opp to make that "narrow-enough to fit in your pocket" style, a continuing part of the appeal of the f4 versions of their 70-200mm L's. 

[DC Pro]

"Or, perhaps like me, they are just sticking with EF?" Instead of complaining about cost maybe you should consider that you CAN stick with EF b/c of Canons smart approach to the next gen mount and be realistic about the cost of quality lenses.  Like the EF lenses you mention the quality RF lenses will outlast your bodies probably by 3 or 4 body upgrades over time. I don't regret a single RF lens yet and fully accept that quality glass is a lifetime investment. 

[gt3rs]

46 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

For sure! I should've said "more compelling, for some" bcuz alot of people refer the fixed length style. Especially run n gun shooters using a gimbal (which is another reason many have stuck with their EF versions). Personally I prefer fixed - but nowadays I also value an L-level zoom that is pocket-sized (i.e narrow/longer vs thicker/shorter). Also the RF versions end up being similar in length to the EF f/4 version once they're extended.

All that to say, I think Canon missed a great opp to make that "narrow-enough to fit in your pocket" style, a continuing part of the appeal of the f4 versions of their 70-200mm L's. 

I use a lot the RF 70-200 2.8 on Gimbal and it was not possible with EF 70-200 2.8 is too heavy (front heavy too) and btw weight shift there also... All the 24-xx(x) are extending lens and used on Gimbal all the time.

My two most used lenses on Gimbal are RF 28-70 and RF 70-200 2.8 (the F4 would be even better) both extending lenses and rather heavy.

R5c + RF 70-200 2.8

Btw longer lenses cannot be made shorter on mirrorless ... so either you fake it like in realty they are 80-170 F3.2, or they will be the same or very similar length as an EF equivalents once fully extended. No magic possible on longer focal length. 

[Ty Harper]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I use a lot the RF 70-200 2.8 on Gimbal and it was not possible with EF 70-200 2.8 is too heavy

I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4. The EF 70-2000 f/2.8 was obviously never an option for gimbal use. 

[Django]

1 hour ago, Ty Harper said:

For sure! I should've said "more compelling, for some" bcuz alot of people refer the fixed length style. Especially run n gun shooters using a gimbal (which is another reason many have stuck with their EF versions). Personally I prefer fixed - but nowadays I also value an L-level zoom that is pocket-sized (i.e narrow/longer vs thicker/shorter). Also the RF versions end up being similar in length to the EF f/4 version once they're extended.

All that to say, I think Canon missed a great opp to make that "narrow-enough to fit in your pocket" style, a continuing part of the appeal of the f4 versions of their 70-200mm L's. 

I guess everyone has their own requirements when it comes to lens designs. Personally, I have never carried a lens in my pocket, not even a pancake so that is not something high on my list. However, storage in my camera bag is always somewhat of a puzzle so shorter/compact is always welcome. I also value discretion which is why 70-200mm are usually not my thing. Plus compact lenses pair better with mirrorless cameras. So the RF 70-200mm f4 speaks to me. I know for others, weight is the major concern and it wins there too. 

Others do prefer fixed length mainly for proof reasons and that's valid although the RF-L extension zooms are weather sealed.

Overall I think the RF 70-200mm F4 is a win. Maybe not to everybody but plenty of reviews out there give it praise and some even consider it their favourite lens: