Is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z coming in two colours?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
What do you think about the black one being for testing purposes only? Unlike the white one, it can easily be confused with the 24-105 f/2.8.
Upvote
0
I would prefer a electrochrome painting and a control knob to change the color between white and black ;-)
White is good against heatup and I would prefer a white R6 ii too.
Black doesn't produce lots of reflections, good for film makers with different cameras if glass is part of the scene.
White is good against heatup and I would prefer a white R6 ii too.
Black doesn't produce lots of reflections, good for film makers with different cameras if glass is part of the scene.
Upvote
0
Well, that’s physics. Which 4.375x zoom in this range would you prefer? A 45-200/2.8 Z with even more overlap with the 24-105/2.8 (and unable to take an extender), or a 70-300/2.8 Z that’s bigger and more expensive than the 100-300/2.8?
Upvote
0
I think Japanese domestic market had some special-color models. Here's the EOS Kiss X7(White) Double Zoom Kit 2 EF-S18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM(White) EF40mm F2.8 STM(White) Included KISSX7WH-WLK2.
With its black sibling but only the one lens:
White Canon R50 and M50:
Black R50 which black lens, white R50 with silver lens:
Kiss M2 in white, silver lens:
Black, black lens:
Gold RP special edition (don't see gold lens)
Special gold IXUS/IXY 240:
Finally, not a multiple-color lens, but I've never seen a white non-tele before but here's a 35-70AF lens. (AND an FD-mount Canon 150-600/5.6 that I've never heard of before!)
With its black sibling but only the one lens:
White Canon R50 and M50:
Black R50 which black lens, white R50 with silver lens:
Kiss M2 in white, silver lens:
Black, black lens:
Gold RP special edition (don't see gold lens)
Special gold IXUS/IXY 240:
Finally, not a multiple-color lens, but I've never seen a white non-tele before but here's a 35-70AF lens. (AND an FD-mount Canon 150-600/5.6 that I've never heard of before!)
Attachments
Upvote
0
Wouldn't be that sad if it was just you. Looks like some at Canon always thought the same.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Wouldn't be the first time. Canon released a few lenses in both black and silver/"champagne" back in the film days to match the mid-range Elan II (EOS 50) and EOS IX (premium APS SLR).
Upvote
0
Als de filtermaat van 77mm naar 82mm gaat, net als bij de 24-105 2.8, dan zou het mogelijk moeten zijn om een 70-240mm 2.8 lens te maken.
Ik geef persoonlijk de voorkeur aan een RF 105-400mm f4 Z van maximaal 2kg die nog zonder statief te hanteren is, net als de EF 400mm DO 4.0.
Dan heb ik één lens minder in mijn cameratas.
Ik geef persoonlijk de voorkeur aan een RF 105-400mm f4 Z van maximaal 2kg die nog zonder statief te hanteren is, net als de EF 400mm DO 4.0.
Dan heb ik één lens minder in mijn cameratas.
Upvote
0
Als de filtermaat van 77mm naar 82mm gaat, net als bij de 24-105 2.8, dan zou het mogelijk moeten zijn om een 70-240mm 2.8 lens te maken.
Ik geef persoonlijk de voorkeur aan een RF 105-400mm f4 Z van maximaal 2kg die nog zonder statief te hanteren is, net als de EF 400mm DO 4.0.
Dan heb ik één lens minder in mijn cameratas.
Upvote
0
Nope, it is not possible. 240/2.8 = 85.7mm, so you need at least an 86mm front element for that. Theoretically you can have up to 230mm f/2.8 with 82mm, but that is pushing it because the actual front element is not nearly as big as the filter thread, and you have to take into account that light rays into the lens are not parallel. You are likely limited to 215-220mm f/2.8 or so at maximum.
A 105-400/4 will have the same size, weight, and price as a 100-300mm f/2.8. In fact, you can get pretty close just by adding a 1.4x TC on the 100-300 (you get a 140-420mm f/4).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
but a 100-400 f/2.8 should not be very different than the 400 f/2.8 prime. i wouldnt mind a look at one of those. though to be honest i just used the little 70-300 and it was much easier to hand-hold for the day...
Upvote
0
The nearest equivalents to a 100-400mm f2.8 zoom are RF 100-300mm f2.8 and the EF 200-400mm f4 zoom with the built in 1.4 extender.
- RF100-300mm Max. diameter, length and weight: 128 x 323,4 mm, 2590 gr
- EF 200-400mm: Max. diameter, length and weight: 128x366 mm and 3620 gr
- RF 400mm f2.8: Max. diameter and weight: 163x367 mm and 2890 gr
Upvote
0
Except that the RF 100-300/2.8 is 75 mm / 3” (30%) longer and 300 g / 10.5 oz (13%) heavier than the EF 300/2.8. That would make a hypothetical 100-400/2.8 about as long as and much heavier than the 600/4.
Upvote
0
Making a zoom adds significant weight and cost. Sony launched a 300/2.8 recently, about a year after Canon launched the 100-300/2.8 (so same generation of lenses).
The Sony prime costs $6500 and weighs 1.47 kg while the Canon zoom costs $9500 and weighs 2.65 kg. I expect the difference between a 400/2.8 prime and a 100 or 150-400/2.8 zoom to be similar
Upvote
0
Similar threads
