RF 70-200 or EF 70-200 with Converter for EOS R

ZX11 wrote:

pokesfan wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

RDKirk wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

I don't like the air pump design of the new RF 70-200 and its far higher price for the same image quality. To me, the EF 70-200 on the EOS R is a better choice. To each their own.

Interestingly, nobody seems to be reporting problems with the "air pump" design for the 24-70 or the 24-105...and it hasn't been a problem for decades. It appears to be a design Canon perfected a long time ago.

After reading Roger Cicala's disassembly report on the RF 70-200, I have no reason to doubt its solid mechanical prowess.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

I have seen the video on youtube.

Hasn't been a problem for decades? The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 does have a problem with dust getting in it due to the huge volume of air it pumps in and out as it zooms. It is not a decades old design. Similar dust with the EF 24-105.

No other air pump lenses get dust in them? Seems there are plenty of youtube videos about getting dust back out of Canon's air pumps.

I do not have to like the RF's air pump design just because it is the newest greatest hip thing. I do not think Canon was mistaken when they designed the all internal design on the EF 70-200 f2.8 and the EF 70-200 f/4.

I don't like fiddling with the lock on the RF 24-105 that is necessary for its air pump design. Do I have to like it too? I don't like the extra rotation range the RF 70-200's zoom ring has. The extra rotation needed to move the RF 70-200's large front element, entire barrel, hood, and the kitchen sink, forward and back.

I like the non-pumping, non-moving inner barrel, and thinner design of the EF 70-200. The EF is solid, sealed, and proven reliable. My choice. To each their own.

Ah, yes, the 17-55. Truly one of the worst lenses in Canon’s history for build quality and dust. That is a *great* comparison to a 2019 $2700 L lens with extensive sealing and filters. You must be a scientist.

Ad Hominem because your argument is unsupportable? Is that why you need it? Any more insults in your playbook for those you disagree with. Did you write the law that said photographers have to like the lens designs you like?

I have seen the reviews stating the advantages of non extending front barrels. I will stick with those advantages. The long term reliability of the new RF is speculative based on that guy's tear down, but not proven, while the EF is well proven. Unless you have owned your RF 70-200 for years longer than I suspect.

I assume you missed the argument from the previous poster that in the last several decades of lens design, no extending lens has had a dust problem. That it is a problem of the distant past. I disagree that it is a problem restricted to the the past and provided an example to support my view. The video I was watching also had a 24-105. Also the worst lens in history?

Sorry that my dislike of air pump designs, supported by examples, fills you with uncontrolled rage, Mr Scientist. Ignored.

You're awfully sensitive for a keyboard warrior in a camera forum. Just take a chill time out, nobody is insulting your dislike for dust nor your strong stance on an imagined problem with the lens.

I was merely pointing out that you have pulled probably the worst example for comparison with the 17-55, a lens that is notorious for dust and rattles and generally poor build quality. There is not a seal anywhere on it, and plastic parts abound. Sorry you were insulted by being called a scientist. I assure you it was not an ad homonym attack, but rather a sarcastic reference to your poor choice of comparison. If I wanted to attack somebody I would not call them a scientist.

Seriously, nobody cares what lens you buy. But you sure look like a silly goose dying on the "oh no I see a speck of dust in my lens" hill.