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

ZX11 wrote:

ThePointblank 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.

Read what Roger Cicala says in the comments:

OK, I'm not commenting on 'will it resolve' because I'll go on a 20 minute rant. Of course it will resolve.

Biggest dusters: 85 f1.2, 105mm f1.4s, 70-200 f/2.8s, 150-600s are fast horses. The biggest variable to 'how dusty is it' is probably 'how much do the front and rear elements magnify it'.

To be fair, in olden times some extending barrel zooms (Canon 100-400 old version, Sigma Bigma) were the dustiest. Like so many things, progress was made. I believe that progress is more like "we know the front element is going to magnify, we know there is air flow, let's design the air flow so it doesn't pool under the front element", but I don't know for sure.

Here's what I know for sure:
Every lens has air flowing through it, there are no air-tight lenses.
Air has dust in it.
Dust in air likes to settle on solid objects.

That glass stuff in your lens makes things look bigger, smaller, sharply in focus and sharply out of focus. Including what's inside the lens.

When you take a lens apart to clean out dust it's interesting how the horrid dust you saw on the second element almost disappears when you take the first element off.

When you take apart a lens to not clean out dust it's interesting how dusty the inside might be even though you didn't really see it.

There is generally less dust (not no dust) in lenses that we just opened new in box, too.

I sum this up in Roger's Rule #63: If you don't see dust in your lens, you don't have a bright enough light.

Per what he sees, the current crop of non-pumping 70-200 f/2.8's are already gathering a lot of dust inside. He also listed a a couple of large prime lenses (which don't zoom at all) and the 150-600's as among the worst.

All lenses will get dust inside. The issue is how much the front and rear elements in a lens magnify the dust.

You appear to say but don't say, the EF 70-200 pumps as much air through it, air with dust, as the RF 70-200. I don't think that is true. I don't want an air pump if given a choice.

I don't see dust in my EF 70-200 and still think it is a solid, sealed, and proven lens. Regardless of R forum attempt to say it isn't the lens it was before the RF was introduced. The EF isn't air tight and water proof but it doesn't exactly flow air through it. The new RF is an air pump, abet an air pump with air filters. It flows air through it like nobody's business.

My comment was to the replier who said "no one" was reporting problems with the air pump design. When you see a video on cleaning dust out of a lens, it invariably is an extending zoom design.

People like the compact collapsing design of the new lens. Good for them. I don't need that and am happier with the solid EF version.

I just wanted to add my personal experience to this discussion for those trying to make a decision on "air pump" lenses in general. I have gone on several north African safari's and trips to the Galapagos and other harsh environments with a 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens. I've had this lens cleaned only once (before I sold it to get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II). If you've ever been on an African safari you know how dusty it is, range rover stops, lots of dust is kicked in the air, but in many cases you have to get out your camera and start shooting before dust settles because the animal may leave. While you are shooting animals that are less shy, other Range Rovers drive up and the cloud of dust washes over you and your camera. If you are a pro doing this full time I'd imagine you would have to clean this lens once a year (maybe more). Safari helpful hint : always cover your camera with something when not in use like when you are driving between locations.

My wife took a 100-400 on a 2 week safari (yes just 1) and the internals had to be cleaned.  This lens was sold as we plan to take many more similar trips.

If you are not going to extreme environments (which is most people) then I'd imagine that the RF 70-200 or RF 100-500 would be no problem at all. And an internal cleaning after a once in a lifetime trip is no big deal.