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

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

if you're going all-in to the RF lineup, may as well go RF for that lens - to me this is the 1st lens that has really caught my attention on account of being more compact, which is a big plus in a camera bag!  Lighter too!

If you still plan on having EF bodies around as well, limiting a 70-200 away from those might suck unless you want to buy 2 of them!  I'm not getting rid of my 1D X anytime soon, and I don't want to own any lenses that I can't use all-around.

And whatever you heard abour RF converters, I don't think that is the case - they will come.  No point in announcing them now, there's only 1 lens that can take advantage of that!

f_tiger_f wrote:

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

It depends on how long you you want your transition from all-EF to all-RF to be.  If you expect to be using EF lenses for the next few years, you lose nothing from buying an EF lens now.

I'm currently all R with camera bodies, but I still don't expect to buy an RF lens for maybe another year.  The only one I find compelling right now is that small-and-light 70-200. I might be compelled to buy that one, if there are end-of-year deals, and the 24-105 by the end of the year (because it's already so affordable) by the end of the year.

Whoever told you that a teleconverter can't be made for mirrorless cameras was blowing smoke up your skirt, btw. There are teleconverters even for Leicas.

That doesn't mean, however, that Canon is going to produce one any time soon. That may be a good reason for you to go with that EF zoom.

Don't be afraid to buy now the lens you need now.

Do you have a higher end EF mount camera that can take advantage of the capabilities of the EF version and do you plan to keep it?  If yes, get an EF version, I've seen used mk2's at $1000 - that's a terrific deal.  If no, get an RF, it is a much better match for R.

f_tiger_f wrote:

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

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.

I see you concerned about stacking two adapters between the camera and the lens but I doubt it is an issue.  Put the EF to RF adapter on the R and you have an EF mount camera just like putting your lens combo on a 5D.  It's just as solid.

Therefore, putting the EF 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter on it wouldn't be a problem.  The same as it isn't a problem putting the teleconverter on the EF 100-400 onto the EOS R.

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/

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.

f_tiger_f wrote:

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

I bought the EF version, but here are my thoughts:

EF version:

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.

f_tiger_f wrote:

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

I don't own the rf70-200L but I do own an R and the ef70-200L is ii, and it's considered perhaps the best ef lens Canon makes...  it's awesome.  The iii version changed only the coatings.  the rf version has had great reviews, and even if the image quality is slightly improved, the only real advantage I see is the compactness.  If it were the focal range I'd want for travel, I'd buy one, but it's not.  I'd like a 100-400 compact for travel to complement the excellent rf24-105L.  I currently travel with the ef70--300L is 4-5.6, but don't need the 70-105 ovelap, and want a compact faster telephoto with the extra reach.

f_tiger_f wrote:

Hi there,

I am making a decision to buy one of these lenses for the EOS R, RF 70-200 or EF 70-200, and I need some suggestions badly.

I am thinking of getting the EF mount for two reasons, the price and the possibility of adding a 2x teleconverter so that I can have a 140-400, as I read some posts suggesting it's quite impossible for Canon to make an extender for the mirrorless series regarding the short distance between the lens and the sensor.

Though, I do concern about the AF speed and the image sharpness when stacking the EF-EOS R converter and the extender, as well as the weather sealing.

Canon did say that the extender is compatible with the converter but I do not have a chance to test this specific combo in person so I'm hoping I may get some help here.

Thanks, everyone!

I sold my EF and bought the RF. and along with it sold my 1.4x teleconverter.

Mostly this was a handling issue. Once you put the EF, extender and adapter on the R it was a very long and unwieldly beast. Just using the EF+adapter felt so out of balance that I didn't feel handheld shots would be as steady. Once you put the RF version on your camera you will understand instantly that it's a night and day difference. The balance of weight is close to the camera, the weight of the lens is towards the back, and you kind of forget that you're shooting with a 70-200 f2.8, an experience I've never had before.

I believe they will come out with teleconverters. The bottom line is patience. What's a year or so waiting for such an accessory, if you're not needing it for making money?

There are many other things that are an improvement with the lens, such as focus speed and silence. The IS is phenominal. I also like how it *really* doesn't need a foot, and it handles so much better without it.

If I had one complaint with the RF it would be the zoom ring throw. It's a little long and you need two tries to zoom all the way from 70 to 200. However if you remove the foot this becomes easier because it's not in the way.

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  recently bought an EOS R with the EF converter for my EF lenses.  I have used the EF Converter with my EF100-400 and an EF 1.4 converter.  With the EOS R this combo will focus, whereas it would not focus with my EOS 7D.  The EOS R will focus down to at least f/8 (equivalent) whereas the older cameras will only focus to f/5.6.  My advice is if you are going to have all R cameras, buy native RF lenses.    I have a full selection of EF lenses from my past cameras and that is why I have the converter.

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.

You are moving lens elements inside a lens. Don't think for a second that there isn't air movement in and out of the lens.

And Roger Cicala has far more experience tearing apart lenses than either one of us, and has seen the 70-200's from all vendors. He's saying that once you tear apart the lenses for cleaning, the worst offenders for dust accumulation are the current crop of non-pumping 70-200's, and a number of large primes. While some pump-design lenses do make it on his list of worst offenders (namely the old 100-400 and the 150-600's), his opinion is that they have gotten a lot better over the years with better lens designs.

It is his belief based upon experience cleaning thousands of lenses that the biggest issue is how much does the front and rear elements magnify the dust. You can have an incredibly dusty lens on the inside, but don't notice it until you tear the lens apart for a cleaning, or you can have a lens with noticeable dust spots, which disappear when the front and rear elements are removed for cleaning.

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.

No problems with my 17-55 after years of use on my 7D, and my 80D.  It is still my very favorite EF-S lens, and dust remains a non-issue for me.  Similarly, my 100-400 is as solid as a lens can be -- it is an absolute tank!  If that is what I can expect from the RF 70-200 2.8, the only limiting factor for me is the cost.

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.

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.