Stellar lens, no weak spots

drsnoopy wrote:

Phylloxera wrote:

Perhaps the possibility to use converters with the RF 70-200 would impair the sales of the RF 100-500 - you might get 280/5.6 or even 400/8.0, nearly same speed

The RF TC protrudes into the lens, as it did with the EF version. The RF 70-200/4 is amazingly compact, due to having the rear element much closer to the sensor. It’s literally half the length of the EF version plus RF adapter. I suspect they couldn’t make it so compact *and* compatible with a TC at the same time.

I understand, but how difficult could it be to extend the barrel on the TC so that it is not required to protrude into the lens. And although this would not be optimal, it would extend the usability of the lens, when needed.

Flash Cube wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Phylloxera wrote:

Perhaps the possibility to use converters with the RF 70-200 would impair the sales of the RF 100-500 - you might get 280/5.6 or even 400/8.0, nearly same speed

The RF TC protrudes into the lens, as it did with the EF version. The RF 70-200/4 is amazingly compact, due to having the rear element much closer to the sensor. It’s literally half the length of the EF version plus RF adapter. I suspect they couldn’t make it so compact *and* compatible with a TC at the same time.

I understand, but how difficult could it be to extend the barrel on the TC so that it is not required to protrude into the lens. And although this would not be optimal, it would extend the usability of the lens, when needed.

Very easy if you don't need to focus to infinity

drsnoopy wrote:

Phylloxera wrote:

Perhaps the possibility to use converters with the RF 70-200 would impair the sales of the RF 100-500 - you might get 280/5.6 or even 400/8.0, nearly same speed

The RF TC protrudes into the lens, as it did with the EF version. The RF 70-200/4 is amazingly compact, due to having the rear element much closer to the sensor. It’s literally half the length of the EF version plus RF adapter. I suspect they couldn’t make it so compact *and* compatible with a TC at the same time.

What is the length comparison at 200mm?

We use the EF version (2.8) and the ability to add a TC is great. But it's quite a heavy lens.

Sittatunga wrote:

Flash Cube wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Phylloxera wrote:

Perhaps the possibility to use converters with the RF 70-200 would impair the sales of the RF 100-500 - you might get 280/5.6 or even 400/8.0, nearly same speed

The RF TC protrudes into the lens, as it did with the EF version. The RF 70-200/4 is amazingly compact, due to having the rear element much closer to the sensor. It’s literally half the length of the EF version plus RF adapter. I suspect they couldn’t make it so compact *and* compatible with a TC at the same time.

I understand, but how difficult could it be to extend the barrel on the TC so that it is not required to protrude into the lens. And although this would not be optimal, it would extend the usability of the lens, when needed.

Very easy if you don't need to focus to infinity

What makes this situation even more frustrating is that the RF 100-500 is designed the same way (with the lens retracting all the way back to th mount), BUT added a stop, that allows it to be used with a TC. Canon deliberately chose to hose this ability in both the RF 70-200 lenses.