Canon 70-200 L IS 2.8

[luigidionisio]

just to confim - i sent my lens to CPS to get my lens reapaired , and they told me that the Canon 70-200 L IS usm 2.8 is at end of life and no parts are avalible , im finding this hard to belive . can someone from canon explian 

thanks 

[Waddizzle]

---

@NCAmateur wrote:

I was actually thinking I may need the DLSR because I have the 70-200 with the 2x. It appears that the RF 70-200  does not accept the extender. But maybe they will fix that... or fix the website with the compatibility information.

---

You must be reading something different from what I have read.  There are separate extenders made for the RF and EF mounts.

[NCAmateur]

Yes there are separate extenders for the RF and the EF mounts but... for the RF extenders... Canon says:

"This extender is only compatible with the following RF lenses RF600mm F11 IS STM, RF800mm F11 IS STM, RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM. Use is not accessible with previous RF lenses. Additionally, please see the lens and/or camera body manual for full compatibility information with the Extender RF1.4x."

So it would seem the RF extender is not compatible with the RF 70-200.

Sorry I was not clearer.

[ebiggs1]

If I was you I would ditch the 2x tel-con idea altogether.  If you must, use the Extender RF1.4x.  It seems to work well on the EF side with the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom family.

I would almost bet you that a cropped native EF or RF 70-200mm f2.8L lens photo is just as good compared to a compatible uncropped 1.4x tel-con photo. Perhaps even better but I don't like extenders so I do whatever needed to not use them.

[NCAmateur]

The "whatever" I would need is a fixed 400 or 600 with the accompanying price tag... ouch... but maybe.

[NCAmateur]

And then... the R3 is announced... Maybe I should wait.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@NCAmateur wrote:
And then... the R3 is announced... Maybe I should wait.

---

I think that is the correct move.

[NCAmateur]

Thank you ebiggs and jrhoffman... I will wait until I can't wait. And I will report back once I have shot the R3... or the R5 if I can't wait. I appreciate the guidance.

[CaliforniaDream]

If you need something soon the R5 with the 100-500 might meet your needs.  I don't shoot low light very much so I don't know how the R5/100-500 would do indoors, but I have been very happy with it.  The problem with the RF tele-converters is the amount of the front extends into the lens.  Even with the 100-500 the lens must be extended to at least 300mm for it to mount.

[NCAmateur]

At long last and with a lot of advice (all apprecited) I went with the R5 and the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 w/ an adapter. I chose the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 over the new lens because:

The RF lens might be really cool but I do not think it is substantially better than the II.

I would have gotten the III but it is not available,

But the main reason is:

The RF lens extends out of the body of the lens and retracts into it - and I should 80% outdoors. That means 80% of the time I am exposing the outer half of the lens to dirt and pollen and then retracting it back into the lens. That can't be good. The II is fully encased. I may lose a little, but I think the gains are great. And the II with an adapter was about $1,700 and the RF lens is $2,700.

So... shortly I will be shooting the R5 with the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 and the extra battery/handle.

Give me a couple of weeks and I will let you all know how that turned out.

[jrhoffman75]

Congratulations. The II and the III are the same optics. Different paint color and a more resistant lens coating on the III.