This lens is NOT obsolete. In fact i think that this lens is more relevant than the RF version. RF is too expensive, it has crazy vignetting, and if you test the breathing on it, you will find that it breathes backwards which is not good for a telephoto lens. They also made a retractable design, as if it is something good, but in fact we used to overpaid precisely for a monolithic design with an internal zoom, this was a feature of the 70-200 lenses, or has everyone forgotten that ? Compactness usually included for free with cheaper lenses. Not something you had to pay extra for. So RF is less telephoto, less light transmission, less build quality, less overall lens really for more money.
I'm not overly impressed with the RF 70-200/4L, so much so that I don't have one (though I don't really use a 70-200 that much either, hence why I have this old lens instead of the newer mk 2 version). And honestly, given the size of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 I'd rather go that route instead. A big part of the reason I got this lens back in the day was it's size. That said, while I understand Canon's decision to make the RF 70-200s more compact, and it makes a lot of sense in a lot of cases. I'm also not sure it was the best move across the board either. Then again, there's also a reasonable chance that we might see a internal zoom 70-200/2.8L PZ following the RF 24-105/2.8L IS USM Z. Though even the 24-105/2.8 Z has it's share of optical compromises too, and I'm not sure that a 70-200 wouldn't end up that way also.
@@PointsInFocus Lately Canon hasn't been following any standards. They try to make lenses as compact as possible and with good edge sharpness if possible - but in other respects they've dropped the bar. -3v of vignetting where there shouldn't be more than 1.5ev, distortion correction profiles that cut off 10-15% of the frame, "engineering plastic" that feels like a toy. It's a shame because not long ago Canon was the opposite of that. They weren't making the most fashionable, high-tech stuff, but they were very balanced and robust.
I have the Mk II version, for stills, and find the image quality truly excellent.
This lens is NOT obsolete. In fact i think that this lens is more relevant than the RF version. RF is too expensive, it has crazy vignetting, and if you test the breathing on it, you will find that it breathes backwards which is not good for a telephoto lens. They also made a retractable design, as if it is something good, but in fact we used to overpaid precisely for a monolithic design with an internal zoom, this was a feature of the 70-200 lenses, or has everyone forgotten that ? Compactness usually included for free with cheaper lenses. Not something you had to pay extra for.
So RF is less telephoto, less light transmission, less build quality, less overall lens really for more money.
I'm not overly impressed with the RF 70-200/4L, so much so that I don't have one (though I don't really use a 70-200 that much either, hence why I have this old lens instead of the newer mk 2 version). And honestly, given the size of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 I'd rather go that route instead. A big part of the reason I got this lens back in the day was it's size.
That said, while I understand Canon's decision to make the RF 70-200s more compact, and it makes a lot of sense in a lot of cases. I'm also not sure it was the best move across the board either.
Then again, there's also a reasonable chance that we might see a internal zoom 70-200/2.8L PZ following the RF 24-105/2.8L IS USM Z. Though even the 24-105/2.8 Z has it's share of optical compromises too, and I'm not sure that a 70-200 wouldn't end up that way also.
@@PointsInFocus Lately Canon hasn't been following any standards. They try to make lenses as compact as possible and with good edge sharpness if possible - but in other respects they've dropped the bar. -3v of vignetting where there shouldn't be more than 1.5ev, distortion correction profiles that cut off 10-15% of the frame, "engineering plastic" that feels like a toy. It's a shame because not long ago Canon was the opposite of that. They weren't making the most fashionable, high-tech stuff, but they were very balanced and robust.