Misleading somewhat?

saw a Canon NZ page today claiming the RF 70-200mm F/4 IS lens is "World's shortest* and lightest* 70-200mm f/4 interchangeable lens for SLR and mirrorless cameras"

https://www.canon.co.n​z …s/rf-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm

methinks this is misleading! I can't see this lens being mounted to any SLR (unless you're talking duct-tape...)

joeseph wrote in post #19300986
saw a Canon NZ page today claiming the RF 70-200mm F/4 IS lens is "World's shortest* and lightest* 70-200mm f/4 interchangeable lens for SLR and mirrorless cameras"

https://www.canon.co.n​z …s/rf-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm

methinks this is misleading! I can't see this lens being mounted to any SLR (unless you're talking duct-tape...)

Whoops - the same statement appears in the downloadable Brochure (PDF file) too.

Cheers

Dennis

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19318423
.
I don't understand what is misleading about it, unless you somehow don't realize that DSLRs are indeed SLRs.

Digital SLRs are SLRs. . So any statement speaking of SLRs in general would of course include DSLRs. . My Canon 5D Mark 4 is a DSLR. . It is, of course, also an SLR. . All single lens reflex cameras are SLRs. . Hence, all DSLRs are SLRs. . But of course not all SLRs are DSLRs.

So, given that truth, what is misleading about Canon's claim regarding their RF 70-200mm f4 ?

.

There are no RF mount SLRs, digital or otherwise

Snydremark wrote in post #19318425
.
There are no RF mount SLRs, digital or otherwise
.

.
A haaaaa!
.
Now I am embarrassed, and realize my foolish mistake. . I want to delete my post, to save myself enduring embarassment, but now that I've been quoted, that won't do me much good


.

I must be missing something. I read "SLR and mirrorless cameras". Doesn't that basically state that of all 70-200 f/4 lenses either the SLR ones or the mirrorless ones, this is the lightest? What's misleading?

gjl711 wrote in post #19318465
.
I must be missing something. I read "SLR and mirrorless cameras". Doesn't that basically state that of all 70-200 f/4 lenses either the SLR ones or the mirrorless ones, this is the lightest? What's misleading?
.

.
Oh, yeah. Makes total sense to read it that way. . So the statement that Canon made is actually not at all misleading.


.

Well speaking about the 70-200 F/4 Is lens

RF v/s EF

Its going to be a really hard sell on canons part to say its better than the current 70-200 F/4Is L Lens.


I have found nothing better in the 70-200 class than the F/4 IS L lens. I would LOVE to see a side by side image comparison test. Even the lixel peepers will conclude what everyone else sees

I would not buy the RF mounts with 70-200s. The current 70-200s are outstanding

gjl711 wrote in post #19318465
I must be missing something. I read "SLR and mirrorless cameras". Doesn't that basically state that of all 70-200 f/4 lenses either the SLR ones or the mirrorless ones, this is the lightest? What's misleading?

I think that's why "slightly" was used. Given the context in which it's being used, the statement "World's shortest* and lightest* 70-200mm f/4 interchangeable lens for SLR and mirrorless cameras" is easily read as "THIS LENS is the shortest and lightest...that can be mounted to SLR AND mirrorless cameras" and therefore could be expected to be used on an SLR. If one reads it correctly and applies reason to separate the statement from the context of why one should buy this lens, no problem.

But, if one just reads the marketing and is looking for a new lens in general, they could easily misinterpret this as an option for their EF system. The EF/RF designations are NOT clear to the new and uninitiated without more clarification applied. it is particularly problematic for folks whose English is not strong and do not know where to insert the missing words in that statement. IE: Something along the lines of "World's shortest and lightest 70-200mm f/4 on the ILC market", while still open to a level of interpretation, does not specifically include SLRs.

It certainly doesn't rise to the level of anything egregious; I think the OP's point is still valid. They could have worded it better (which is true of most marketing materials), ultimately.

umphotography wrote in post #19318485
Well speaking about the 70-200 F/4 Is lens

RF v/s EF

Its going to be a really hard sell on canons part to say its better than the current 70-200 F/4Is L Lens.


I have found nothing better in the 70-200 class than the F/4 IS L lens. I would LOVE to see a side by side image comparison test. Even the lixel peepers will conclude what everyone else sees

I would not buy the RF mounts with 70-200s. The current 70-200s are outstanding

I suspect you're correct. They pretty carefully toe the line with 'same great taste' kind of prose instead of saying it's *better* than previous 'L' lenses

gjl711 wrote in post #19318465
I must be missing something. I read "SLR and mirrorless cameras". Doesn't that basically state that of all 70-200 f/4 lenses either the SLR ones or the mirrorless ones, this is the lightest? What's misleading?

what's misleading is the statement that states the RF 70-200mm F/4 IS lens is for SLR and mirrorless cameras, when in fact it is not useable with SLR cameras.

Pardon my ignorance, as I'm not up to speed on the new RF mounts, but aren't RF mount lenses usable on an EF mount DSLR with the appropriate adapter?

Hye5 wrote in post #19318529
Pardon my ignorance, as I'm not up to speed on the new RF mounts, but aren't RF mount lenses usable on an EF mount DSLR with the appropriate adapter?

No, Ef lenses are usable on RF mounts though.

gjl711 wrote in post #19318533
No, Ef lenses are usable on RF mounts though.

Thanks, my bad... I had that reversed in my head... you're absolutely correct.

joeseph wrote in post #19318528
what's misleading is the statement that states the RF 70-200mm F/4 IS lens is for SLR and mirrorless cameras, when in fact it is not useable with SLR cameras.

I think his reversal there was that they don't *actually* state that it can. The statement is simply too ambiguous and MAY be easily interpreted that way, hence your identification of it as misleading; and it's one of the things I really hate about marketing/advertising speak. They frequently make statements like this that cannot be objectively proven incorrect because they don't need to worry about whether or not it leads to confusion at the consumer/retailer end of things. As long as it makes their product LOOK better to anyone scanning the materials.