วีดีโอ

0:00 Naaah hahaha i already got the f4, im just watching for fun.

Another reason is if your primarily using this for studio work then you might consider the F4 because studio work seldom requires you to kill the ambient light to ensure it is not affecting the exposure of your photo and this will require dialing to higher apertures.

seriously skip the L lense all together and get the 100-400. that thing is a beast. couple it with 85mm f2

Hi Jed, I have the EF 70-200 f4 IS MKI with the adapter on R6. Should I move to RF 70-200 F4 IS? AT the moment on mpb it's about 1.449 EUR and I can sell the EF for 274 EUR, so what I need to pay is 1.174EUR. What do you say? I know the RF version is lighter, nicer, but does the image quality and AF speed is also better? I guess yes...please help me out.

Agreed. Get a Sigma 105mm F1.4 for bokeh, mostly useful for portraits, and the Canon 7-2 F4 for everything else.

I agree with every point you make - the f/2.8 is not for me ...

Some people will say you can just step down to f4 😅 using f2.8 and can help with lower light situation...yes I don't have budget for f2.8 so i have to select f4 ... looking forward to black Friday sales hopefully there availability Let me share my disappointment with my EF 70-200 f2.8 mark 2 it's only approximately 75% of the time I get 85% acceptable sharpness and I have to change settings of sharpness up a bit to make it look nicer but that only changes the jpeg not the raw I test on both my R and R7 and especially R7, it can't keep up 30fps and not always can keep up with 15fps consistently so I trade this lens along with rf 24-105 f4 (I have sigma 24-70 f2.8 art) now just patiently waiting for camera store to transfer me the money so I can get lens at another camera shop 😂 this shop I sold it to they won't match lower price of another shop oh well their lost for loosing a sale....😅 I hope I won't be disappointed with RF 70-200 F4

Awesome video man! New subscriber ✌🏻

I wanna purchase Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 + EF adapter and brand new it's cheaper cheaper than RF 70-200 f/4 😅

Most times we are closing the 2.8 down to f4 or above anyway... SO I tried the 70-200 2.8 also tried using it at f4 many times not much of a HUGE difference for what I shoot.. So I took the 70-200 2.8 back and was able to get 70-200 f4 100-400 and a 24-105 and left the shop with 200$ in my pocket.. the 70-200 F4 is great, also lighter and with the software we have to remove noise it is jiffy..

Thanks for your video. Finally I decide to buy RF 70-200mm f4.

If I buy the F4 version I could use that money and buy a used EF 85mm f/1.2L

Thank you so much

Surely people will buy the f2.8 if they have money to spent. Budget dictates the purchasing power of one person.

the form factor also affect video shooting more, they are considered telephoto lenses, it's more difficult to hand hold and get acceptable result. You'll also need a bigger gimbal.

I have the f4 and the 2.8 EF version and the the RF 2.8. Ive been shooting for 14 years and I find my self in situations where a 2.8 is just better. I shoot so many subjects in different places from small offices to studio floor work where I would never really go past f8.........2.8 in my opinion is a better option but just not the price lol I also have the 28 - 70 F2 which I love! I don't even need to go to the gym hahaha. f4 only positive side is the weight and the price.

Jed, thanks for video! For long time I want a dream lens for love with this toy (for MAGICAL improvement my work, lol). For example, my friend bought two Sigma Art 35 1.4 on last season for Z6II for reportage and art work (first lens of these 35-s he broke in the bar-shooting). It's his "magical-improvement-lens". Now "magical-improvement-lens" for my is a 70-200 2.8 (in my mind). I love 100+ tele-perspective (now have 100L EF and rf 24-105), bokeh , and BEST gear. But often and often i think that 2.8 apeture dont realy need at this (tele) focal lenges. Maybe 70-300 (budget 4-5.6) will be MORE functional tele-zoom-lens. For my suprise 24-105/4 is the superble universal lense and this lense have beautiful image. I think, maybe 24-70 2.8 will have magical image for me. Maybe 24-70 is "magical-improvement-lens"?)))) Together with that, maybe 2.8 apeture dont realy need at universal-zoom too. What situations realy needs 24-70 2.8 against 24-105/4? Low-light bowling?))) I recently screwed up while filming a bowling alley because of F4 and ISO 5000 (R6) it turns out that zoom-lenses apeture norm is F4 (not 2, not 2.8) and my invistment of 2000-3000$ for the DREAM LENSE will be in primes. It must be realy unical and magical image (like 50 1.2 RF or 85 1.4 EF IS). 70-200 2.8 i want just for light weight (1070g - marvel of engineering) If light weight is prioritet for me and i love Canon I need wait analogs of Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN (~600g) and Sony 35 1.4 GM (~500g). This "light weight" technology is real and we must just wait for realization for Canon. And buy R8! I also seen patent for light weight 85 1.4 IS for RF on /canonwatch/.

I agonized for weeks over whether to get the f2.8 or the f4 version. After watching about 100 comparison videos, I decided that the benefits of the 2.8 were not as significant with the new R-body cameras and their capabiities to shoot at higher ISO. So, I decided that the lighter, less expensive f4 version was the logical choice (even though in my heart I still would have loved the 2.8). 90% of what I shoot is landscapes, and the light weight of the f4 is a plus when lugging it around in a back pack, for example. With the money I saved I also bought the RF 85 f/2 and still had money left over.

This is EXACTLY what I’ve been struggling with for weeks! Thank you for this video and saving me a TON of money!! R6 should be able to handle the low light settings with higher iso!

Forget shooting indoors with f4😂

Hi Jed Grant i wanted a suggestion i have a tamron 24-70 g2 f2.8 which i had been using on eos r i was looking for zoom lense should i consider the tamron 70-200 g2 f2.8 for fashion couple photography wedding landscape considering on budget yes i cant afford the 70-200 rf 2.8 at the end everything is edited in lightroom th-cam.com/video/owM_ecjn6Cs/w-d-xo.html

Volume, price and you don't shoot in low light? Quite simple, really.

Great video thanks, helping me make my f4 decision:) Surprised this is your one and only video! You should try to put up more content, quality is on par with the channels with 100K+ subs! Cheers and keep shooting-

Very helpful and educational video ❤

20 years of experience tells me f2.8 is another class. If you often don’t encounter situations where you need 2.8 then you have never been shooting in weddings night clubs and professional studios. Just ignore this video.

I just bought a 70-200 RF for $1100 used. Canon has dropped the new price to $1500, while the 2.8 remains $2800 new and very hard to find used for anything less.

Most portrait photographers i knwo shoot at 4.0-f8 so the f4 will be just fine

I do like the zoom ring closest to the camera body as on the F/4 version.

You convinced me to go with the f4. I was thinking exactly your first point because I do mainly weddings with multiple subjects so going below f4 is probably not going to happen. When lighting is awkward and dynamic I like to run auto (to avoid missing important moments that won't happen again) and knowing that the auto will never fall below f4 is good security for keeping all my subjects in focus. Plus now I can put more money to save up for R(X) as I'm still using the EOS R and pretty happy with it for the time being.

bro you should make more videos wth, your channel will blow up

Abe’s of Maine offers the F4 for $1299.00 no tax.

Hi when tge f4 version go to f4 it is sharp as the 2.8 go to f4? I don't know if that is asked correctly

Get the 2.8 and stop it down, simple. You can also use it at night time when needed too.

Really good review, thanks for sharing! 😀Liked 👍🏻 Subscribed ⭐

The T Shirt will always have " F2.8 or BUST"😃

Great point at focal range.. 2.8 is very shallow.

You may save $1200 compared to the f/2.8, but sadly it is massively more expensive that the EF version of the f/4. So with a budget of $2,000 for a 70-200 lens you used to get the f/2.8 version, but nowadays you only get the f/4 version for it.

Thank you so much. I can totally afford the 2.8, but am a frugal person by nature, and would prefer to spend the extra money on a nice flash.

Thx for the video dude!! I can't wait to get this lens 😍

great vid. helpful thank you

I bought f4 version to save money for 300mm f2,8 :)

Makes sense

Why can’t we have both ! Not serious. I had a hard time deciding , but relented and ordered the 2.8 after thinking about doing landscape photography during sunsets and sunrises when there’s less light . My thoughts were the noise would be improved , that’s about it

I have the EF 70-200 2.8 IS III and love it.. But if the RF 70-200 F4 is small, inexpensive and light.. I'd snag it for my travel gigs.

PUT OUT MORE! DO IT! you learn a lesson everytime!

Jed thank you. Your effor and time out out in this video mean a whole lot .. feel like a friend did something for me. Thank you. I'm subscribing. Your videos are great. I like the pictures in between. (More would be better) but you did not dissapoint at any point. Subscribed with alerts. Keep it up.

just picked up 70-200 RF F4 for £900 new from ebay looking forward to using it.

I appreciate the candid real world comparison between the two. I'm a R6 shooter as well and although my professional use is 95% using the 15-35 2.8 RF and 5% my 24-70 2.8 RF, I have wanted a 70-200 for quite sometime. Do I stay consistent and stay with the 2.8 or since it's not my money maker lens go f4? That has been my question. I was looking at photo's from my 6D back in 2014 with the 24-105 and I was very pleased with 70-105 look and bokeh. I wanted enough detail so the background is recognizable, but obviously not the focus. Once I'm past 100 I would probably stop down to f4 or 5.6 to make sure the subject was mostly in the focus plain. I've had an extra EOS R that I don't use so I'll probably just sell that and only have to fork out a couple hundred for the 70-200 F4 RF.

I was fortunate enough to have the 2.8 off my dad, both the 24-70 and 70-200. Normally I shoot at 2.8 for video but I've never been totally happy with the sharpness. Whilst looking at a film no country for old men and I think these where cooke lenses F4. So thought well if f4 for Roger deakins is good enough then I wi try it. Much happier tbh.

Are you able to get 2-3 ppl with f2.8?