Big thanks to Lexar! Check out the Lexar Professional 2000x SD Card at: amzn.to/3cbrxLI My Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IN-DEPTH review - a surprisingly compact tele-zoom! Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3l06Vrh // WEX: tidd.ly/3jPTlad Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Canon RF 70-200mm f4L sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-review/ #canon #rf #70-200mm
Thankyou, I wonder this all the time too. I think some people hit dislike as soon as they see a brand they don't like or own, regardless of the quality of the content, and this does penalise the creator with the algorithm.
@@cameralabs Gordon, I respect you too much to watch you try and crawl down the rabbit hole of psychoanalyzing the many and diverse wack jobs on TH-cam. For your personal mental stability, please stop. 😎
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 it's way too late for that sadly! Some of them genuinely discourage me from doing certain types of videos or any at all! But I keep going!
@@cameralabs Well Gordon, I would kindly remind you of the fact that if Google required people to authentically identify themselves on YT, 99% of the stupid, cowardly, thoughtless, unconstructive and offensive comments would magically disappear. I only wish I could make it so. 😎
Most times people dumbs downs because of the abusive Square Space ads tbh or when people just talk and talk and talk and talk but never show the product. Gordon has the best reviews next to Christopher Frost
I just traded in the ef 2.8 ii for the rf f4, I found at least on the r3, the focus and tracking was very much hit or miss with the ef 2.8 ii, they looked fine but when zoomed in you could see the focus was off and details lost, this was even with 2000 of a shutter for testing purposes, the minute I put the rf f4 on tack sharp in all the same tests while tracking people,
I have the RF f4 and I have found its fantastic at everything that I need from a 70mm/200m lens. It comes down to this its compact and light so it comes with me everywhere my old 70mm/200mm was heavy and large so it spent most of the time at home.
@@k.o.t.o.n. depends how much light you have and how blurred you want the backgrounds to be, and how much weight you're willing to carry - and how much you want to spend! Only you can decide.
@@cameralabs i wan tto carrry light and don't care much about too muchz cremy bokehz, according to the test ffotag f4 is great for portraits withzout teleconverters. but thzf5 version with 2x tele, is f8 is too dark, and does the tele loses a lot of autofocus performance and sharpness, it would be a great les, cuse sony didnet make the f4 70-200 to be used withz 2x tele
The EF version maybe longer but still provides excellent image quality, IS and seems much more robust without the retracting lenses. I feel the EF would survive the rigors of outdoor use over time better. Thanks for the excellent review.
I have the RF 70-200 F4, and it's a wonderful lens. What stopped me from getting the 2.8, besides the price, was that I have the EF 85 1.4L and an old EF 200 F 2.8L, both of which are honeys of lenses. The only shortcoming of the F4 is that in low light, you have to increase ISO sometimes. I often carry the 85 1.4 with me, and it's what I use for portraits for the most part. It's just an unbelievably sharp lens.
@ 11:45, the EF 4 at f/4 looks very similar to the RF 2.8 at f/2.8. @12:45 The EF f/4, at 200mm, has more pleasing oof background that the RF f/4. Could be the magnification effect. .
quite strange... I'm actually stunned about the background blur. Your bokeh comparison at 18:38. This looks like the 'effective aperture' of the RF F4.0 version is smaller than of the older EF F4.0, which seems to have almost the same bluriness or better: circle of obfuscation, than the RF 2.8.
@@cameralabs well that changes the effective focal length... but at the same focal length the circle of confusion should be determined by the aperture only. Did you not zoom out so that the scale of the image was the same for all lenses? Because if you have done that, one would see if the aperture was actually correct. Of course if you 'zoomed with your feet' in order to get the exact same framing on the subject, the ratio between object and background distance changed and therefore the bokeh is not comparable again... I suppose you did the latter then? ;-). It's fine, wasn't obvious to me as I would always test the background blur at the same effective focal length and thus same object and background distances... good work Gordon, don't let yourself get confused by me, ... I'm approaching my camera hobby too much with my job's accuracy...(laser physicist)... I wish the RF lenses weren't so expensive or I would upgrade for the size alone!
I was out in the snow this weekend with this wonderful 70-200 F4 lens. Very light and easy to carry around. Made it easy to get the shots I wanted to and to keep the snow off. Excellent review
what makes the f2.8 the better lens isn't necessarily the narrower depth of field in f2.8 but its the extra stop of light that allows for increasing the shutter speed or reducing ISO which will result in greater IQ in the more challenging situations.
Thank you for this incredibly detailed review. Been trying to justify the rf/2.8 over the rf f/4 and the portrait comparisons sold it for me. It's a shame how the focus breathing impacts close focusing but I don't think we'll see version 2's for some time.
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version which would help with both photo and video since I have a small house and my existing 24-70 basically lives on my camera….but then again I only own 1 other lens (EF 50 F1.8) 😂. I know the R6 does pretty good in higher ISO’s but I’m still struggling to make my decision. My only experience with a longer focal length is my older kit lens that zoomed to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) and that was a years ago. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports of my toddler as he grows up. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. Do F2.8 lenses tend to hold their value better than F4 versions? Any input would be appreciated!
Great review for a great lens! Accompanied by the 24-105L 4.0 it is an unmatched compact all around set with premium quality and versatility. Thinking about nature photography my EF 70-200 4.0 was recently replaced by the RF 100-500. Oh boy, what an upgrade as long as you are not about portrait with this lens.
Great review Gordon. This must have required a lot of work and editing. To my eyes, there's little difference between the EF/RF f/4 lenses, which is great b/c the EF has always been a solid performer. The RF f/2.8 might be worth the extra ~1k for portrait shooters who need maximum DoF, but for someone like me who shoots mostly landscapes, it wouldn't matter much. Overall, I'm most looking forward to the compact size of the RF f/4 for it will take up far less room in a backpack. Can pack an extra lens!
Focus breathing in the RF lens, practically translates that when shooting in closer distances you have an equivalent of a lets say ~170mm lens and not 200mm, depending on the distance. That alone is a no no for me. Also the zoom ring in EF lens is smooth and fast while on the RF is slower. And weather sealing in this barrel extended RF lens is discussable. What a shame keeps discontinuing these excellent EF lenses.
Including the EF version and the F2.8 RF version in the comparison made watching worth while, excellent job and thank you Gordon. Besides the FB, Canon still managed to improve the extreme corner sharpness(tad bit) while improving close up(@MFD) clarity and a noticeable snapper AF. Hopefully the 14-35 & 24-70(w/h macro) are in the pipeline for release this year.
Looks like all of canons new RF lens are fantastic, it was good to see just how good the EF 70-200 was against them , and there wasn't a bigger gap than I would have thought .another good review would be to compare the old EF 70-300L lens would stack up against the RF lens as it is the same design as the new lens's external zoom, also it would go to show some way about dust ingres.
Great observations about focal breathing. it seems the EF versions are superior for portraits due to higher magnification and softer rendering for background details.
@Gordon Laing, another great review that really covers all the questions that I have as a Canon shooter. For me the added cost of the RF glass over the EF is worth it for the size alone. I can get the R5, R6, RF15-36 2.8, RF70-200 2.8, RF 50 1.8, RF 35 1.8 into the Lowpro ProTactic 450AW II with still room for an Atomos and the DJI RSC 2 folded up. I will be getting the RF 70-200 F4 for sure.
I can see this took a lot of work Gordon, but as ever your analysis is well considered, and complete. I'm sure Canon shooters will appreciate this. Thank you.
Without doubt, It is really an amazing lens, but the difference in quality from the EF version just can't justify the difference in the price, at least for me. Excellent review Gordon as usual.
Thank you! Been waiting for reviews of this lens. The corner performance at f/4 is encouraging. Planning to make this my first RF zoom lens, I only have primes so far. Was initially planning to buy a third prime (one of the 85mm options) but I think this makes more sense.
Excellent review, I think that I'll stick with my EF version and just monitor the speed of focus and how useable it is in the field before dumping it for the RF version
A lot of work involved in this excellent review Gordon. You're a 'master' of reviews. 3 excellent lenses but the size of the RF version is really tempting ! Thanks Gordon !
I’ve not long switched to Alexa cards with fantastic results. Still only shooting with an R, but holds up beautifully and with .cr3 compressed files, it lets me shoot for a month in Asia no problems at all. Thanks for the as usual brilliant review. I’ve had an older ef f4, which I may upgrade to the RF version. I know everyone swears by the f2.8, but with even the R, f4 is fine, focuses faster and walking around an event for hours at a time, the weight savings makes it much easier.
I would really like Canon to make a big brother for the RF 100-500mm. By using the "same" design with 105mm filter / glass size they could make the following: 120-600mm f/4 - f/6,3 (actually f/6,15💡which they could for marketing purposes call f/5,6 when using 1/2 stop increments) f/4 120 - 186mm f/4,5 187 - 314mm f/5 315 - 449mm f/5,6 450 - 584mm f/6,3 585 - 600mm This would probably weigh about 2100-2250g (+tripod collar) so still not overly heavy for being really close focusing and brightest in its class. For me all of those focal length / aperture combinations would be very usable (to get nice DoF for varying situations). This lens should come with an option to buy it with a factory selected (individually fitted) 1,4x TC.
The lexar ad was really informative on what metrics and specs I should look out for when shopping for memory, which I am. Might be willing to give lexar another shot, thanks Gordon
Shockingly few comparisons available of the RF f/4 vs the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II out there, so thanks for including the EF version here. I'm having a hard time justifying the upgrade to the RF, as the EF version's IQ remains ludicrously good, though the compactness of the new lens is seductive.
Thanks, I feel a proper side by side comparison is useful, but it takes a lot of effort, so you won't find many people doing them. I'm glad you appreciate it!
Been looking at this for months. But really unsure, if I want to remplace my 70-300 F4-5.6 non L... A 3rd more reach is really nice and helpful. Now we need the rumored RF 14-35. I look forward for that even more.
I’ve got the same lens and it’s pretty fantastic, but a constant aperture + better optics would be awesome as well. Almost feels like the 2.8 version would be more worth the upgrade, although it’s crazy expensive.
@@YoutubingJason it depends on so much what you shoot. The f2.8 is soooo expensive. I am not sure if I need a faster aperture but definitly better optics
@@danielhenzphotography I don’t do any professional work so it would be super difficult for me to justify. It’d be mainly for personal use traveling or for the odd event with friends/family. Also considering a used EF 70-200 since I still have an EF mount body for backup (though I could probably keep the 70-300 for telephoto on that one), but the compact size of the RF lenses is a huge draw as well. So much to consider!
@@YoutubingJason if you use lightroom, maybe you could sort by the focal length to see how much you shoot between 200 and 300mm. If there are not so many images, maybe you don't need it
@@cameralabs I tried a similar shot at 200mm as you did in the video and toggled between stabilisation on and off. It was absolutely fine and smooth for me and there were no jitters with the stabiliser on 🤷♂️
Thanks for your review, I have just bought this lens but have not had the chance to use fully due to the lockdown. The one major thing, all things being equal, is the weight and size. I changed over to the RF system last year and use the Canon R body. One of the reasons was to reduce the weight of the camera gear I was lugging around and this lens does just that.
I've owned the 1st version ef 70-200 2.8 IS for almost 15yrs. I am a professional and it was my second L glass purchase. It's been great over the years but in recent years especially since buying the 135 f2 I just hardly ever used my 70-200 anymore. It was just heavy and hard to pack and the 135 was just faster, lighter and prettier. Recently my backup camera Canon R6 along with my 70-200 and 100 macro were stolen and I've been without for a bit and there are still certain times when shooting my kids sports or races or events that I've realized I really miss the 70-200 but I'm trying to justify replacing it because I only used it for certain situations. Maybe I would use it a lot more if it's so much smaller. Maybe I don't need the 2.8 and maybe would even appreciate the size and weight savings on the f4 version. Especially with the cleaner high ISO's of these modern cameras and built in IBIS this f4 may just be the perfect lens for me. But then again, I hate to get anything slower than a 2.8 but I have the 24-105 RF and really love it. It's the best f4 lens I've ever used.
You're right to think about how the benefits of new tech can outweigh previous assumptions and rules. We may not NEED f2.8 for clean images anymore BUT you will beed it if you want a shallower depth of field than at f4, and only you can decide what DOF you desire! Have you tried adapting your 135 f2 to your mirrorless? Or there's always their new RF version if you want ultra shallow DOF.
@@cameralabs yes I still have a lot of ef glass and it all works great adapted to my r5. The 135 is no exception. For most things where I want a shallow dof I’m shooting way more open than 2.8. The 70-200 is more of a utility lens for me for certain situations. If it were not a long focal length I would be more worried about dof but I’ve been using my rf 24-105 especially for video stuff and even that lens at f4 has blown me away at how pretty it is and when I want more dof I just step back a little further and zoom in. I have also considered picking up more of the older ef L glass now that it’s going down in price. Mainly picking up a couple more primes.
"Coffee, buy me some coffee...here is me holding coffee." "I found it slightly unusual that I didn't come close to achieving the quoted degree of stabilization on the RF model" ONLY Kidding! Gordon, you do incredible work! much appreciated!
Gordon, I’ve been following you for probably about 10 years now. Hell, I still even have a bunch of the ‘all about the gear’ podcasts downloaded (miss those by the way). Anyways, just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work! Always the first review I click on because I know it will be detailed, informative and unbiased.
Amazing review Gordon, Thanks. I've been searching which 70-200 lens is good for my RP camera. I think I will choose the EF 70-200 F4 II lens based on your test result.. Appreciate your effort on this.
Thanks for the review Gordon, gotta say the tech specs and sharpeness is all decent for me the closer is the compactness, but is that compactness enough for me to sell my f4 mk 2? Hard to say. I rented the RF 2.8 and it's a great lense but at this point I think it's more of a status /portrait lens. Not sure if it worth the cost. On the hand if money is no object get the best and live with the weight.
Thanks Gordon!!! So tough to decide between a EF 70-200 2.8 and the RF 70-200 f4. I don't own either. The smaller lighter package, no need for adapter and easier resale in the future. But the 2.8 is a stop more light and better background blur. What would you do Gordon? I shoot dogs in woodland quite alot
If the conditions are dim, you will appreciate the extra stop of aperture both for light gathering and for a shallower DOF effect. If you can afford the 2.8 and don't mind its size, I'd go for it.
The camera gear review God has spoken. I unfortunately can't afford the RF 2.8 so would have to be an adapted EF 2.8 version ii. Did you notice any AF downgrade using adapted lenses compared to straight RF for fast action?
@@adamwhittingham86 the native ones are definitely better and support all the modes, the fastest bursts etc, but the EF 2.8 will still feel similar to how it does on a mid-range DSLR, so that is good enough for most of us!
Thank you for the detailed review. I am trying to make a decision between the RF f/4 and RF f/2.8 I am leaning towards the 2.8. Did you happen to notice a softness in the corners at the closest focusing distance on the RF f/4 lens compared to the RF 2.8 version? Another reviewer did see this, and it was not insignificant! I noticed on your tests with the buildings on the beach at infinity, there was not a significant difference in quality in corner sharpness. But as a main use for this lens for me will be product in the studio, I am concerned about corner sharpness. The RF F4 lens, even when stopped down, was noticeably softer than the RF 2.8 on the test that I saw online. I’m just looking for someone to corroborate that! If anyone had the same results, that would pretty much end my deliberations! Thank you very much :-)
--- I'm considering purchasing the 70-200 f/4 lens. I shoot at events, sometimes in conference rooms where it is darker. Do you think it will perform well in such conditions? I can boost the ISO and use a flash. This would be my second lens, the first being the 24-70 f/2.8. I work with the Canon R6 II.
I have the EF f/4 version plus control ring adapter for use on my EOS R and it's certainly something that takes up space in my camera bag. I'm really tempted by the compact size of the RF version and I've not read any reports of dust issues with the extending design but if I can keep my head ruling my heart looks like I might as well stick with the EF version for a while longer. Now if it worked with the new RF teleconverters it would have been even more tempting. My head says to wait for the 100-400mm RF non L lens or for Sigma/Tamron to come out with alternatives and make the best of the EF lens for a while yet.
I’ve just ordered the RF 70-200 f4 based on this review. Am I right in thinking this lens is optically superior to the RF 24-105 f4 between 70-105mm? I was dissatisfied with edge sharpness with that lens, consistent with your own observations, and I ended up returning it to Canon
Excellent comparison in lovely Brighton as usual. The thing keeping me from switching to the RF 2.8 is the inability to use it with the current RF extenders. By far, one of the greatest benefits of the EF white lens line.
Nice and compact lens but in my opinion the RF 2.8 is a better choice if someone is going to spent so much money on a lens. And as always a very nice and detailed review Mr Gordon!
Hi Gordon, I've noted that some reviews seem to indicate frame-edge softness at 135mm, however your copy is obviously performing admirably at that focal length. The problem I think is that too many reviews shoot test charts at practically macro distance, and I strongly suspect that the performance will be slightly different when shooting real-world, outdoor images like yours. Of course it could just be that some reviewers got bad copies but this seems unlikely of a 70-200 f/4 - did you do any close(er)-up photography at 135mm?
You've hit the nail on the head. If you want to know how a lens performs at long distance, you need to have a distant subject. If someone's using a chart, try to find out how big it is, as if it's small, you're right, it becomes more of a macro test. That said, I do know some testers who use charts that are huge.
@@cameralabs I think even with a bigger test chart there are going to be differences between shooting at just a few metres and a few hundred metres. My copy arrived recently so as soon as I can get outdoors to test it I will. For completeness I'll also do a more controlled indoor test, just to see if I can get to the bottom of this 135mm discrepancy.
As a former working photojournalist I think the omission of teleconverter compatibility on both the f2.8 and f4 versions is quite strange. I’ve always had one tucked in the corner of my bag and they have got me out of a few scrapes without the need for carrying long lenses. It seems strange as mirrorless focusing system don’t have the aperture constraints that DSLRs do.
The reason - as you probably know - is the rear elements on these mirrorless lenses are often right up to the lens mount, so there's no way to accommodate the protruding element of the TC which on a DSLR lens would slide inside the barrel a little. That's also why it only works on the 300-500 range on the Rf 100-500. I agree it is a shame though.
Hello Gordon! I have been able to see your videos about the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 f/5.6-8. I am currently still with a Tamron 70 300 and wanted to upgrade towards RF lenses. My question is which of the 2 you would recommend for landscape. My camera is an R7. The rest of the lenses are the 14-35 f4 and the 24 105 f4. For wildlife I already have another specific TV. Thank you very much and greetings from Barcelona.
In terms of complementing existing lenses, the 100-400 makes more sense as you already have a 24-105. But that's getting very long on an APSC body - 640 at the long end - it's what I'm using for the next eclipse! I'd say for landscape, a 70-200 on a cropped body would be fine and of course a lot more portable. But only you know how much you use your 70-300 at the 300-end. if you use it at 300 a lot, then definitely get the 100-400. or maybe force yourself to only use the 70-300 up to 200 as an experiment to see if you miss the extra.
My wife has the F2.8 version and it’s an absolute beast of a performer. I’m more of a landscape focused photographer so I think this F4 will be perfect for me. (She doesn’t let me borrow because I’m tougher on gear lol)
I noted that during the zoom demonstration, you initially reached for the RF 2.8L's focal ring instead of the zoom ring. An understandable error, given Canon's usual ring placement. Why did they reverse the zoom and focal rings on the RF 70-200 F/2.8L? Is there an engineering advantage that doesn't exist on their other zooms? I have the RF 24-105 F4L and its rings are in the usual sequence.
You have to ask yourself if you value the lighter weight of the f4 or the brighter aperture of the f2.8, or if cost is an issue. I show all the differences in the video.
Looks to me like the primary benefit of this lens is the small size. The weight savings would be nice, but it's pretty minimal compared to the EF version. If you don't need a control ring and aren't concerned about the EF length, it seems like the EF is the better choice and you can save a few hundred bucks. The IQ is great on both! Awesome comparison, really helpful to evaluate.
If you need the control ring you could buy an adapter with the control ring for your old EF lens. 🤔(Additionally you could use EF-Extenders for your EF 70-200 1.4x and 2x!)
For me EF all the way. More rugged, internal zoom... slightly less AF performance but still good enough all the way. I couldn't make out a difference with my r6 in real life. However, I haven't taken photos of gulls during the time I had the RF version since I am not living by the sea.
Given the magnification differences you are showing between the EF and the RF models at close range, from a reasonable sports photography distance of 20-30 meters, does the RFf/4 magnify less than the EF version and still give an effective zoom of ~150mm?
20-30m is getting towards infinity as far as these lenses are concerned, so there's much less breathing to worry about. It's at closer range you experience the reduced magnification.
I'm astonished how close RF and EF lenses are in overall size. Makes me wonder the point of going mirroless with Cannon🤔. Cannon could have almost keep the same mount system, but made smaller mirroless body.
So why don't you emphasis at the advantage of having a '50-150' at close focus build in? This does the lens make far more versatile specially for portraits, super combo with the RF 1.8 50 mm I would say. Greetings, I do follow you for years and do like your work here. Onno Nugteren photographer for decades, Utrecht the Netherlands.
Thank you so much dear Gordon for your excellent reviews, I do always listen to your advice. mainly I’m a landscape photographer. planning to switch to a mirrorless system. would you recommend RF 70-200 f/4 over the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for landscape photography? thanks
Hi there! Relly great review. I'm a little bit lost trying to choose one. I can't afford de RF 2.8 of maybe I just dont wanna pay that crazy price. My question is... what would you go, EF 2.8 + adapter or RF f4? It's weird own the RP body and put EF lenses... but the price of RF 2.8 is just crazy... Thank you sooo much! 😊
Another comprehensive and informative review that covers and answers many aspects of the design and operational use in real world use. The clever Canon design changes have maintained quality whilst reducing size and weight . It is a shame that there is such a significant premium to pay over the old EF pricing. Now more than ever you must very carefully consider your professional costs and potential earnings from upgrading many who have the EF glass equivalent especially of recent origin will likely stick a while longer with their kit especially consider the more limited RF teleconverters that add an increase to your costs . Like the bonus card info maybe you could include your tripod head info in the blurb content. Looks like another coffee Gordon !
Great review, Gordon. Thank you. Is there a closer focus distance when focus breathing really starts to contract the range more toward the 50-150 mm you mentioned?
If weight is no concern, RF70-200f4 or Sigma 70-200f2.8 sports with adapter? Considering for an R6. Price is pretty comparable but that f2.8 on the Sigma draws me in.
I haven't tried the Sigma adapted, but suspect it won't focus as well for action, so if it's for sports, I'd get the Canon. BUT if it's more for general use or portraiture, then the Sigma would be tempting. I would however expect Sigma to make a native DG DN mirrorless version at some point in the near future.
Big thanks to Lexar! Check out the Lexar Professional 2000x SD Card at: amzn.to/3cbrxLI
My Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IN-DEPTH review - a surprisingly compact tele-zoom!
Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3l06Vrh // WEX: tidd.ly/3jPTlad
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Canon RF 70-200mm f4L sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-review/
#canon #rf #70-200mm
now its almost 3 years did u get any chance for long term review?
Why would anyone dislike this video. 0 appreciation of someone else's effort to present data FOR FREE.
Thankyou, I wonder this all the time too. I think some people hit dislike as soon as they see a brand they don't like or own, regardless of the quality of the content, and this does penalise the creator with the algorithm.
@@cameralabs Gordon, I respect you too much to watch you try and crawl down the rabbit hole of psychoanalyzing the many and diverse wack jobs on TH-cam. For your personal mental stability, please stop. 😎
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 it's way too late for that sadly! Some of them genuinely discourage me from doing certain types of videos or any at all! But I keep going!
@@cameralabs Well Gordon, I would kindly remind you of the fact that if Google required people to authentically identify themselves on YT, 99% of the stupid, cowardly, thoughtless, unconstructive and offensive comments would magically disappear. I only wish I could make it so. 😎
Most times people dumbs downs because of the abusive Square Space ads tbh or when people just talk and talk and talk and talk but never show the product. Gordon has the best reviews next to Christopher Frost
Great review, I went for the f4, The extra weight of the 2.8 was the deciding factor
I just traded in the ef 2.8 ii for the rf f4, I found at least on the r3, the focus and tracking was very much hit or miss with the ef 2.8 ii, they looked fine but when zoomed in you could see the focus was off and details lost, this was even with 2000 of a shutter for testing purposes, the minute I put the rf f4 on tack sharp in all the same tests while tracking people,
I was looking at a 70-200F4 to put on my R5, you’ve convinced me to get a used EF MKII. Saves me a little money and can use a 1.4x Thanks
I have the RF f4 and I have found its fantastic at everything that I need from a 70mm/200m lens.
It comes down to this its compact and light so it comes with me everywhere my old 70mm/200mm was heavy and large so it spent most of the time at home.
This guy without a doubt, does the best and most thorough reviews going into all the important details :)
Thanks!
@@cameralabs is it wirthz thze rf 2.8 over thze f4 if you want to use it withz teleconverters for wildlife and rarely sportS?
@@k.o.t.o.n. depends how much light you have and how blurred you want the backgrounds to be, and how much weight you're willing to carry - and how much you want to spend! Only you can decide.
@@cameralabs i wan tto carrry light and don't care much about too muchz cremy bokehz, according to the test ffotag f4 is great for portraits withzout teleconverters. but thzf5 version with 2x tele, is f8 is too dark, and does the tele loses a lot of autofocus performance and sharpness, it would be a great les, cuse sony didnet make the f4 70-200 to be used withz 2x tele
For the price, weight, sharpness on the rf f4L, this lens is just the right one to purchase.
The EF version maybe longer but still provides excellent image quality, IS and seems much more robust without the retracting lenses. I feel the EF would survive the rigors of outdoor use over time better.
Thanks for the excellent review.
I have the RF 70-200 F4, and it's a wonderful lens. What stopped me from getting the 2.8, besides the price, was that I have the EF 85 1.4L and an old EF 200 F 2.8L, both of which are honeys of lenses. The only shortcoming of the F4 is that in low light, you have to increase ISO sometimes. I often carry the 85 1.4 with me, and it's what I use for portraits for the most part. It's just an unbelievably sharp lens.
@ 11:45, the EF 4 at f/4 looks very similar to the RF 2.8 at f/2.8. @12:45 The EF f/4, at 200mm, has more pleasing oof background that the RF f/4. Could be the magnification effect. .
quite strange... I'm actually stunned about the background blur. Your bokeh comparison at 18:38. This looks like the 'effective aperture' of the RF F4.0 version is smaller than of the older EF F4.0, which seems to have almost the same bluriness or better: circle of obfuscation, than the RF 2.8.
It's the focus breathing at work
@@cameralabs well that changes the effective focal length... but at the same focal length the circle of confusion should be determined by the aperture only.
Did you not zoom out so that the scale of the image was the same for all lenses? Because if you have done that, one would see if the aperture was actually correct. Of course if you 'zoomed with your feet' in order to get the exact same framing on the subject, the ratio between object and background distance changed and therefore the bokeh is not comparable again... I suppose you did the latter then? ;-). It's fine, wasn't obvious to me as I would always test the background blur at the same effective focal length and thus same object and background distances...
good work Gordon, don't let yourself get confused by me, ... I'm approaching my camera hobby too much with my job's accuracy...(laser physicist)...
I wish the RF lenses weren't so expensive or I would upgrade for the size alone!
I was out in the snow this weekend with this wonderful 70-200 F4 lens. Very light and easy to carry around. Made it easy to get the shots I wanted to and to keep the snow off. Excellent review
Me too!
what makes the f2.8 the better lens isn't necessarily the narrower depth of field in f2.8 but its the extra stop of light that allows for increasing the shutter speed or reducing ISO which will result in greater IQ in the more challenging situations.
In terms of magnification and bokeh, I think the EF is nicer. Clearly, the autofocus is dramatically better on the RF lenses.
Thank you for this incredibly detailed review. Been trying to justify the rf/2.8 over the rf f/4 and the portrait comparisons sold it for me. It's a shame how the focus breathing impacts close focusing but I don't think we'll see version 2's for some time.
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200.
I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version which would help with both photo and video since I have a small house and my existing 24-70 basically lives on my camera….but then again I only own 1 other lens (EF 50 F1.8) 😂.
I know the R6 does pretty good in higher ISO’s but I’m still struggling to make my decision. My only experience with a longer focal length is my older kit lens that zoomed to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) and that was a years ago. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports of my toddler as he grows up. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos.
Do F2.8 lenses tend to hold their value better than F4 versions?
Any input would be appreciated!
Great review for a great lens!
Accompanied by the 24-105L 4.0 it is an unmatched compact all around set with premium quality and versatility.
Thinking about nature photography my EF 70-200 4.0 was recently replaced by the RF 100-500.
Oh boy, what an upgrade as long as you are not about portrait with this lens.
I don't compare these two lenses, and would never sacrifise a 70-200 for a dedicated wildlife lens such as the 100-500mm. I would keep both!
Great review Gordon. This must have required a lot of work and editing. To my eyes, there's little difference between the EF/RF f/4 lenses, which is great b/c the EF has always been a solid performer. The RF f/2.8 might be worth the extra ~1k for portrait shooters who need maximum DoF, but for someone like me who shoots mostly landscapes, it wouldn't matter much. Overall, I'm most looking forward to the compact size of the RF f/4 for it will take up far less room in a backpack. Can pack an extra lens!
Thanks, and yes it took AGES to edit!
Focus breathing in the RF lens, practically translates that when shooting in closer distances you have an equivalent of a lets say ~170mm lens and not 200mm, depending on the distance. That alone is a no no for me. Also the zoom ring in EF lens is smooth and fast while on the RF is slower. And weather sealing in this barrel extended RF lens is discussable. What a shame keeps discontinuing these excellent EF lenses.
Including the EF version and the F2.8 RF version in the comparison made watching worth while, excellent job and thank you Gordon. Besides the FB, Canon still managed to improve the extreme corner sharpness(tad bit) while improving close up(@MFD) clarity and a noticeable snapper AF. Hopefully the 14-35 & 24-70(w/h macro) are in the pipeline for release this year.
Looks like all of canons new RF lens are fantastic, it was good to see just how good the EF 70-200 was against them , and there wasn't a bigger gap than I would have thought .another good review would be to compare the old EF 70-300L lens would stack up against the RF lens as it is the same design as the new lens's external zoom, also it would go to show some way about dust ingres.
I remember testing that 70-300L ages ago and was rather fond of it.
great video! I think I am going towards RF 70 200, F4 for my R6II.
Great observations about focal breathing. it seems the EF versions are superior for portraits due to higher magnification and softer rendering for background details.
The rendering is very personal, but I also like the style of the EF, although the bite of the RF is also nice!
just purchased mine can't wait to receive it
Unlike the RF f/2.8 L, the RF f/4 L has the zoom ring placed correctly next to the lens mount. Thanks for the vid.
@Gordon Laing, another great review that really covers all the questions that I have as a Canon shooter. For me the added cost of the RF glass over the EF is worth it for the size alone. I can get the R5, R6, RF15-36 2.8, RF70-200 2.8, RF 50 1.8, RF 35 1.8 into the Lowpro ProTactic 450AW II with still room for an Atomos and the DJI RSC 2 folded up. I will be getting the RF 70-200 F4 for sure.
It is amazing how little space it occupies
I can see this took a lot of work Gordon, but as ever your analysis is well considered, and complete. I'm sure Canon shooters will appreciate this. Thank you.
Cheers!
Without doubt, It is really an amazing lens, but the difference in quality from the EF version just can't justify the difference in the price, at least for me. Excellent review Gordon as usual.
You're very welcome! Yes in terms of quality, not much in it. It's more about size and focusing.
Thank you! Been waiting for reviews of this lens. The corner performance at f/4 is encouraging. Planning to make this my first RF zoom lens, I only have primes so far. Was initially planning to buy a third prime (one of the 85mm options) but I think this makes more sense.
Excellent review, I think that I'll stick with my EF version and just monitor the speed of focus and how useable it is in the field before dumping it for the RF version
Thank you. im looking into buying this lens
I'd rather if most lenses were built with internal zooms. my 24-105. f4 sucked in so much dust over the course of 2 years it was crazy
A lot of work involved in this excellent review Gordon. You're a 'master' of reviews. 3 excellent lenses but the size of the RF version is really tempting ! Thanks Gordon !
You're very welcome!
This lens is part of what is drawing me back to Canon. Great and thorough review; thanks much.
You're welcome!
Excellent review as always, One thing that always distinguished the DSLR version was very minimal focus breathing and I'm glad you tested as well.
You're very welcome!
I’m looking forward taking this lens on vacation. Finally small and light enough to justify taking it along.
I’ve not long switched to Alexa cards with fantastic results. Still only shooting with an R, but holds up beautifully and with .cr3 compressed files, it lets me shoot for a month in Asia no problems at all. Thanks for the as usual brilliant review. I’ve had an older ef f4, which I may upgrade to the RF version. I know everyone swears by the f2.8, but with even the R, f4 is fine, focuses faster and walking around an event for hours at a time, the weight savings makes it much easier.
I would really like Canon to make a big brother for the RF 100-500mm. By using the "same" design with 105mm filter / glass size they could make the following:
120-600mm f/4 - f/6,3 (actually f/6,15💡which they could for marketing purposes call f/5,6 when using 1/2 stop increments)
f/4 120 - 186mm
f/4,5 187 - 314mm
f/5 315 - 449mm
f/5,6 450 - 584mm
f/6,3 585 - 600mm
This would probably weigh about 2100-2250g (+tripod collar) so still not overly heavy for being really close focusing and brightest in its class. For me all of those focal length / aperture combinations would be very usable (to get nice DoF for varying situations).
This lens should come with an option to buy it with a factory selected (individually fitted) 1,4x TC.
The lexar ad was really informative on what metrics and specs I should look out for when shopping for memory, which I am. Might be willing to give lexar another shot, thanks Gordon
Glad you found it useful!
Shockingly few comparisons available of the RF f/4 vs the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II out there, so thanks for including the EF version here. I'm having a hard time justifying the upgrade to the RF, as the EF version's IQ remains ludicrously good, though the compactness of the new lens is seductive.
Thanks, I feel a proper side by side comparison is useful, but it takes a lot of effort, so you won't find many people doing them. I'm glad you appreciate it!
Been looking at this for months. But really unsure, if I want to remplace my 70-300 F4-5.6 non L... A 3rd more reach is really nice and helpful.
Now we need the rumored RF 14-35. I look forward for that even more.
I’ve got the same lens and it’s pretty fantastic, but a constant aperture + better optics would be awesome as well. Almost feels like the 2.8 version would be more worth the upgrade, although it’s crazy expensive.
@@YoutubingJason it depends on so much what you shoot. The f2.8 is soooo expensive. I am not sure if I need a faster aperture but definitly better optics
@@danielhenzphotography I don’t do any professional work so it would be super difficult for me to justify. It’d be mainly for personal use traveling or for the odd event with friends/family. Also considering a used EF 70-200 since I still have an EF mount body for backup (though I could probably keep the 70-300 for telephoto on that one), but the compact size of the RF lenses is a huge draw as well. So much to consider!
@@YoutubingJason if you use lightroom, maybe you could sort by the focal length to see how much you shoot between 200 and 300mm. If there are not so many images, maybe you don't need it
Superb review Gordon! I've had this lens for a week or two now and I've been super curious to see what other people make of it. I love it so far!
Thanks! How are you finding the stabilisation?
@@cameralabs I tried a similar shot at 200mm as you did in the video and toggled between stabilisation on and off. It was absolutely fine and smooth for me and there were no jitters with the stabiliser on 🤷♂️
Thanks for your review, I have just bought this lens but have not had the chance to use fully due to the lockdown. The one major thing, all things being equal, is the weight and size. I changed over to the RF system last year and use the Canon R body. One of the reasons was to reduce the weight of the camera gear I was lugging around and this lens does just that.
I've owned the 1st version ef 70-200 2.8 IS for almost 15yrs. I am a professional and it was my second L glass purchase. It's been great over the years but in recent years especially since buying the 135 f2 I just hardly ever used my 70-200 anymore. It was just heavy and hard to pack and the 135 was just faster, lighter and prettier.
Recently my backup camera Canon R6 along with my 70-200 and 100 macro were stolen and I've been without for a bit and there are still certain times when shooting my kids sports or races or events that I've realized I really miss the 70-200 but I'm trying to justify replacing it because I only used it for certain situations. Maybe I would use it a lot more if it's so much smaller. Maybe I don't need the 2.8 and maybe would even appreciate the size and weight savings on the f4 version. Especially with the cleaner high ISO's of these modern cameras and built in IBIS this f4 may just be the perfect lens for me. But then again, I hate to get anything slower than a 2.8 but I have the 24-105 RF and really love it. It's the best f4 lens I've ever used.
You're right to think about how the benefits of new tech can outweigh previous assumptions and rules. We may not NEED f2.8 for clean images anymore BUT you will beed it if you want a shallower depth of field than at f4, and only you can decide what DOF you desire! Have you tried adapting your 135 f2 to your mirrorless? Or there's always their new RF version if you want ultra shallow DOF.
@@cameralabs yes I still have a lot of ef glass and it all works great adapted to my r5. The 135 is no exception. For most things where I want a shallow dof I’m shooting way more open than 2.8. The 70-200 is more of a utility lens for me for certain situations. If it were not a long focal length I would be more worried about dof but I’ve been using my rf 24-105 especially for video stuff and even that lens at f4 has blown me away at how pretty it is and when I want more dof I just step back a little further and zoom in.
I have also considered picking up more of the older ef L glass now that it’s going down in price. Mainly picking up a couple more primes.
@@diversedad7954 yep, there's some bargains to be had!
"Coffee, buy me some coffee...here is me holding coffee." "I found it slightly unusual that I didn't come close to achieving the quoted degree of stabilization on the RF model" ONLY Kidding! Gordon, you do incredible work! much appreciated!
4:45 a piece of... something lands right over the port cover
Thank you, Gordon, as always very informative. Now I'm head-scratching to go with 2.8 or 4 version :-)
Gordon, I’ve been following you for probably about 10 years now. Hell, I still even have a bunch of the ‘all about the gear’ podcasts downloaded (miss those by the way). Anyways, just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work! Always the first review I click on because I know it will be detailed, informative and unbiased.
Thanks!
Amazing review Gordon, Thanks. I've been searching which 70-200 lens is good for my RP camera. I think I will choose the EF 70-200 F4 II lens based on your test result.. Appreciate your effort on this.
You're welcome!
Thanks for the review Gordon, gotta say the tech specs and sharpeness is all decent for me the closer is the compactness, but is that compactness enough for me to sell my f4 mk 2? Hard to say. I rented the RF 2.8 and it's a great lense but at this point I think it's more of a status /portrait lens. Not sure if it worth the cost. On the hand if money is no object get the best and live with the weight.
Great comparison/review! I have the RF 2.8 version, and *almost* sold it for the ultra small f/4 version, but glad I didn't.
I love them both! The f2.8 is definitely better, but I do love the size of the f4.
Wow, Canon really leading the pack with highend zoom lenses.
Is the smoother background blur of the EF lens because of the less sharp around the mid-to-edge vs the RF version?
Thanks Gordon!!! So tough to decide between a EF 70-200 2.8 and the RF 70-200 f4. I don't own either. The smaller lighter package, no need for adapter and easier resale in the future. But the 2.8 is a stop more light and better background blur. What would you do Gordon? I shoot dogs in woodland quite alot
If the conditions are dim, you will appreciate the extra stop of aperture both for light gathering and for a shallower DOF effect. If you can afford the 2.8 and don't mind its size, I'd go for it.
The camera gear review God has spoken. I unfortunately can't afford the RF 2.8 so would have to be an adapted EF 2.8 version ii. Did you notice any AF downgrade using adapted lenses compared to straight RF for fast action?
@@adamwhittingham86 the native ones are definitely better and support all the modes, the fastest bursts etc, but the EF 2.8 will still feel similar to how it does on a mid-range DSLR, so that is good enough for most of us!
Oh this is really helpful. Thank you. How would 70-200 the EF f/2.8 II or iii compare to these? Any opinions out there?
Have a look at my RF 70-200 2,8 review as it includes EF comparisons,
@@cameralabs Will do.Thanks!
Thank you for the detailed review. I am trying to make a decision between the RF f/4 and RF f/2.8
I am leaning towards the 2.8.
Did you happen to notice a softness in the corners at the closest focusing distance on the RF f/4 lens compared to the RF 2.8 version?
Another reviewer did see this, and it was not insignificant! I noticed on your tests with the buildings on the beach at infinity, there was not a significant difference in quality in corner sharpness. But as a main use for this lens for me will be product in the studio, I am concerned about corner sharpness. The RF F4 lens, even when stopped down, was noticeably softer than the RF 2.8 on the test that I saw online. I’m just looking for someone to corroborate that! If anyone had the same results, that would pretty much end my deliberations!
Thank you very much :-)
---
I'm considering purchasing the 70-200 f/4 lens. I shoot at events, sometimes in conference rooms where it is darker. Do you think it will perform well in such conditions? I can boost the ISO and use a flash. This would be my second lens, the first being the 24-70 f/2.8. I work with the Canon R6 II.
Excellent review Gordon as usual. Hope the issue with the firmware gets attention of Canon - was it preproduction version?
It was final, but I'm looking into it
I am uber-happy with the EF version, the only problem is its size, not that much the weight but the space it takes in a bag.
I have the EF f/4 version plus control ring adapter for use on my EOS R and it's certainly something that takes up space in my camera bag. I'm really tempted by the compact size of the RF version and I've not read any reports of dust issues with the extending design but if I can keep my head ruling my heart looks like I might as well stick with the EF version for a while longer. Now if it worked with the new RF teleconverters it would have been even more tempting. My head says to wait for the 100-400mm RF non L lens or for Sigma/Tamron to come out with alternatives and make the best of the EF lens for a while yet.
not a bad plan!
I’ve just ordered the RF 70-200 f4 based on this review. Am I right in thinking this lens is optically superior to the RF 24-105 f4 between 70-105mm? I was dissatisfied with edge sharpness with that lens, consistent with your own observations, and I ended up returning it to Canon
Yes I think so, at least on the samples I tested. I was never a big fan of the RF 24-105 f4L
Excellent comparison in lovely Brighton as usual.
The thing keeping me from switching to the RF 2.8 is the inability to use it with the current RF extenders.
By far, one of the greatest benefits of the EF white lens line.
Thanks! And yes, it is frustrating how little will work with the TCs in the Rf series
Nice and compact lens but in my opinion the RF 2.8 is a better choice if someone is going to spent so much money on a lens. And as always a very nice and detailed review Mr Gordon!
Thanks! The 2.8 is very nice, but it is larger and quite a bit more...
@@cameralabs That's true 👍
hm, that is one bad optical stabilizer (the 200mm video example)... I also think this must be a bug or lack of firmware update.
That’s the only thing keeping me from getting this lens :(
Gordon, did u hear back from Canon on this ?
Hi Gordon, I've noted that some reviews seem to indicate frame-edge softness at 135mm, however your copy is obviously performing admirably at that focal length. The problem I think is that too many reviews shoot test charts at practically macro distance, and I strongly suspect that the performance will be slightly different when shooting real-world, outdoor images like yours. Of course it could just be that some reviewers got bad copies but this seems unlikely of a 70-200 f/4 - did you do any close(er)-up photography at 135mm?
You've hit the nail on the head. If you want to know how a lens performs at long distance, you need to have a distant subject. If someone's using a chart, try to find out how big it is, as if it's small, you're right, it becomes more of a macro test. That said, I do know some testers who use charts that are huge.
@@cameralabs I think even with a bigger test chart there are going to be differences between shooting at just a few metres and a few hundred metres. My copy arrived recently so as soon as I can get outdoors to test it I will. For completeness I'll also do a more controlled indoor test, just to see if I can get to the bottom of this 135mm discrepancy.
Always love your reviews, Gordon. And I love my RF 70-200 F4. It’s called Stumpy!
Great video. I was almost sold in the 200 EF F/4 one, but that F/2.8 is making this difficult!!
Nice work and appreciated the sponsorship vs bombardment with TH-cam ads.
Thanks!
Gordon, this is an excellent review. Thank you for that!
You're welcome!
As a former working photojournalist I think the omission of teleconverter compatibility on both the f2.8 and f4 versions is quite strange. I’ve always had one tucked in the corner of my bag and they have got me out of a few scrapes without the need for carrying long lenses. It seems strange as mirrorless focusing system don’t have the aperture constraints that DSLRs do.
The reason - as you probably know - is the rear elements on these mirrorless lenses are often right up to the lens mount, so there's no way to accommodate the protruding element of the TC which on a DSLR lens would slide inside the barrel a little. That's also why it only works on the 300-500 range on the Rf 100-500. I agree it is a shame though.
@@cameralabs Elementary my dear Gordon. Elementary.
Great review! It was the exact comparison I was looking for. It answered my questions on whether I should sell my EF F/4 to buy the RF F/4.
You're welcome!
Hello Gordon! I have been able to see your videos about the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 f/5.6-8. I am currently still with a Tamron 70 300 and wanted to upgrade towards RF lenses. My question is which of the 2 you would recommend for landscape. My camera is an R7. The rest of the lenses are the 14-35 f4 and the 24 105 f4. For wildlife I already have another specific TV. Thank you very much and greetings from Barcelona.
In terms of complementing existing lenses, the 100-400 makes more sense as you already have a 24-105. But that's getting very long on an APSC body - 640 at the long end - it's what I'm using for the next eclipse! I'd say for landscape, a 70-200 on a cropped body would be fine and of course a lot more portable. But only you know how much you use your 70-300 at the 300-end. if you use it at 300 a lot, then definitely get the 100-400. or maybe force yourself to only use the 70-300 up to 200 as an experiment to see if you miss the extra.
@@cameralabs Thank you very much for your quick and attentive response.
This man is a treasure. Just think of all the free knowledge out there from such experts.
Glad to be of service!
How does it compare to the 24-105 L at 79-105mm? I was underwhelmed by that lens compared to my RF 85 f2
My wife has the F2.8 version and it’s an absolute beast of a performer. I’m more of a landscape focused photographer so I think this F4 will be perfect for me. (She doesn’t let me borrow because I’m tougher on gear lol)
Both are lovely lenses!
I noted that during the zoom demonstration, you initially reached for the RF 2.8L's focal ring instead of the zoom ring. An understandable error, given Canon's usual ring placement. Why did they reverse the zoom and focal rings on the RF 70-200 F/2.8L? Is there an engineering advantage that doesn't exist on their other zooms? I have the RF 24-105 F4L and its rings are in the usual sequence.
Ha ha, nice spot! I was going to edit that out, but left it in! It is a bit annoying to have them swapped round
Outstanding review, thank you for the detailed approach
Thanks! I think I covered a fair amount!
Another outstanding review. I really have to focus keeping up with the high-density information you deliver.
Thanks, I try to keep you on your toes!
@@cameralabs I own the EF 70-200/4 IS (version 1), which is outstanding even on the R5 but the smaller size of the RF version is certainly tempting.
So I just bought a R5 and would like a 70-200 should I get the RF 2.8 or the Rf 4L I want it for doing senior portraits, weddings.
You have to ask yourself if you value the lighter weight of the f4 or the brighter aperture of the f2.8, or if cost is an issue. I show all the differences in the video.
Looks to me like the primary benefit of this lens is the small size. The weight savings would be nice, but it's pretty minimal compared to the EF version. If you don't need a control ring and aren't concerned about the EF length, it seems like the EF is the better choice and you can save a few hundred bucks. The IQ is great on both! Awesome comparison, really helpful to evaluate.
If you need the control ring you could buy an adapter with the control ring for your old EF lens. 🤔(Additionally you could use EF-Extenders for your EF 70-200 1.4x and 2x!)
Your reviews really do tell me everything I need to know, thank you 😀👍
Thanks! I feel I put everything into this one!
@@cameralabs it’s almost enough to make me switch to Canon😉👍😀
just brilliant all around. so well done. thank you!
Thanks! Glad to help!
For me EF all the way. More rugged, internal zoom... slightly less AF performance but still good enough all the way.
I couldn't make out a difference with my r6 in real life. However, I haven't taken photos of gulls during the time I had the RF version since I am not living by the sea.
Thank You for reviews
I think I choose a RF 70-200mm f4 for my EOS R5
Do I understand correctly that you cannot use extenders with the rf tele lenses?
That's correct
As always, Gordon, your review sets the standard by which all others can be judged!
Thanks!
I wonder if they have fixed the shakiness from the RF 70-200mm F4, how is the 2.8 RF when shooting handheld?
I made a separate review of the rf 2.8 you may find useful
@@cameralabs Cheers!
Given the magnification differences you are showing between the EF and the RF models at close range, from a reasonable sports photography distance of 20-30 meters, does the RFf/4 magnify less than the EF version and still give an effective zoom of ~150mm?
20-30m is getting towards infinity as far as these lenses are concerned, so there's much less breathing to worry about. It's at closer range you experience the reduced magnification.
Thanks Gordon!
Got my R6 fine, but not many Lenses in the shops.....?
I'm astonished how close RF and EF lenses are in overall size. Makes me wonder the point of going mirroless with Cannon🤔. Cannon could have almost keep the same mount system, but made smaller mirroless body.
Mirrorless is about the benefit of electronic composition, not just potential size savings.
So why don't you emphasis at the advantage of having a '50-150' at close focus build in?
This does the lens make far more versatile specially for portraits, super combo with the RF 1.8 50 mm I would say.
Greetings, I do follow you for years and do like your work here.
Onno Nugteren photographer for decades, Utrecht the Netherlands.
Thank you so much dear Gordon for your excellent reviews, I do always listen to your advice. mainly I’m a landscape photographer. planning to switch to a mirrorless system. would you recommend RF 70-200 f/4 over the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for landscape photography?
thanks
Save money and weight and go for the f4 for landscape work.
Hi there! Relly great review. I'm a little bit lost trying to choose one.
I can't afford de RF 2.8 of maybe I just dont wanna pay that crazy price.
My question is... what would you go, EF 2.8 + adapter or RF f4? It's weird own the RP body and put EF lenses... but the price of RF 2.8 is just crazy...
Thank you sooo much! 😊
Great video Gordon!
Thanks Katie!
Another comprehensive and informative review that covers and answers many aspects of the design and operational use in real world use. The clever Canon design changes have maintained quality whilst reducing size and weight . It is a shame that there is such a significant premium to pay over the old EF pricing. Now more than ever you must very carefully consider your professional costs and potential earnings from upgrading many who have the EF glass equivalent especially of recent origin will
likely stick a while longer with their kit especially consider the more limited RF teleconverters that add an increase to your costs . Like the bonus card info maybe you could include your tripod head info in the blurb content. Looks like another coffee Gordon !
Thanks Ken! The tripod head is just a Manfrotto 701HDV
Great review, Gordon. Thank you. Is there a closer focus distance when focus breathing really starts to contract the range more toward the 50-150 mm you mentioned?
It certainly gets more pronounced the closer you get to your subject. 1m or less was noticeable.
Just found this video and it is top drawer! Well done. Subscribed!
If weight is no concern, RF70-200f4 or Sigma 70-200f2.8 sports with adapter? Considering for an R6. Price is pretty comparable but that f2.8 on the Sigma draws me in.
I haven't tried the Sigma adapted, but suspect it won't focus as well for action, so if it's for sports, I'd get the Canon. BUT if it's more for general use or portraiture, then the Sigma would be tempting. I would however expect Sigma to make a native DG DN mirrorless version at some point in the near future.
As always a great review!
Thanks!