ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Not sure which RF 70-200mm lens you want to buy? This video covers 5 things you should consider before making your purchase and provides some interesting reasons about why you should buy the f4 and use the money you save on other things. Join me as I tool around in my first TH-cam video. :D Your feedback is both welcome and appreciated.
0:00 - Intro
0:51 #1 Sharpness and image quality
2:29 #2 Light?
3:04 #3 Creativity via Bokeh?
3:57 #4 Weight
4:40 #5 Price
5:20 - Bloopers!
Canon RF 70-300 f4
Amazon - amzn.to/2VQPulL
Canon RF 70-300 f2.8
Amazon - amzn.to/3zj8maD
My Gear
Godox Flash Trigger - amzn.to/3yHnA9e
Godox TTL Flash - amzn.to/38EUH2P
Shoot through umbrella - amzn.to/2VkjrdK
Collapsible beauty dish - amzn.to/38H38L2
Canon R6 - amzn.to/3yKmCJ6
Godox Video Light - amzn.to/2WMVM6v
Microphone - amzn.to/3tgeHSS
*Other accessories*
EF → RF lens Adapter - amzn.to/2VdUSyU
Extra Camera Batteries - amzn.to/3h1W8wX
SD Card - amzn.to/3kXiwIM
Bowens mount - amzn.to/3DOLMtR
Light stand - amzn.to/3DMM2JN
Tripod - amzn.to/2WSkSk8
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Over You - Atch / atch-music
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/_over-you
Music promoted by Audio Library • Over You - Atch (No Co...
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..
100% agree on the value. I do really like the 2.8 for some situation though. Lower aperture numbers are always fun to have if you've got the extra cash.
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.
Nice! I felt the same way. It took me year and I was able to buy the F2.8 24-70 which is a great second lens. I think the F4 is a fantastic lens to get started on the R body.
Thx for the video dude!! I can't wait to get this lens 😍
Purchased! Can't wait to get it!
Well done review. I had wanted an f2.8 telephoto for my film SLR way back when until I saw how HUGE it was compared to a slightly slower lens of the same focal length. That comparison still holds as you abky pointed out
Thanks for your kind words!
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.
Thanks for your video. Finally I decide to buy RF 70-200mm f4.
great vid. helpful thank you
Very helpful and educational video ❤
lol, liked the blooper reel. I enjoy when people include the out takes.
Same! :D Slightly embarrassing, but I had fun with it.
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-
Great review. I'm a hobbyist who mostly shoot portraits for clients and I think the F4 is enough and will work wonders for my photography. Plus it's one, if not the cheapest L series lens.
I've certainly been enjoying the lens for what I paid! The one challenge is shooting groups in small spaces. It's not a great lens for that, but then no 70-200 would be because that's mostly about focal length.
@@JedGrant Well, this lens is not meant for close photos haha. So it’s good. For groups and closer objects I just use my 24-105mm L lense.
@@JedGrantrf 24-70 f2.8 & rf 70-200 f4 makes a great and ultimate kit IMHO
Awesome video man! New subscriber ✌🏻
I think it all comes down to the type of photography you are doing. I went with the f2.8 because I am doing portrait as well as landscape photography. Had I done just Landscape photography, then the f4 is definitely my go to. Why pay more for a feature of a lens that I would never use. Great review.
Completely agree. I do almost exclusively outdoor portraits, inside this lens isn't great unless you have a REALLY deep/long room because you can barely use more than the 70-80mm range.
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.
I actually bought the 24-70 2.8 thinking it would be better... and it can be for bokeh, but the image distortion down near 24 makes it less worth it (+focus issues), especially for any kind of group photography so I often keep it pushed to 70. I also used it on a wedding recently, and the groom is soft... because I was down at 2.8 as I was quickly shifting shot to shot. Point being, that forced higher aperture is definitely helpful when you're in a rush.
Use aperture priority, set the lens to f/4 and use auto ISO with minimum shutter speed and ISO range set in the camera 😅, that is how I would do it.
@@JedGrantwhich lens was that, the ef or rf?
great Talk
Makes Sense ..cheers
Great video! Everyone does videos, where they say "The F4 is perfect, but I got the 2.8". Which always makes me more confused. haha. You're about to receive affiliate credit.
Really good review, thanks for sharing! 😀Liked 👍🏻 Subscribed ⭐
And ever better: bought! :))
just picked up 70-200 RF F4 for £900 new from ebay looking forward to using it.
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.
I do like the zoom ring closest to the camera body as on the F/4 version.
Agreed. Get a Sigma 105mm F1.4 for bokeh, mostly useful for portraits, and the Canon 7-2 F4 for everything else.
I just bought a 70-200 RF for $1100 used. Canon has dropped the new price to $1500, while the 2.8 remains $2800 new and very hard to find used for anything less.
Jed, thanks for video!
For long time I want a dream lens for love with this toy (for MAGICAL improvement my work, lol). For example, my friend bought two Sigma Art 35 1.4 on last season for Z6II for reportage and art work (first lens of these 35-s he broke in the bar-shooting). It's his "magical-improvement-lens".
Now "magical-improvement-lens" for my is a 70-200 2.8 (in my mind). I love 100+ tele-perspective (now have 100L EF and rf 24-105), bokeh , and BEST gear.
But often and often i think that 2.8 apeture dont realy need at this (tele) focal lenges. Maybe 70-300 (budget 4-5.6) will be MORE functional tele-zoom-lens.
For my suprise 24-105/4 is the superble universal lense and this lense have beautiful image.
I think, maybe 24-70 2.8 will have magical image for me.
Maybe 24-70 is "magical-improvement-lens"?))))
Together with that, maybe 2.8 apeture dont realy need at universal-zoom too.
What situations realy needs 24-70 2.8 against 24-105/4? Low-light bowling?)))
I recently screwed up while filming a bowling alley because of F4 and ISO 5000 (R6)
it turns out that zoom-lenses apeture norm is F4 (not 2, not 2.8) and my invistment of 2000-3000$ 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/.
Thank you so much
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.
If it's not a regularly used lens or a money maker, then I'd go F4. I've been quite happy with it for general purposes. I do need more lenses to fit varied circumstances, but it doesn't sound like you have that issue, so I'd highly suggest the F4.
How much are you selling for
@@jwjphotocreations1652 I ended up selling it a week ago.
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.
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.
PUT OUT MORE! DO IT! you learn a lesson everytime!
2.8 should be sharper at f/4 than the f/4 is, but I get you… I have the EF f/4, looking at the RF 2.8 right now. Thanks for the vid
After using the F4 for a dozen different portrait shoots, I can definitely say I would prefer the f2.8. The F4 works, but I did feel a bit of an image quality difference between the two, and the added aperture flexibility was nice. If you can afford it, enjoy that F2.8!
Great video! Thanks :)
Do you not miss the bokeh of 70-135 range for portraits? I'm still debating wether or not to get the 2.8 so I won't need another prime, I prefer the one and done lens, would you still recommend the f4?
Arrghhh it's so hard to choose
Don't get me wrong, a 2.8 or 1.2 lens is still great. My next lens L series lens is probably the 24-70 2.8. After that, the 1.2 50mm. I went with the 70-200 f4 because of it's versatility. You can still get great Bokeh with it. If you shoot at f4 and 200mm the bokeh is quite nice. There's an example in the video here: th-cam.com/video/Cta0PSGws4Q/w-d-xo.html. For me, the f4 is so versatile and reasonably priced that it wins. If I want great bokeh, I'd probably have a 50mm lens on my camera anyway. Personally, I think it comes down to whether or not you shoot individuals or groups of people. If you shoot anything but individuals, the f4 will likely be fine. Shooting a single with that super shallow depth of field is fun though. What I can tell you is that I am really enjoying the f4 and the other toys I've been buying.
@@JedGrant this is funny. I’ve got the R5 and I love the 28-70 for small weddings, elopements, etc. I call it my “one event, one lens, one camera set up”
I’ve compared the 28-70 at 70mm, f2 at it’s minimum focusing distance directly to the 50mm f1.2 and for the portraits I shoot, 70mm at f2 gives a similar look to the 50mm f1.2 so I knew the 28-70 was golden but I did go for the 2.8 70-200 (just got it) because of the single person portraits and video details I shoot at f2.8, it’s just dreamy; truly prime quality imaging.
If I didn’t need that, I’d go with the f4, exactly as Jed is describing because other than what I described, I stop down to f4 or 5.6 most of the time to get more in focus. 🤷
John if u have money get the 70 200 F2.8 and the 28 70 F2. If not go for the 70 200 F4 and the 50 F1.8 for bokeh 😉
@@JedGrant I got the 24-70 first and I'm in love with this lens, I really like this "boring" focal length and use it about 80% of the time (probably more).. I already have the EF 70-200 f4 first generation but something is missing for me with this lens.. not sure if it's the f4 or the details that are not quite nice as the RF 24-70, but I'm finding myself not reaching for it most of the time.
I'm not working in photography, but I do like shooting individual portraits of my family and friends and also mainly landscape, so this is why it's so hard for me to choose.
@@xray809 hehe I wish it was that simple.. I'm maybe the only person who dislikes the nifty fifty.. Had the EF version but sold it after few months.
28-70 is awesome but no way I'm buying this tank.. :)
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.
I assume you're using the EF on an RF mount camera? How do you find the quality? I've debated getting an EF mount lens for my R6 but have hesitated.
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
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!
any brand new camera in the past 4 years handles iso 5K and even 6400 just fine.. also there is software like dxopureraw that cleans them up without a lot of garbage like topaz..
A really tricky decision. I have an RF 24-105mm F4. I often shoot at F5.6 or above to have enough depth of field when shooting two or more people. However, there are times when I really want to isolate the background or need more light and F4 is a bit limiting. I wonder how often people need to walk around with an RF 70-200mm. If you are just at a single venue like a wedding, I’m not sure that the extra weight of the F2.8 is that important. However, I can’t imagine taking that heavy lens on a long walk!
I've been using the F4 lens for a little while now and generally speaking, I don't have many complaints. The only times I wished I had the 2.8 was when I do individuals. Just like you said, I would have preferrred the bokeh of the f2.8 but I got some shots at F4 200mm that still turned out pretty nice. Here's a sample - www.cedarparkphotographer.com/Portraits/Teens/Ali-Cooper-2021/i-xqWqJhN
@@JedGrant thanks. Yes, the photos at F4 200mm did turn out well.
For that just get a 85 1.8,(1.2) lens
@@JedGrant that was f4? Damn that looks great. I'm sure no client would tell me hey i wish you would've done this with the 2.8. Thank you!
Get the 2.8 and stop it down, simple. You can also use it at night time when needed too.
The Reckoners is such a great series!
I couldn't agree more! :D
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.
After nearly a year, I'll be super honest, I do portraits mostly and I wound up buying the 24-70 2.8. I like the F4 better for quality and composition, but taking family photos with small kids... the flexibility of 24-70 is hard to beat.
@@JedGrant I figure I'll replace my 24-105 f4 with the 24-70 2.8 after getting the 70-200. I just hear so many good things about it. From there I think my kit would be complete with a 15-35.
@@chuck7415 I will say, that when I shot my brother in law's wedding on the 70-200 f2.8, it did an absolutely amazing job. Closeups from a distance, great color and sharpness. Group shots sucked, but the reception was amazing with that lens. If you have the money, you won't regret the 70-200 2.8. Like your comment about the 15-35 implies, having the right lens for the job is always best.
Makes sense
I bought f4 version to save money for 300mm f2,8 :)
How is the dust sealing on both the RF lenses? I've heard photographers having a nightmare with Tamron and Sigma's current 24-70 due to dust getting sucked in to the lens due to poor sealing on the extending lens barrel. To your knowledge, does the RF F2.8 and F4 70-200 L have a filter between the extending barrel and the main barrel to prevent dust from getting sucked into the lens? Or in your extensive use of both lenses, have you detected any issues with dust [long term use]?
I haven't had this lens long enough nor do I take it in dusty environments. However, I have seen some videos from Peter McKinnon where he did take a new canon RF lens in an open jeep with a lot of dust and it did get in barrel and you could hear it as he zoomed it in and out. You can find that here: th-cam.com/video/IqOUYemds98/w-d-xo.html - It's not the same lens, but might give you some insight.
Thanks for sharing this link with us!@@JedGrant
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.
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.
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.
0:00 Naaah hahaha i already got the f4, im just watching for fun.
Most portrait photographers i knwo shoot at 4.0-f8 so the f4 will be just fine
bro you should make more videos wth, your channel will blow up
Thanks for the encouragement!
I am also a bit struggling. In addition, Do you think it's better to use a second hand EF 70-200 mm with adaptor ring for F2.8? This can save me 1000 pounds. Downside is the stableization is not as not as RF and weight and size are bigger.
I want also to know this. Ef70-200mm f2.8 vs rf 70-200mm f4.
Mi, as you said, stabilization and weight are better with the RF version, however, from what I've seen, the RF lens is also noticeably sharper. However, any sharpness difference is likely only going to show up on very large prints or 100-200% zoom. The RF also focuses very fast, very quietly. Personally, I would invest in the RF line.
Abe’s of Maine offers the F4 for $1299.00 no tax.
Are you able to get 2-3 ppl with f2.8?
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
so, was it worth it?
@@williamgollatz1911 no idea , I rarely actually take pictures . I always have these ambitious ideas, but rarely go through with them lately. Was going to take a trip to the ice fields on the way to grand prairie this fall, and opted out when I did the math on the cost of fuel
Great point at focal range.. 2.8 is very shallow.
Glad it was helpful! I bought the 24-70 2.8 thinking it would help me do better with family photos. When I got home it was immediately clear that I'd overused 2.8 when I saw the soft focus on part of the family.
@@JedGrant I'm looking for a lens to do pet photography outside, the standard seems to be 2.8... is that for speed, low light, bokeh? this can all be achieved with an f4 surely.
@@markedwards4787 - Yep. You shouldn't have any issues with F4 or a 2.8. 2.8 gives you a more shallow depth of field (blurry background), but you can get something pretty similar by using 200mm F4 and getting as close as you can. Easier with 2.8 for the shallow depth of field. 2.8 will also help with low light and bokeh.
Do you think the F4 version would do ok indoors for kids activities like recreation centres and arenas? I have a toddler who’s about to start those types of things along with outdoor winter activities. Any input would be appreciated.
For kids, and especially indoor, you need enough LIGHT to take good photos so it depends on where you are. If you're in sunlight, it will work just fine. If you're indoors with poor lighting, you'll need a camera that limits noise at High ISO, and you could benefit from a wider aperture like 2.8 to let more light in, but the drawback is the depth of field would be shallow and you might get more blue than you want. This lens works great for flag football and soccer during the daytime or under the lights.
@@JedGrant thanks. I probably should’ve mentioned that I have a R6 so it’s not too bad at the higher ISO range. I was trying to go through my photos to assess them and see how the settings would change with a F2.8 vs F4. I’m contemplating the F4 and maybe with the savings I could put that towards 1/2 of the RF 24-70mm F2.8. Canadian dollars when on sale.
@@kore996 I like the f4 pretty well and thought I would use it for lots of things like kids sports and portraits, but 95% of what I have been doing is portraits and wish I would have bought the 24-70 instead because I ALWAYS do those with off camera flash and the light stand and modifier gets in the way more often with a 70-200. I personally feel like 2.8 is good for couples and individuals, which can work for players in a sport... if you can focus on that fast enough... or you need a higher aperture to capture them without blur because they are moving fast.
@@JedGrant is this a good lens for church work? Work like weddings, baptism, due to the fact that sometimes you can’t get too close during mass.
@@royaltykidstv Depends on the size of the church and how much of a close up you want. However, it's going to be lower light because it's inside so you probably want a 2.8 if the lighting is poor or you have a camera with poor ISO quality. The distance is fine If they are within 100ft as long as you dont want a super close up.
If I buy the F4 version I could use that money and buy a used EF 85mm f/1.2L
This's exactlty what i thought when i had to choose between 2.8 and f4 👍
Personally, I'm not regretting my choice to go with the F4 and hope you aren't either. Thanks for watching!
@@JedGrant Absolutly, i was often at F4 with my old EF 70 200 f2.8 only to be sure my picture will be sharp and i dont miss my focus. And the bokeh with this lens is so sweet! I'm really satisfy!
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 😅
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
well?
The T Shirt will always have " F2.8 or BUST"😃
The 2.8 is absolutely a great lens if you have enough in your budget for the tools you want to get. I started with the F4 mostly because it fit the budget and let me buy other things while still offering great value. I may still get the 2.8 eventually.
Surely people will buy the f2.8 if they have money to spent.
Budget dictates the purchasing power of one person.
Forget shooting indoors with f4😂
seriously skip the L lense all together and get the 100-400. that thing is a beast. couple it with 85mm f2
Yea, but the low aperture doesnt make it ideal for anything except decent daytime.
I would go for it for bird photography though😊
@@Aneliuse when was the last time you needed a telephoto during the night
@@pianosfilipem Not just at night, but during the evening when sunlight is less. At 158mm the 100-400 has already reached f/7.1. There are times when you need a higher shutter speed, and thats where an f4 lens is fairly useful. Thats a 1 and 2/3 stops more light. The 100-400 is useful in daylight, but then that can also depend on season and amount of daylight, as well as environment. A dense forest for instance might require a higher iso. Weather sealing is also nice
Not that its bad or anything, but there are always benefits and cons to every lens :p
Volume, price and you don't shoot in low light? Quite simple, really.
No way, if you can afford 2.8 then it’s better in every way. You can do everything the f4 can do but the f4 can’t do what the 2.8 can. More light wins all the time. As good as the R6 is, I have one, fast lenses can’t be beat.
Please show me how I can make the 2.8 lighter and smaller?
@@Aureas133 is that all that matters to you? Photography might not be your thing then.
@@oo0Spyder0oo Why so aggressive? Its just an argument that the F4 does have features the 2.8 doesn't have. Portability mainly. Which, when you travel a lot, matters.
If you have the money to buy any gear you want, I would agree that the f2.8 version capability is worth it. For me, the lower cost allowed me to buy lights, modifiers, backgrounds, stands etc. I had a budget of around 3k for gear so I decided to make it go further. This video was primarily intended to help people realize the F4 is a fantastic lens for the money. If I had 4k for gear, I wouldn't have purchased the F4 because I could have gotten the 2.8 with all those other things. So, if you can afford the f2.8 AND all the other things you want to get, buy the f2.8. Also, if I ever have the money, I will resell the f4 for the f2.8.
Well, I agree f2.8 is better than f4, but I have both of these lenses and the 2.8 IMO is not "better in every way," really only one, the max aperture. The f4 is ergonomically superior with it's contoured zoom ring towards the back of the lens vs. at the front. It's throw is shorter than the 2.8, which allows for faster zooming (like the EF version). It's nearly a pound lighter and even smaller than the 2.8. Image quality and AF speed is virtually identical as far as I can see. The 2.8 wins as far as gathering light goes, but for me that's it.
So the 2.8 can’t shoot at f4? The f4 can’t shoot at f2.8 that argument doesn’t hold
Hi Gray, which argument? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Clearly the 2.8 *can* shoot at f4.
Easy mate.. easy
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
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.
that bokeh comparisons is misleading , first off, with the same aperture , different focal lengths will render the same bokeh , they have the same depth of field, provided you took those three photos from the same distance to subject. don't believe me? crop the first two photos to match the last one ,then compare the bokeh
Actually, that's not true. You focal length absolutely changes the depth of field when your aperture remains the same. Here's a simulator you can use to see it in action. dofsimulator.net/en/ Both your aperture and your focal length impact the depth of field.