For the best deals on pre-owned camera gear, check out KEH! They're PetaPixel's Official Pre-owned Camera Gear Partner: shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=2581795&u=2554814&m=66875&urllink=&afftrack=
That lens is $4500 in Canada! Ack. I got a brand new EF 70-200 2.8 L IS III last year for $2000 cdn and it's just as sharp and focuses just as accurately as the original RF version, and I saved over $1000 over that version as well. These lens prices are getting out of hand.
You're comparing a lens that was released 5yrs ago for a completely different mount while lacking any of the new features found on this lens. Yup, totally makes sense.
@@TripleKOShorts At least other brands have cheaper options like Tamron 70-180 or Sigma 70-200. With Canon it's the $2500 MK1 or or $3000 MK2 or nothing
dude you do not need the length advantage while shooting but the fact the old one fits standing VERTICALLY in most camera bags is insane and is the best part
I think you might want to change the title of the video. I assumed this was a video that breaks down teleconverters and whether they're needed with current high resolution cameras. I stayed because I still enjoy watching you guys
The fact that I couldn't use a teleconverter on the original RF 70-200 was the reason I didn't purchase that lens. But when the new one came out, I jumped on it immediately, along with the new 24-105 2.8. Loving them both.
I think mentioning the throw is also a game changer for sports and wildlife enthusiasts, both video and photo. I believe the Z is definitely a much shorter throw than its predecessor. Also with the teleconverter would definitely change the outcome of the possibility for using this new canon lens. Still a great video and info.
The inconvenience of using a teleconverter matches the inconvenience of changing to another lens so might as well have the more compact 70-200 and get a 200-800 for more reach lol. Unless you think of just carrying a 2x in your pocket rather than carrying a jumbo 200-800 in a sling bag or something.
The lens is great. I scored the black one and it makes a perfect match to my 24-105 Z. But, the optional powered zoom attachment really sucks. There are 2 models, more expensive one has the port for the external controller. They're both eye-wateringly expensive though. The zoom button on them is just a simple one-stage button that does not change speed as you press it, making it completely useless for video. The only way to get the functionality of a standard pressure-sensitive zoom control is to get the more expensive one and pair it with the external controller. But you cannot mount the external controller to the lens or the power zoom controller so you need a rig to get this all set up. So, power zoom? Yes. Usable? No.
I received my unit the day this lens came out and ditched the old external zoom. Absolutely agree that it is 100% worth every penny of this absurd price.
To be fair these days nobody looks at the title of the video without also looking at the thumbnail. The thumbnail provides 90% of the context these days. It would be redundant to call it out in the title, which really becomes more of a subtitle/extended-title for most content creators.
I never had the previous RF lens, but this over the previous generation of EF lenses is astounding. It’s way more balanced. The autofocus is faster, and better. It just hits. It’s worth it.
I have the Rf F4 70-200 and use it as a walkaround outdoor lens and rarely need an aperture wider than F4 (If I do I'll use a different lens). It's very sharp and fits my needs and budget friendly. If I need more reach, I'll go with the RF 100-500 F4-F7.1. Manufacturers like Canon are betting on the video/hybrid market and now producing lenses that fit that category. In the near future stills, photocentric cameras will be the realm of only either mobile phones for the social media population or medium format for the pro studio photographers. I feel like hobbyists like me are being left out.
I really want Panasonic to release a new camera because their lense prices are so much better than the competition. The S Pro 70-200 2.8 for $1800 is crazy.
As a Panasonic shooter who recently did a try before you buy with Sony and Nikon, I can also say that the optical qualities of Panasonics lenses are better too imho. Panasonics 2.8 S pro are honking big lenses, much bigger than any of the competition but the optics, number of aperture blades, out of focus quality is best in class. It’s also breathing corrected like the canon, has a manual focus clutch, and almost parfocal . Panasonic just lacks a competitive high end body to compete with z8 or r5 I or a1ii. I’ve no doubt it’s coming, just personally hoping that they don’t go full 8k and stick with 6k open gate on the s1hii :).
I just got the older version of the RF 70 - 200 f2.8 for $2400 and totally love it.❤. I’m sure the newer version is a great lens but I just couldn’t justify the extra cost. I couldn’t be more happier with my purchase, it’s an incredible lens that I’ll be using for many years to come. Peace.
NO! I am still very satisfied with my original EF 70-200mm Vii after 7 years for stills photography. Works superbly on both my R5iis with the adapter. For videographers, I'd say take a hard look. The aspect of pairing the motorized zoom attachment might make this lens a game changer.
To be fair these days nobody looks at the title of the video without also looking at the thumbnail. The thumbnail provides 90% of the context these days. It would be redundant to call it out in the title, which really becomes more of a subtitle/extended-title for most content creators.
A mush shorter and smoother throw the Z model. Iv used the original RF once and didn’t like it at all. Internal zoom all the way. Still no issue with the EF II version
This new lens should be USD2500 and the first RF version should drop to USD2000. RF glasses are insanely expensive. And for my taste, too sharp and clinical. I keep my 70-200 2.8 EF. I only have the f/4 in RF.
Honestly this might be the lens I had been waiting for. Been holding back with getting into any mirrorless FF system, because I still feel like the fast zooms were lacking. I think Canon might have won me over with this one. And then make do in terms of primes I still have left on my EF system.
I always hated teleconverters because they degraded the image and haven't used them for years. But, I decided to give the current Sony teleconverters a try with the 70-200 GM II. And I was surprised that they were not only useable, they produced good images. So, now when I travel, I take this combination instead of bigger, longer, heavier telephoto lenses.
@@PhotoTrekr the modern teleconverters are really good nowadays. I always had a thing against them until trying the latest generations from all the companies and they are very usable. I agree.
Maybe a good compromise between compactness in the lens bag and everybody’s love of internal zooms would be for more lens makers to make lenses that collapse for storage and expand but stay at a constant length for actual usage, like the OM 40-150mm f4 Pro (I’m sure many similar lenses predate that one, but that’s the only one I’ve used)
Now RF 70-200mm F2.8 comes down on price on the used market...almost half the $3100 price of the new RF 70-200 USM Z. From my perspective, the most significant improvement is Canon teleconverter can be used with the new RF 70-200 USM Z and there were no teleconverter with the older RF 70-200mm F2.8. Because the older RF 70-200 F2.8 is an external zoom lens, it packs shorter. Both lenses have excellent image quality!
Thank you. Already own the original RF lens and bought it for about $250 less than the current list price makes the new RF Z version with a teleconverter almost $1250 more for $3500. Just not worth it for a person who shoots stills and no video. Take care.
GH7 really shining here. I'm hesitating pulling trigger on one though - is the Animal AF up to snuff for wildlife photography? I'd be coming from a G9, which is fairly good but has a tendency to back-focus (probably due to DFD)
@niccollsvideo thanks very much Chris, I was actually wondering aloud about the GH7's animal AF though 😅 I just really liked how the footage from the GH7 looked in this video! Canon is well renowned for it's animal AF, but would mean a full system switch - not that I'm averse to that necessarily, but would be a bigger undertaking.
Since you’re in Canada, it’s $4,099. My 70-200 2.8 IS vIII came in under $2500. I’ll stick with that. Canon really needs to offer a non IS version at 2.8 that they used to. The IS is mostly only needed for video. $4100 is crazy.
I own the ef 70-200 2.8 111 have tested it on 90D 6D m2 r7 r5 r5M2 my new rf 70-200 Z is much sharper and focus is 10 times faster much more accurate. if you compare them side buy side the the difference for birds in flight is tremendous .
Photography is just my hobby and I am not a millionaire. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether it's the old or the new version. Both are too expensive just for fun. I really miss a 70-200 2.8 in the 1000-1500 range...
I wish they would have made a 70-200 F2 and a 105-300 F2.8 Let's face it if you are a videographer and use the Z line of lenses then you have a 24-105 so why the overlap and if you are a photographer then you probably picked up the 28-70 F2.
I guess the "ever so slightlys" added up to much for me. I have the previous model, and I just cannot justify another 3k on a lens that has ever so slightly in front of so many issues. I wonder about the utility.
I own the lens and one thing that is a standout feature for closer sports shooting is the short throw of the zoom ring from 70-200mm. It’s maybe a 1/3 of a rotation and smoooooth. It’s much better than the original due to not having to extend the lens. Also, not mentioned much by anyone, the cheaper, smaller, and lighter RF 70-200/4L version of the original design is an excellent travel lens if you don’t absolutely have to have f2.8. 🤷🏻♂️
"benefits from stopping down a little bit". 2.8 to 5.6 isn't "a little bit". Also I feel like you've mentioned teleconverters in this single video more times than in previous 5 years combined. Since when such interest?
It's all in the eye of the beholder to be honest. Two stops may quadruple the light but it's still just 2 stops and 2 is not a lot. Consider that Chris started in an era where control over stops (film speed, aperture, shutter) was limited to whole stops not third or half as we've had with digital and "command dial era" of film/digital cameras.
As far as the interest in teleconverters it's because the previous version couldn't accept them given its design. It was the only 2.8 70-200 lens in the RF lineup, a trinity/staple lens. Even going back to the old EF system the 70-200 USM 1, 2, and 3 accepted teleconverters. It meant that a photographer could throw the equivalent of two tiny lenses into their bag along with f/4 14-30, 24-105/120, and 70-200 and reach up to 400mm at f/8 or 280 f/5.6. Effectively covering the entire gamut a photographer might shoot in a day. In short it only became a big deal because of its exclusion thus far in the RF lineup. There was no such restriction on the Nikon and Sony front. And yes not all people shoot with a teleconverter and they are limited as to what lenses they attached to, but once you own one it really opens up what you can do in the tele space.
As seemingly practical as teleconverters are, I've NEVER seen one being used in the field. I own the EF 1.4x that I purchased with my EF 300mm II f2/8 L and rarely use it. I own the RF 100-500 which takes a TC with restrictions. Not interested. And yes, I own the RF 70-200. Never considered a TC for it, but I can see it being somewhat useful.
It’s still awful that Cannon has so few options at each lens level. Even with two now feature limit forces, you to the more expensive new just because of teleconverters. They still makes it worthwhile to not have Canon. As others have said, your title emphasize teleconverters, but you barely touched on themand that was disappointing.
Jesus christ canon is really trying to see how long brand loyalty and the recognition can get them while spitting their users straight between the eyes
Looks like a fantastic lens but boy does Canon ever like to squeeze every dollar out of your wallet. As a Nikon user, makes me glad for the options I have.
While I shot Canon for 20 years, I switch to Nikon back in 2016. In any case I may have not been paying that much attention but this Z series seems like an odd choice given the Nikon Z mirrorless system naming. You'd expect that within the camera industry, especially this tightly related, Canon would have gone with some other nomenclature for these hybrid lenses.
Before we buy a $3K lens, we'd like to know how bad the distortion looks without in-camera digital correction. Can't believe it's taking so long for TH-cam to give us the answer.
The lens is designed to be used with digital corrections, there would be no point testing it with them off since you wouldn't use it like that anyway. It would be like taking an element out of the lens and complaining that the pictures are blurry.
@@Skux720 Lol. I found the answer on the Digital-Picture website. It is very well corrected and I will use it mostly without correction. And if correction, manual correction.
@@Skux720 not really, for example in my astro workflow, I can't use the corrections with my stacking workflow (or it at least makes that process a lot more complicated). Furthermore, digital corrections *are* real photo degradation. Even if your eye can't quickly pick that up in the final result, losing 3 stops of DR in the corners is pretty brutal, same with some of the distortion corrections these days.
For the best deals on pre-owned camera gear, check out KEH! They're PetaPixel's Official Pre-owned Camera Gear Partner: shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=2581795&u=2554814&m=66875&urllink=&afftrack=
Let's go Canon, my D850 + Nikkor 70-200 f2.8E FL ;)
That lens is $4500 in Canada! Ack. I got a brand new EF 70-200 2.8 L IS III last year for $2000 cdn and it's just as sharp and focuses just as accurately as the original RF version, and I saved over $1000 over that version as well. These lens prices are getting out of hand.
I see it listed at $4,100
You're comparing a lens that was released 5yrs ago for a completely different mount while lacking any of the new features found on this lens. Yup, totally makes sense.
@@TripleKOShorts As a photographer, there are no new features on this newer lens over the EF version except the multifunction ring. Hope that helps!
@@TripleKOShorts At least other brands have cheaper options like Tamron 70-180 or Sigma 70-200. With Canon it's the $2500 MK1 or or $3000 MK2 or nothing
Plus 13% tax. $1.40 exchange. $999 US means $1500 can. Americans just don't get it.
I agree that the title is a little misleading. I'd actually like to see a video on teleconverters and what their impact is on IQ.
Many people have done this video… just search it?
Jared Polin has one
Its universal, only primes are sharp enough for it to not be noticeable
dude you do not need the length advantage while shooting but the fact the old one fits standing VERTICALLY in most camera bags is insane and is the best part
Sure and I like it for that too. But lots of people do want teleconverters so now you have a choice.
Yeah I'm keeping my original, i don't need a teleconverter and the collapsing design fits so well in my bag
I think you might want to change the title of the video. I assumed this was a video that breaks down teleconverters and whether they're needed with current high resolution cameras.
I stayed because I still enjoy watching you guys
looks like they changed it within the first hour of posting!
@seansiquig for the better. Fewer people will be misled.
Very good suggestion. I admit, the original title was much less good. My bad! -Jaron
@@PetaPixel*your mistake. love you guys ❤
The fact that I couldn't use a teleconverter on the original RF 70-200 was the reason I didn't purchase that lens. But when the new one came out, I jumped on it immediately, along with the new 24-105 2.8. Loving them both.
Nice combination
You know it’s getting good when Chris has ice in his beard.
I think mentioning the throw is also a game changer for sports and wildlife enthusiasts, both video and photo. I believe the Z is definitely a much shorter throw than its predecessor. Also with the teleconverter would definitely change the outcome of the possibility for using this new canon lens. Still a great video and info.
The inconvenience of using a teleconverter matches the inconvenience of changing to another lens so might as well have the more compact 70-200 and get a 200-800 for more reach lol. Unless you think of just carrying a 2x in your pocket rather than carrying a jumbo 200-800 in a sling bag or something.
The lens is great. I scored the black one and it makes a perfect match to my 24-105 Z. But, the optional powered zoom attachment really sucks. There are 2 models, more expensive one has the port for the external controller. They're both eye-wateringly expensive though. The zoom button on them is just a simple one-stage button that does not change speed as you press it, making it completely useless for video. The only way to get the functionality of a standard pressure-sensitive zoom control is to get the more expensive one and pair it with the external controller. But you cannot mount the external controller to the lens or the power zoom controller so you need a rig to get this all set up. So, power zoom? Yes. Usable? No.
I received my unit the day this lens came out and ditched the old external zoom. Absolutely agree that it is 100% worth every penny of this absurd price.
They had 26 letters to choose from, so they picked "Zed" ?
So creative lol
Heck, you can use Greek letters as well in the camera space.
@ItsWillLee Putin use Z for his invasion
They should have used a smiley face emoji 😀 instead of Z
X would be nice.
I thought this episode would cover various teleconverters and how their impact on IQ changed since DSLR days
To be fair these days nobody looks at the title of the video without also looking at the thumbnail. The thumbnail provides 90% of the context these days. It would be redundant to call it out in the title, which really becomes more of a subtitle/extended-title for most content creators.
@@ElGrecoDaGeek sometimes I watch on my phone, and sub notifications have a thumbnail literally the size of a thumbnail, so I have to read the text
I don’t think much has changed, 2x TCs are still terrible for zooms, 1.4x being acceptable but meh
There is simply no excuse that the aperture ring doesnt event work with the original R5.
I never had the previous RF lens, but this over the previous generation of EF lenses is astounding. It’s way more balanced. The autofocus is faster, and better. It just hits. It’s worth it.
I have the Rf F4 70-200 and use it as a walkaround outdoor lens and rarely need an aperture wider than F4 (If I do I'll use a different lens). It's very sharp and fits my needs and budget friendly. If I need more reach, I'll go with the RF 100-500 F4-F7.1. Manufacturers like Canon are betting on the video/hybrid market and now producing lenses that fit that category. In the near future stills, photocentric cameras will be the realm of only either mobile phones for the social media population or medium format for the pro studio photographers. I feel like hobbyists like me are being left out.
I really want Panasonic to release a new camera because their lense prices are so much better than the competition. The S Pro 70-200 2.8 for $1800 is crazy.
As a Panasonic shooter who recently did a try before you buy with Sony and Nikon, I can also say that the optical qualities of Panasonics lenses are better too imho. Panasonics 2.8 S pro are honking big lenses, much bigger than any of the competition but the optics, number of aperture blades, out of focus quality is best in class. It’s also breathing corrected like the canon, has a manual focus clutch, and almost parfocal . Panasonic just lacks a competitive high end body to compete with z8 or r5 I or a1ii. I’ve no doubt it’s coming, just personally hoping that they don’t go full 8k and stick with 6k open gate on the s1hii :).
Canon and appropriately priced lenses don't go in same sentence so I'm not surprised.
I would want it, as I dislike the long throw of the older model, but not at this price.
Why is the title not about the RF lens guys? 🤔
Ah because the price , for that I can get used Leica SL2 and lens to the amount of 3k
I just got the older version of the RF 70 - 200 f2.8 for $2400 and totally love it.❤. I’m sure the newer version is a great lens but I just couldn’t justify the extra cost. I couldn’t be more happier with my purchase, it’s an incredible lens that I’ll be using for many years to come. Peace.
I still have my 70-200mm USM II and works well so maybe in a few years might upgrade ! 🙂
Aussie here was laughing at the cold, then remembered I'll be in Edmonton and jasper for Xmas... Woops 🤣
NO! I am still very satisfied with my original EF 70-200mm Vii after 7 years for stills photography. Works superbly on both my R5iis with the adapter. For videographers, I'd say take a hard look. The aspect of pairing the motorized zoom attachment might make this lens a game changer.
Holyshhhh the AF back and forth is lightning fast!!!
It's too cold for me, so thank you for taking the time to review the lens.
Can't wait for Nikon to release their new Z mounts RF series
7:30 - Sorry, did I miss something? Who messed up the test chart?! Did Chris rip it up when remodeling the mancave?
Exactly! Now the scratches are contrast-based manual focusing aids so it’s all good.
Thought this video was about Teleconverters no a lens...
To be fair these days nobody looks at the title of the video without also looking at the thumbnail. The thumbnail provides 90% of the context these days. It would be redundant to call it out in the title, which really becomes more of a subtitle/extended-title for most content creators.
Very informative. I will wait for a 70-150 f2
A mush shorter and smoother throw the Z model. Iv used the original RF once and didn’t like it at all. Internal zoom all the way. Still no issue with the EF II version
This dude just dunked a $3000 lens into a basketball hoop 🙃
Is the lens sharp enough with a 2x converter that it could perform similarly to the EF 100-400 L ii?
Looking forward to the review on using teleconverters with this new lens as stated in the original title.
This new lens should be USD2500 and the first RF version should drop to USD2000. RF glasses are insanely expensive. And for my taste, too sharp and clinical. I keep my 70-200 2.8 EF. I only have the f/4 in RF.
Honestly this might be the lens I had been waiting for. Been holding back with getting into any mirrorless FF system, because I still feel like the fast zooms were lacking.
I think Canon might have won me over with this one. And then make do in terms of primes I still have left on my EF system.
I always hated teleconverters because they degraded the image and haven't used them for years. But, I decided to give the current Sony teleconverters a try with the 70-200 GM II. And I was surprised that they were not only useable, they produced good images. So, now when I travel, I take this combination instead of bigger, longer, heavier telephoto lenses.
@@PhotoTrekr the modern teleconverters are really good nowadays. I always had a thing against them until trying the latest generations from all the companies and they are very usable. I agree.
Well, could you do a video on teleconverters now that the comment section is full of it after the first title of the video, pleeeeeeeze?
Maybe a good compromise between compactness in the lens bag and everybody’s love of internal zooms would be for more lens makers to make lenses that collapse for storage and expand but stay at a constant length for actual usage, like the OM 40-150mm f4 Pro (I’m sure many similar lenses predate that one, but that’s the only one I’ve used)
Now RF 70-200mm F2.8 comes down on price on the used market...almost half the $3100 price of the new RF 70-200 USM Z. From my perspective, the most significant improvement is Canon teleconverter can be used with the new RF 70-200 USM Z and there were no teleconverter with the older RF 70-200mm F2.8. Because the older RF 70-200 F2.8 is an external zoom lens, it packs shorter. Both lenses have excellent image quality!
ive got the old 70-200 rf 2.8 and quite happy, its never let me down
but i do miss teleconverters, im tempted by this new version
3:56 hero shot
Thank you. Already own the original RF lens and bought it for about $250 less than the current list price makes the new RF Z version with a teleconverter almost $1250 more for $3500. Just not worth it for a person who shoots stills and no video. Take care.
8:40 in the video: pic on left appears to have captured a frozen frog lol
8:50 Does it come in a white and a black version?
Could you zoom in on the older one to use the teleconverters similar to the 100-500?
What is the quality of the photos of the new RF "Z" with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters?
Until Canon opens their mount without suing people, I won’t go back to their ecosystem.
5:38 Never omit onion rings in bokeh again
This might be my dream lens as a sports photographer working in dusty environments. This lens and the R5 mk2 make me want to sell all my Sony gear lol
GH7 really shining here.
I'm hesitating pulling trigger on one though - is the Animal AF up to snuff for wildlife photography? I'd be coming from a G9, which is fairly good but has a tendency to back-focus (probably due to DFD)
The animal detect af is excellent on Canon cameras.
@niccollsvideo thanks very much Chris, I was actually wondering aloud about the GH7's animal AF though 😅 I just really liked how the footage from the GH7 looked in this video!
Canon is well renowned for it's animal AF, but would mean a full system switch - not that I'm averse to that necessarily, but would be a bigger undertaking.
@ Oh sorry. I missed that. It’s okay on the Gh7, I remember it being solid enough tog eat some successful shots.
@@niccollsvideo appreciate the insight, thank you 👍
What is that shoulder bag Chris is using?
I like the Wotancraft bags and this is the classic Pilot series 7L. Awesome bags!
@ awesome I’m going to check it out thanks!!
To have this large of a lens would finally make me feel like a pro photographer 😂
Since you’re in Canada, it’s $4,099. My 70-200 2.8 IS vIII came in under $2500. I’ll stick with that. Canon really needs to offer a non IS version at 2.8 that they used to. The IS is mostly only needed for video. $4100 is crazy.
I agree. $4100 is crazy!
could you have a comparison with the Nikon 70-200mm counterpart.
man, how cold is out there?:D
Very. Last week was kinda rough at -13 Celsius but -35 is not uncommon. This week is above feeezing so it’s all over the place.
I own the ef 70-200 2.8 111 have tested it on 90D 6D m2 r7 r5 r5M2 my new rf 70-200 Z is much sharper and focus is 10 times faster much more accurate. if you compare them side buy side the the difference for birds in flight is tremendous .
That’s a frosty stache, Chris.
Please give us a real video about teleconverters... 😢
"Z series". Who's the marketing genius at Canon naming a series of lenses like this when Nikon has a Z series cameras 🙄.
I would only buy one of these purely for the weather sealing - i have teleconvertes but don't use them because of the losses.
What is with Canon charging $3000 for a new lens?!
Photography is just my hobby and I am not a millionaire. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether it's the old or the new version. Both are too expensive just for fun. I really miss a 70-200 2.8 in the 1000-1500 range...
I wish they would have made a 70-200 F2 and a 105-300 F2.8
Let's face it if you are a videographer and use the Z line of lenses then you have a 24-105 so why the overlap and if you are a photographer then you probably picked up the 28-70 F2.
That is one expensive 70-200mm.
Why haven't you reviewed the canon rf 200-800mm yet?
I guess the "ever so slightlys" added up to much for me. I have the previous model, and I just cannot justify another 3k on a lens that has ever so slightly in front of so many issues. I wonder about the utility.
Why would Canon put a Z in their name now that Nikon is designating their mirrorless line with Z. Seems idiotic.
Because of the external Powerzoom accessory, Z for Zoom. Sony uses PZ for a similar feature. What else should they call it?
I own the lens and one thing that is a standout feature for closer sports shooting is the short throw of the zoom ring from 70-200mm. It’s maybe a 1/3 of a rotation and smoooooth. It’s much better than the original due to not having to extend the lens. Also, not mentioned much by anyone, the cheaper, smaller, and lighter RF 70-200/4L version of the original design is an excellent travel lens if you don’t absolutely have to have f2.8. 🤷🏻♂️
nasty dirty bokeh and very clinical rendering for 3k, hard pass Canon!
The prices of the new RF lenses, have me shopping for EF glass. No compelling reason to replace the current EF 70 to 200 f2.8.
That poor focus chart 😭 what a workhorse even when scratched up
Yah it’s taken some abuse with all the moving and construction.
Welcome to USA as the new 51st State! On our way to Siberia as 52!
"benefits from stopping down a little bit". 2.8 to 5.6 isn't "a little bit".
Also I feel like you've mentioned teleconverters in this single video more times than in previous 5 years combined. Since when such interest?
It's all in the eye of the beholder to be honest. Two stops may quadruple the light but it's still just 2 stops and 2 is not a lot. Consider that Chris started in an era where control over stops (film speed, aperture, shutter) was limited to whole stops not third or half as we've had with digital and "command dial era" of film/digital cameras.
As far as the interest in teleconverters it's because the previous version couldn't accept them given its design. It was the only 2.8 70-200 lens in the RF lineup, a trinity/staple lens. Even going back to the old EF system the 70-200 USM 1, 2, and 3 accepted teleconverters. It meant that a photographer could throw the equivalent of two tiny lenses into their bag along with f/4 14-30, 24-105/120, and 70-200 and reach up to 400mm at f/8 or 280 f/5.6. Effectively covering the entire gamut a photographer might shoot in a day. In short it only became a big deal because of its exclusion thus far in the RF lineup. There was no such restriction on the Nikon and Sony front.
And yes not all people shoot with a teleconverter and they are limited as to what lenses they attached to, but once you own one it really opens up what you can do in the tele space.
@@ElGrecoDaGeekThank you for providing very well written context and common sense. I appreciate it.
As seemingly practical as teleconverters are, I've NEVER seen one being used in the field. I own the EF 1.4x that I purchased with my EF 300mm II f2/8 L and rarely use it. I own the RF 100-500 which takes a TC with restrictions. Not interested. And yes, I own the RF 70-200. Never considered a TC for it, but I can see it being somewhat useful.
Misleading title. But BTW I haven't even mounted my Nikon TC1.7 for 3-4 years. There's a reason they're called "cheaters".
Everything Canon does is $3000.
Seems a bit nippy out eh?
That z in the name has no place in canon's vocabulary 😂
Am I the only one that thought this was a video about Z mount teleconverters?
I find it hilarious that this is still HALF weight of a Noct.
Lol Z, They caught up to the Nikon Z 70-200.
It’s still awful that Cannon has so few options at each lens level. Even with two now feature limit forces, you to the more expensive new just because of teleconverters. They still makes it worthwhile to not have Canon. As others have said, your title emphasize teleconverters, but you barely touched on themand that was disappointing.
could you compare it to the sony GMii? im not really convinced this lens performs as well as its price tag
I think my 70/200 2.8 from Nikon was $2100....
Jesus christ canon is really trying to see how long brand loyalty and the recognition can get them while spitting their users straight between the eyes
It's a 'Video Lens', for photography, buy the cheaper one.
Two 70-200 2.8 and no 85 1.4 😞
Exactly!!! I've got cash earmarked ( and the 85mm f2 to sell) for the day it's released.
I see no sense in buying new 70-200 because of bigger size.
Looks like a fantastic lens but boy does Canon ever like to squeeze every dollar out of your wallet. As a Nikon user, makes me glad for the options I have.
While I shot Canon for 20 years, I switch to Nikon back in 2016. In any case I may have not been paying that much attention but this Z series seems like an odd choice given the Nikon Z mirrorless system naming. You'd expect that within the camera industry, especially this tightly related, Canon would have gone with some other nomenclature for these hybrid lenses.
The internal zoom alone is worth the upgrade.
The only thing I heard about the original, like it's f/4 kin, was how "small and compact" it was.
The caption has too many mistakes that somewhat impede understanding. It seems that there is a new caption guy that is not very good at doing his job.
It's probably automatic, hence the mistakes
No... Older EF is 90% lens of this at thr third of value
what the hell is that price
Or just buy a 70-200 2.8 IS II for 99% the same IQ, better ergonomics compared to the basic RF and 1/3 of the price
Nope.
Chris sounds a little sloshed on this one.
I’m sloshed right now! I wasn’t at the time of making this video.
@@niccollsvideo Ah yes, hopefully you've been enjoying some fine Molson brau.
Day 2.284 asking Canon for 3rd party FF lens
Before we buy a $3K lens, we'd like to know how bad the distortion looks without in-camera digital correction. Can't believe it's taking so long for TH-cam to give us the answer.
The lens is designed to be used with digital corrections, there would be no point testing it with them off since you wouldn't use it like that anyway. It would be like taking an element out of the lens and complaining that the pictures are blurry.
@@Skux720 Lol. I found the answer on the Digital-Picture website. It is very well corrected and I will use it mostly without correction. And if correction, manual correction.
@@Skux720 not really, for example in my astro workflow, I can't use the corrections with my stacking workflow (or it at least makes that process a lot more complicated). Furthermore, digital corrections *are* real photo degradation. Even if your eye can't quickly pick that up in the final result, losing 3 stops of DR in the corners is pretty brutal, same with some of the distortion corrections these days.
And the vignette.
Se ve que hace frío
1 word:
Badly over priced