with the Stabilization modes 1- Pretty much use all scenario -- BUT it's going to try and smooth out the shake in a given direction. It's not going to be a problem in most cases though. 2- Panning. Stabilizer will not try to correct up and down, but only left and right. If you're following say... a train... or a surfer... or a tennis player... baseball player... you know they're going to move from the left to the right of the frame. This is especially apparent if you're doing video work. You'll see stutters up and down when following someone moving horizontally because the lens was expecting you to continue moving it up (or down). Think of this more like Horizontal Only mode. 3- Sudden corrections -- This is for shooting something like sports where a player could move in any direction at any point in time. Jump...run... etc. Think Basketball. The image stabilizer won't try to stray too far from the center in case it needs to make a quick correction in the opposite direction. Not recommended for low light.
I recently learned this on Safari. 1= subject unlikely to move 2= Vehicle/panning 3= wildlife/active subject. You can also think of it as mode 2 being 2D movement and mode 3 being 3D movement
I have all 3 too along with the RF 50 1.2. I would agree I pull the 70-200 or 50 out for portrait and both are outstanding. I am still considering 28-70 maybe to replace 24-70 as I have found the odd issue in poor light with focusing on the R6 and RF24-70, I think it’s the lense as not familiar with the issues with other lenses but again I use 24-70 mostly. Now I am talking about dark poor lighting conditions but still an issue I am finding which has surprised me. My old Nikon D850 and 24-70VR would have captured these while R6 and 24-70 is hesitant. I think the 28-70 with the wider aperture might grab focus in these situations better as I know R6 can go to minus -6.5 focusing with a 1.2 so imagine 2.0 would be better than 2.8 for this..
@@KevinJRegan I've got the 50 1.2 also, that lens is nearly always on my R5. I use the 24-70 mostly on my R6 and haven't noticed any focus issues in low light, fortunately.
@@tbgtom good to hear you haven’t had issues, I do love the 24-70 though so may do more checks before I do anything as it could have been just an odd occasion which isn’t frequent enough to make a change over it and the weight of the 28-70 may be a pain over time. Nice duo you have there with the R5 and R6! Happy shooting 📷
Great video Steven, for the 70-200 stabilization modes. I was having the same questions. What I found is that for photos I just stick to 1, 2-3 seems to smooth out pans more so if you are tracking a car or animal it might be a better option. For video it works completely differently. I found that when you change your camera (in my case the r3) to video, the behavior of the 1-3 switch changes to a form of strength of stabilization, 1 being the weakest and 3 being the strongest. So I find myself switching between photo and video mode having to switch between 1 and 3. Hope this helps. If you have time to make a video about it and some tests to shed the light on this quirk, I think a lot of people that don’t have the time to play around with it would appreciate it. Thanks again. New Sub.
I've got the same Trinity with a newly purchased Meike 35mm FF, just to have a Full Frame option for my C70's and an EOSr for stills. The Rf24-70 is my favorite. If I'm packing small... that's the one.
70-200 2.8 3 modes of stability. First is all around stability.. generally 1 does it.. 2nd mode Is for tripod & a panning motion only niche people would use it. 3rd is for photographers where as you look at things it's not stabilized, until you take the picture.. then, it's stabilized. For most people, 1st mode is fine.
At 8:36, I really don't get what is so complicated about the modes on the 70-200... They have been around for ages on all Canon tele lenses (at least modes 1 and 2) and they are very well explained in the manual, even with pictures and examples on page 11: Mode 1 --> Still subjects Mode 2 --> Panning mode if you want to track subjects moving constantly in one direction (e.g. a train, bike, car) Mode 3 --> Panning mode for irregularly moving objects (e.g. soccer, basketball, etc.) From my experience with this lens (and its predecessors), it is really important to change the modes accordingly. Otherwise, the picture in the viewfinder "jumps" somtimes, since it tries to correct your hand movement even though you just want to follow a moving subject.
The 24-70 f/2.8 is still my go to for one lens indoor events and is now my main lens for shooting in the studio. Just doesn’t get out for those epic portraits or product photography shoots outdoors.
Since you own/ brought up how under-rated the RF F4 24-105mm L is, may I inquire as to why you would pick up the 24-70mm also? Isn't it *redundant* to pick up two lenses of similar reach just because one has a wider aperture? Aside the depth of field and lower light capability, is the 24-70mm *sharper* in your experience to point that it's worth paying an extra $2000 for it?
It is redundant but as my wife and I both shoot on the RF system we have some redundancy to allow us to be able to cover that mid-range when we both need to work there. And I have a video in the works that has the 24-105, 28-70, 24-70, 50 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.2 coming soon. Will be diving deeper there with examples and shared experience on what to look for in each lens. Thank you for sharing your note and my best to you!
Great video! I have EF 24-70 f2.8, EF 16-35 f2.8 with one adapter with control ring, RF 35 f1.8 and RF70-200 f4. I think it works for my budget and photography hobby. I'm slowly transitioning into RF glass. Love the weightlessness and compactness of the RF70-200 f4, especially when i'm traveling. Now I bring the RF70-200 f4 with my 35mm f1.8 for travel.
honestly, if you're really a creative photographer you're pretty fine with 24-70 mm 2.8. I bought it one year ago and I love it the best lens Canon ever created. You can do anything with it.
First, thank you for the video. I own this trinity as well and didn’t notice the missing lock. The control ring placement is an issue since I use an two control ring adapters for my EF 35/1.4L II and EF 85/1.4L IS. So four lenses with it in the close to the end and three lenses with close to the mount. Filter size mismatch I got used to with both EF L trinity and with Sony GM f/2.8 trinity.
I’ve got 2/3 of the f4 trinity. Hoping to pick up the 14-35 this weekend. I love that the 24-105 and 70-200 are more or less identical in the overall size and layout. The 70-200 is a bit longer but they feel remarkably consistent. The 14-35 looks like it’s followed suit, but I’m looking forward to actually getting my hands on it. Love that it’s 77mm thread size throughout. I would love to have the 2.8 aperture range but for my needs, the intentional feeling of similar design/layout is kind of more appealing… it makes the each lens in the 2.8 lineup feel more like an afterthought. Which is just weird. Great video 👍
The fact that the whole RF f4 trinity is L series and image stabilized and consistent thread mounts all the way through does make it a super compelling option especially when you can take all the money you save from the f/2.8 and buy incredible primes at your favorite focal length when your ready. Great note! Thank you for sharing and my best to you!
Hi I’m hoping you can help me out a bit with my decision. I’m looking to get the 70-200 F4 or the F2.8 version but having a hard time justifying the additional expense of the F2.8. I would be taking photos of my son in indoor recreation center and arena environments along with outdoor forest trails and general toddler sports. I don’t think there will be much of a subject separation difference between the 2 aperture’s since he would be like 30+ feet away on a field or gymnasium type thing. I understand that most of these areas are lower light environments but hoping I can still justify the F4 version. Any thoughts on your experience would be appreciated. I am using the Canon R6 for family/friends photos and videos. I currently have the EF24-70 F4 and if I get the 70-200 F4 then maybe I can put some money towards the cost of the RF 24-70 F2.8 since most of my photos are in houses and they are almost always poor lighting conditions lol. Don’t like using flash with toddlers and like the zoom for toddlers because they move so much. Thanks.
@@kore996 I’d even look at the Rf 100-400. It’s not L series but it does have IS and is half the price of the 70-200mm f/4. I wouldn’t purchase the 70-20m f/2.8 unless you’re doing paid work. Hope that helps and my best to you!
@@_stevenfoster unfortunately the RF 100-400 is variable aperture and I know that won’t work for my needs but if I was doing outdoor stuff only then I think you’re right and that would work great for the price. Thanks for your time!
I usually use Stabilizer mode 1 for single shot situations where my subject is stationary. Mode 2 is supposed to be better for continuous tracking shots like if you're following a bird panning the lens left and right. I almost never use mode 3.
I have the 14-35 f/4.0 rather than the 15-35, and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4.0. I find the control ring to be an interesting feature. I found on the 70-200 f/2.8, that if I am going handheld, you can leave the tripod mount on the lens, and use it as a support to hold the camera. I then slide my thumb up and I can then rotate the control ring from that hold. This allows me to have a really compact hold on the lens and camera, while at the same time, not having to break the hold to go adjust the control ring at the end of the camera. Why have the f/4.0 and 2.8 versions? Well, there are times when I am indoors and I need the extra stop of light. The f/2.8 works great in that environment. Now try lugging the f/2.8 to a family outing at the zoo, while having it hanging from a shoulder bag, or with a camera strap around your neck. It is a workout. The f/4.0 was infinitely easier to lug around. I wound up getting a good deal on both lenses with the recent Canon sales. Yeah, I know that the newer versions with internal zooming are coming out, but I really like the compact size of the current shipping models. Regarding the 14-35 f/4.0 having some vignetting issues at 14 mm, both the R6 Mark II and R5 Mark II have internal adjustments for the vignetting. I see none on the JPEG preview if I take a 14 mm shot. When I take the RAW image into LR, I have the lens adjustments set up, and I do not get the vignetting with my final output. I am still debating the 24-70 mm f/2.8 vs the 28-70 mm f/2.0 issue. At 3.15 pounds, I am just not sure I want to lug a boat anchor around for the minimal effect I will get from that slightly more light, when the ISO performance of the R5/6 Mark II is so darn good. The 28-70 also lacks image stabilization, which, although not a deal buster, gives me slight pause. The whole weight thing is interesting. I believe there is a point where there is an optimal weight where the extra weight helps dampen the effect of your natural pulsations, and muscle activity, and a variable point where the extra weight causes so much muscle strain that the muscle fibers start to fatigue, causing issues with your hold. In the end, the picture that is seen is the only litmus test of the photographer, camera, and lens. I am going out on a limb, but I have never had one person ever say to me, "Gosh, I wish you had taken this picture at f/2.0 rather than f/2.8.
Mode 1 is for normal stablisation but other modes are for panning shots, you can move the camera sideways to follow subject and the other mode, I am forgetting now ..
Great video man… But I personally don’t think any of your points were quirks save for the extender issue… Your point all seem like personal preferences rather than defects with the lenses..
I agree with you none of these are defects but they are preferences that I think would make the line feel more consistent when using all three lenses. thanks for your note and my best to you!
The opposite turn is probably for people like wedding photographers if you have both lenses on your cameras. They are very similar so maybe it’s a way to tell which lens your using?? Just my guess haha
I have the 15-35 F2.8L, but I never really had the muscle memory problem with the zooming - maybe I just don't care :P And the lock button... why would it matter? Is it important to know which length it capture at, just look through the EVF and see if it looks good or not.. am I missing something hih, if the lock would lock multiple stages, like at 15, 24, 35 I would see maybe a slight use? Seems so less important despite the lens is absolutely gorgeous.
I was just on a small shoot Friday with the 70-200 where I did exactly this. Spun from 200 to what I thought was back to 70 only to discover I was between 100 and 135.
I have exactly the same issue with the RF 70-200mm. I prefer the way my old EF 70-200mm was. My other issue is the control ring is close to the body, where all the other lenses have the control ring out toward the end of the lens. Ergonomics are better on the RF 70-200mm f/4L, but I don't want f/4, and that lens doesn't have a tripod collar.
Had the 24-70 2.8 dumped it for the 24-105 2.8, yeah pricey but for event its awesome that extra reach helps a lot. I consider it the new Trinty. Trinty 2.0 LOL Doing more portraiture for spring and summer might get that 85 1.2 since it's still the bokeh king.
if the zoom range would work in opposite direction on different lenses… that's be just bad. I have a hard time whenever I use vintage lenses that focuses in the opposite direction than the one I'm used to. Zoom would be even worse.
Hi Steven good review. None of your niggles about the lenses seem really important Except the Sun hood/ filter issue and the non compatibility of the 70-200 with teleconverters. I guess they thought is was a great trade off for weight and usability but that’s debatable. The new Sony 70-200 2.8 GM is so godsmacking good that with the 2x converter it’s just as sharp as their 100-400. That’s simply amazing to me and trumps all other considerations. I read the Canon 70-200 is an engineering masterpiece, but no teleconverter? I guess they figured they could please more customers than piss off others…you tell me. Thanks.😊
I really wish they had made it compatible with the tele converter. Really annoying to pay this much for the lens and not be able to get the benefit of the Tele converter.
I so wish these were all my problems with those lenses. My problem with them are the prices. Each of them costs about 4 thousand dollars in Brazil. The 70-200 costs almost 5,000 dollars. For me, this is the worst part.
Can someone help me out? I currently own a Canon RF 24-105 f4 for my EOS R. I enjoy doing portraits,artsy photography, and want to get into sports photography, landscapes/and capture things such as the Eiffel Tower when I travel. Should I save up for the RF 70-200 2.8 or sell my 24-105 to put it towards the 70-200? I’m really not sure but it also feels like I’d get better quality with the 70-200 and better low light pics. Again I’m really not sure and would like to hear anyone’s opinion.
Consider renting first. Especially if you don’t know what angles you’ll be shooting something like the Eiffel Tower from. Sports photography can be one of the most difficult and expensive types of photography. Here I would push what you can do with the R and the 24-105mm f/4. Sports photography usually will happen in the day with decent lighting or will be well lit by stadium lights at night. You don’t need that wider aperture to get a great shot. Be your own best teacher and work on one piece at a time. Constantly finding yourself cropping shots a 105? invest in a longer focal length. Shooting a lot of low light shots? Look at wider aperture options. I would recommend to all Canon Mirrorless shooters to keep that 24-105 f4 in their kit. It’s such an incredible base line and I always come back to it when I think I need another lens. If you’re in doubt, shoot more with what you have and push those limits. Hope that helps you! Thank you for leaving this note and I hope your travels and photography are a wonderful journey for you!
I use the RF 24-105 almost exclusively as my workhorse, everyday shooting. Gives me a quick zoom for cropping the whole scenario, and is an excellent overall lens. I use the 70-200 for more creative shots and yes: it's great for doing portraits as well. And I like the compression it gives in a long shot. Keep the 24-105 (my suggestion) and eventually save for the RF70-200. It's a great addition to your arsenal of fantastic lenses.
I just purchased all three of these and if you didn’t mention it I never would have noticed the direction change on the 15-35 lol Regarding the 70-200 , I hate the off white colour and would prefer black like everyone else Watching the rest of the video you make a great point regarding the 77mm . I thought that was kind of strange seeing as the other two were 82? Now I need two different diameters of polarizers etc
with the Stabilization modes
1- Pretty much use all scenario -- BUT it's going to try and smooth out the shake in a given direction. It's not going to be a problem in most cases though.
2- Panning. Stabilizer will not try to correct up and down, but only left and right. If you're following say... a train... or a surfer... or a tennis player... baseball player... you know they're going to move from the left to the right of the frame. This is especially apparent if you're doing video work. You'll see stutters up and down when following someone moving horizontally because the lens was expecting you to continue moving it up (or down). Think of this more like Horizontal Only mode.
3- Sudden corrections -- This is for shooting something like sports where a player could move in any direction at any point in time. Jump...run... etc. Think Basketball. The image stabilizer won't try to stray too far from the center in case it needs to make a quick correction in the opposite direction. Not recommended for low light.
This is Gold.
That is pretty much the explanation also given by the manual. I just always forget which mode was for which scenario.
You’re a hero, homie ✊🏽
This is awesome, own this lense for a year now and couldn't figure it out.
I recently learned this on Safari. 1= subject unlikely to move 2= Vehicle/panning 3= wildlife/active subject.
You can also think of it as mode 2 being 2D movement and mode 3 being 3D movement
Cost a Trinity too. 1. Arm 2. Leg 3. First born
I have all three of these... they are equally great, but the 70-200 is outstanding. I use it as a portrait lens many times, stunning results.
I have all 3 too along with the RF 50 1.2. I would agree I pull the 70-200 or 50 out for portrait and both are outstanding. I am still considering 28-70 maybe to replace 24-70 as I have found the odd issue in poor light with focusing on the R6 and RF24-70, I think it’s the lense as not familiar with the issues with other lenses but again I use 24-70 mostly. Now I am talking about dark poor lighting conditions but still an issue I am finding which has surprised me. My old Nikon D850 and 24-70VR would have captured these while R6 and 24-70 is hesitant. I think the 28-70 with the wider aperture might grab focus in these situations better as I know R6 can go to minus -6.5 focusing with a 1.2 so imagine 2.0 would be better than 2.8 for this..
@@KevinJRegan I've got the 50 1.2 also, that lens is nearly always on my R5. I use the 24-70 mostly on my R6 and haven't noticed any focus issues in low light, fortunately.
@@tbgtom good to hear you haven’t had issues, I do love the 24-70 though so may do more checks before I do anything as it could have been just an odd occasion which isn’t frequent enough to make a change over it and the weight of the 28-70 may be a pain over time. Nice duo you have there with the R5 and R6! Happy shooting 📷
I agree.
+1
Played with all 3 today plus the 28-70, The 28-70 is soooo heavy and the 70-200 is very light. Loved them all.
Great video Steven, for the 70-200 stabilization modes. I was having the same questions. What I found is that for photos I just stick to 1, 2-3 seems to smooth out pans more so if you are tracking a car or animal it might be a better option. For video it works completely differently. I found that when you change your camera (in my case the r3) to video, the behavior of the 1-3 switch changes to a form of strength of stabilization, 1 being the weakest and 3 being the strongest. So I find myself switching between photo and video mode having to switch between 1 and 3. Hope this helps. If you have time to make a video about it and some tests to shed the light on this quirk, I think a lot of people that don’t have the time to play around with it would appreciate it. Thanks again. New Sub.
I've got the same Trinity with a newly purchased Meike 35mm FF, just to have a Full Frame option for my C70's and an EOSr for stills. The Rf24-70 is my favorite. If I'm packing small... that's the one.
70-200 2.8 3 modes of stability.
First is all around stability.. generally 1 does it.. 2nd mode Is for tripod & a panning motion only niche people would use it.
3rd is for photographers where as you look at things it's not stabilized, until you take the picture.. then, it's stabilized.
For most people, 1st mode is fine.
At 8:36, I really don't get what is so complicated about the modes on the 70-200... They have been around for ages on all Canon tele lenses (at least modes 1 and 2) and they are very well explained in the manual, even with pictures and examples on page 11:
Mode 1 --> Still subjects
Mode 2 --> Panning mode if you want to track subjects moving constantly in one direction (e.g. a train, bike, car)
Mode 3 --> Panning mode for irregularly moving objects (e.g. soccer, basketball, etc.)
From my experience with this lens (and its predecessors), it is really important to change the modes accordingly. Otherwise, the picture in the viewfinder "jumps" somtimes, since it tries to correct your hand movement even though you just want to follow a moving subject.
Thanks for the explanation. I’ve kept mine in mode 1 but I’ll look at changing if I’m planning 👍
Didn’t think about a couple of these mostly because they don’t apply to me, but interesting points about them as a set of lenses. Thanks for sharing!
owning the 50mm F1.2 do you think you will even carry the 24-70 with you? or phase it out?
The 24-70 f/2.8 is still my go to for one lens indoor events and is now my main lens for shooting in the studio. Just doesn’t get out for those epic portraits or product photography shoots outdoors.
Great Video! Exactly the video I was looking for - Cheers Mate!
Since you own/ brought up how under-rated the RF F4 24-105mm L is, may I inquire as to why you would pick up the 24-70mm also? Isn't it *redundant* to pick up two lenses of similar reach just because one has a wider aperture? Aside the depth of field and lower light capability, is the 24-70mm *sharper* in your experience to point that it's worth paying an extra $2000 for it?
It is redundant but as my wife and I both shoot on the RF system we have some redundancy to allow us to be able to cover that mid-range when we both need to work there.
And I have a video in the works that has the 24-105, 28-70, 24-70, 50 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.2 coming soon. Will be diving deeper there with examples and shared experience on what to look for in each lens.
Thank you for sharing your note and my best to you!
@@Wellin220365 Why so salty, bro? Who hurt you?
Great video! I have EF 24-70 f2.8, EF 16-35 f2.8 with one adapter with control ring, RF 35 f1.8 and RF70-200 f4. I think it works for my budget and photography hobby. I'm slowly transitioning into RF glass. Love the weightlessness and compactness of the RF70-200 f4, especially when i'm traveling. Now I bring the RF70-200 f4 with my 35mm f1.8 for travel.
honestly, if you're really a creative photographer you're pretty fine with 24-70 mm 2.8. I bought it one year ago and I love it the best lens Canon ever created. You can do anything with it.
I sold my 50mm 1.2 for the 24-70 2.8
Is the 50 1.2 sharper then the 24-70 i mean can you se diffrence?
First, thank you for the video. I own this trinity as well and didn’t notice the missing lock. The control ring placement is an issue since I use an two control ring adapters for my EF 35/1.4L II and EF 85/1.4L IS. So four lenses with it in the close to the end and three lenses with close to the mount. Filter size mismatch I got used to with both EF L trinity and with Sony GM f/2.8 trinity.
I’ve got 2/3 of the f4 trinity. Hoping to pick up the 14-35 this weekend. I love that the 24-105 and 70-200 are more or less identical in the overall size and layout. The 70-200 is a bit longer but they feel remarkably consistent.
The 14-35 looks like it’s followed suit, but I’m looking forward to actually getting my hands on it. Love that it’s 77mm thread size throughout.
I would love to have the 2.8 aperture range but for my needs, the intentional feeling of similar design/layout is kind of more appealing… it makes the each lens in the 2.8 lineup feel more like an afterthought. Which is just weird.
Great video 👍
The fact that the whole RF f4 trinity is L series and image stabilized and consistent thread mounts all the way through does make it a super compelling option especially when you can take all the money you save from the f/2.8 and buy incredible primes at your favorite focal length when your ready. Great note! Thank you for sharing and my best to you!
Hi I’m hoping you can help me out a bit with my decision. I’m looking to get the 70-200 F4 or the F2.8 version but having a hard time justifying the additional expense of the F2.8. I would be taking photos of my son in indoor recreation center and arena environments along with outdoor forest trails and general toddler sports. I don’t think there will be much of a subject separation difference between the 2 aperture’s since he would be like 30+ feet away on a field or gymnasium type thing. I understand that most of these areas are lower light environments but hoping I can still justify the F4 version. Any thoughts on your experience would be appreciated.
I am using the Canon R6 for family/friends photos and videos.
I currently have the EF24-70 F4 and if I get the 70-200 F4 then maybe I can put some money towards the cost of the RF 24-70 F2.8 since most of my photos are in houses and they are almost always poor lighting conditions lol. Don’t like using flash with toddlers and like the zoom for toddlers because they move so much.
Thanks.
@@kore996 I’d even look at the Rf 100-400. It’s not L series but it does have IS and is half the price of the 70-200mm f/4. I wouldn’t purchase the 70-20m f/2.8 unless you’re doing paid work. Hope that helps and my best to you!
@@_stevenfoster unfortunately the RF 100-400 is variable aperture and I know that won’t work for my needs but if I was doing outdoor stuff only then I think you’re right and that would work great for the price. Thanks for your time!
I usually use Stabilizer mode 1 for single shot situations where my subject is stationary. Mode 2 is supposed to be better for continuous tracking shots like if you're following a bird panning the lens left and right. I almost never use mode 3.
That lens hood is weirdly the price of a battery. Learned that the hard way...😅
I have the 14-35 f/4.0 rather than the 15-35, and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4.0. I find the control ring to be an interesting feature. I found on the 70-200 f/2.8, that if I am going handheld, you can leave the tripod mount on the lens, and use it as a support to hold the camera. I then slide my thumb up and I can then rotate the control ring from that hold. This allows me to have a really compact hold on the lens and camera, while at the same time, not having to break the hold to go adjust the control ring at the end of the camera.
Why have the f/4.0 and 2.8 versions? Well, there are times when I am indoors and I need the extra stop of light. The f/2.8 works great in that environment. Now try lugging the f/2.8 to a family outing at the zoo, while having it hanging from a shoulder bag, or with a camera strap around your neck. It is a workout. The f/4.0 was infinitely easier to lug around. I wound up getting a good deal on both lenses with the recent Canon sales. Yeah, I know that the newer versions with internal zooming are coming out, but I really like the compact size of the current shipping models.
Regarding the 14-35 f/4.0 having some vignetting issues at 14 mm, both the R6 Mark II and R5 Mark II have internal adjustments for the vignetting. I see none on the JPEG preview if I take a 14 mm shot. When I take the RAW image into LR, I have the lens adjustments set up, and I do not get the vignetting with my final output.
I am still debating the 24-70 mm f/2.8 vs the 28-70 mm f/2.0 issue. At 3.15 pounds, I am just not sure I want to lug a boat anchor around for the minimal effect I will get from that slightly more light, when the ISO performance of the R5/6 Mark II is so darn good. The 28-70 also lacks image stabilization, which, although not a deal buster, gives me slight pause. The whole weight thing is interesting. I believe there is a point where there is an optimal weight where the extra weight helps dampen the effect of your natural pulsations, and muscle activity, and a variable point where the extra weight causes so much muscle strain that the muscle fibers start to fatigue, causing issues with your hold.
In the end, the picture that is seen is the only litmus test of the photographer, camera, and lens. I am going out on a limb, but I have never had one person ever say to me, "Gosh, I wish you had taken this picture at f/2.0 rather than f/2.8.
You have to put the filter on after you put the hood on for the 70-200. Its weird but it works. That’s what I saw on I think Jared Polin’s vid.
For documentary/vlog content, I also like to take pictures to pair with the r5c. What lens would you recommend, 15-35 or 24-70
I’d be using the 15-35. I usually vlog at 20mm and then shoot most stuff at 35mm.
Mode 1 is for normal stablisation but other modes are for panning shots, you can move the camera sideways to follow subject and the other mode, I am forgetting now ..
Great video man… But I personally don’t think any of your points were quirks save for the extender issue… Your point all seem like personal preferences rather than defects with the lenses..
I agree with you none of these are defects but they are preferences that I think would make the line feel more consistent when using all three lenses. thanks for your note and my best to you!
The opposite turn is probably for people like wedding photographers if you have both lenses on your cameras. They are very similar so maybe it’s a way to tell which lens your using?? Just my guess haha
Great vid, thanks for sharing!
Astrophotography, street photography, architectural photography, landscape photography…the usual Trinity is for me!
I have the 15-35 F2.8L, but I never really had the muscle memory problem with the zooming - maybe I just don't care :P And the lock button... why would it matter? Is it important to know which length it capture at, just look through the EVF and see if it looks good or not.. am I missing something hih, if the lock would lock multiple stages, like at 15, 24, 35 I would see maybe a slight use? Seems so less important despite the lens is absolutely gorgeous.
70-200 quirk - need to spin zoom ring 2twice for full range.
I was just on a small shoot Friday with the 70-200 where I did exactly this. Spun from 200 to what I thought was back to 70 only to discover I was between 100 and 135.
I have exactly the same issue with the RF 70-200mm. I prefer the way my old EF 70-200mm was.
My other issue is the control ring is close to the body, where all the other lenses have the control ring out toward the end of the lens.
Ergonomics are better on the RF 70-200mm f/4L, but I don't want f/4, and that lens doesn't have a tripod collar.
the 28-70 f2 has the same amount of stabilization as the 24-70 f2.8 when used with any RF body with IBIS
I agree with you about the filter size. Why did canon do that?
I only have the 70-200 and the 15-35 f 2.8. I don’t think I’ll get the 24-70. I have the 50mm 1.2 so I guess I have my own trinity.
This is the trinity i have been carrying now to most of my professional work over the past 6 months. So good. Thanks for this note and my best to you!
I have the same set up as yours as well. It just feels complete. I just need one more for travel. Looking for 24-105mm f/4.
for mid range zoom lens 28 70 is best. For mid range primes 35mm and 50 and 85mm are best and better than any zoom
Got the rf 70-200 then got ef version for the other two for $800 bucks total
Had the 24-70 2.8 dumped it for the 24-105 2.8, yeah pricey but for event its awesome that extra reach helps a lot. I consider it the new Trinty. Trinty 2.0 LOL Doing more portraiture for spring and summer might get that 85 1.2 since it's still the bokeh king.
70-200 - IS 1 - normal. IS 2 panning, IS 3, rarely used, not IS until you take the photo.
if the zoom range would work in opposite direction on different lenses… that's be just bad. I have a hard time whenever I use vintage lenses that focuses in the opposite direction than the one I'm used to. Zoom would be even worse.
Very nice video!
Thanks Keith!
Hi Steven good review. None of your niggles about the lenses seem really important Except the Sun hood/ filter issue and the non compatibility of the 70-200 with teleconverters. I guess they thought is was a great trade off for weight and usability but that’s debatable. The new Sony 70-200 2.8 GM is so godsmacking good that with the 2x converter it’s just as sharp as their 100-400. That’s simply amazing to me and trumps all other considerations. I read the Canon 70-200 is an engineering masterpiece, but no teleconverter? I guess they figured they could please more customers than piss off others…you tell me. Thanks.😊
I really wish they had made it compatible with the tele converter. Really annoying to pay this much for the lens and not be able to get the benefit of the Tele converter.
I so wish these were all my problems with those lenses.
My problem with them are the prices. Each of them costs about 4 thousand dollars in Brazil. The 70-200 costs almost 5,000 dollars. For me, this is the worst part.
Can someone help me out?
I currently own a Canon RF 24-105 f4 for my EOS R. I enjoy doing portraits,artsy photography, and want to get into sports photography, landscapes/and capture things such as the Eiffel Tower when I travel. Should I save up for the RF 70-200 2.8 or sell my 24-105 to put it towards the 70-200? I’m really not sure but it also feels like I’d get better quality with the 70-200 and better low light pics. Again I’m really not sure and would like to hear anyone’s opinion.
Consider renting first. Especially if you don’t know what angles you’ll be shooting something like the Eiffel Tower from. Sports photography can be one of the most difficult and expensive types of photography. Here I would push what you can do with the R and the 24-105mm f/4. Sports photography usually will happen in the day with decent lighting or will be well lit by stadium lights at night. You don’t need that wider aperture to get a great shot. Be your own best teacher and work on one piece at a time. Constantly finding yourself cropping shots a 105? invest in a longer focal length. Shooting a lot of low light shots? Look at wider aperture options. I would recommend to all Canon Mirrorless shooters to keep that 24-105 f4 in their kit. It’s such an incredible base line and I always come back to it when I think I need another lens. If you’re in doubt, shoot more with what you have and push those limits. Hope that helps you! Thank you for leaving this note and I hope your travels and photography are a wonderful journey for you!
I use the RF 24-105 almost exclusively as my workhorse, everyday shooting. Gives me a quick zoom for cropping the whole scenario, and is an excellent overall lens. I use the 70-200 for more creative shots and yes: it's great for doing portraits as well. And I like the compression it gives in a long shot. Keep the 24-105 (my suggestion) and eventually save for the RF70-200. It's a great addition to your arsenal of fantastic lenses.
@@buckskinboy thanks !
cool video
9:20 Why would I ever get a lens that does not go to 11?
🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼
@@_stevenfoster Btw, great content! Nicely balanced criticism of great lenses 👌🏼
@@helgebrekke much appreciated! thank you!
Brah! These are rich peoples' problems
Makes no sense that the 70-200 is a smaller filer diameter kinda funny you would think it would be bigger if anything
Ruins me every time I have to choose between that hood cutting stray light and my filters cutting down glare.
I just purchased all three of these and if you didn’t mention it I never would have noticed the direction change on the 15-35 lol
Regarding the 70-200 , I hate the off white colour and would prefer black like everyone else
Watching the rest of the video you make a great point regarding the 77mm . I thought that was kind of strange seeing as the other two were 82?
Now I need two different diameters of polarizers etc
And what about auto focus when video recording doesn't it make noise? It seems like no one wants to talk about it hmmmmmm.
First! Hola
¡Bueno Primero!
wow already got a notification crew?
Looks like we just might… So grateful for all of you 🙌🏼