Thanks for doing this. The contrast of the 2.8 version is impressive and this is the first clear demonstration I've seen. The differences are real but pretty subtle, and easily swamped by any number of changes you could make in lighting or post-processing. I'd expect the RF 85/1.2 would be better still and would be my choice for these kinds of crisp studio shots. I picked the f4 version mainly for size/weight reasons. BTW, the TSE 90L has perhaps the most biting contrast of them all. I'd love to see you give it a try some time just so we can see it up as a reference.
Thanks for this video John. You've made the best and more useful side by side I've seen with exactly the topics I need to see compared. I have the R6 and R6 Mk II and at the moment I have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and practically I never use it due to its weight and size. That's why I am deciding the switch to the RF 70-200mm f/4L. I see a small difference in image quality between RF F/4 and f/2.8 in favor of f/2.8. However, perhaps it is a difference that only we photographers can see when we enlarge the photo on screen. The difference in value, weight and size of the f/4 makes me decide that it is the option I am looking for.
Thank you Diego.I wish I still had that EF lens when I made this comparison. In general I can say the the RF lenses blow the EF lenses out of the water. BUT you have me wondering if you would even see the difference between the RF 2.8 and 4 at 24mp.
Thanks for doing this great comparison. I have neither lens but the 2.8 has been on my radar. Now ya got me thinking I can save some money. I’ll see if others have found similar results. I like to shoot low light and have always believed an aperture more appropriate for that is how to go. But here with your tests the difference is quite minor. There is a difference, but you have to take into account how the final images will be used as well. For people who flip through their iPad showing gramma family pictures, the 2.8 would be obviously unnecessary.
I am an amateur photographer and have been struggling over the choice here myself, so your interesting review is timely. I do not shoot in a studio, so the weight of these lens is a real issue. I think your review has decided me to go for the lighter F4.
I think what we are seeing is better micro contrast and highlight control on the F2.8 lens. Would not be enough for me to buy the F2.8 if I was moving to RF mount/camera.
great in detailed video, love the way you explained it. Honestly I'm deciding between the f4 and 2.8, i had the ef version mk2 and it worked amazing on my r6. not even too sure why i sold it. so a few days ago, borrowed my friend's ef f4 is and shots were amazing, i love this length for my boys candid photos. The sharpness was great, im sure if i did side by side and 200% i 'might' notice a difference, but like you said, at print and web sizes, does it really matter. In the end, psychology wise, ill probably get the rf 2.8, but the f4 is more than enough for my needs
@JohnGress oh now that would be quite interesting, making me regret selling my ef mk2 2.8 even more. I have thr rf 85 1.2 and I think combine with thr 70 to 200 f4 itll be great. But I feel if I get the f2.8, I'll probably not use my 85 as much. Ah, first world problems, gotta love it
hey john, very well done comparison of the lenses, you are a well organised person. 1 question i have for you, is the the focusing point sticking to subject and focusing speed of both the lenses are similar or is there a difference? price difference is not justified i feel
Thanks Kiran! I didn't test that but I have never noticed an AF performance difference between any of my RF lenses. Maybe it would be different if I shot sports or events.
Thanks for pointing me towards this comparison video from your other. I'm always impressed when a content creator responds quick to questions. This definitely comes down to a subjective choice in lens and that is why I will be renting both. Weight and ease of use will play a factor too and not just sharpness or shallow depth of field. For the cost of the F4 it's tempting to get the EF 2.8 III if I can get past the bulky and weight of the lens. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on these two lenses for a week. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing you do a comparison in sharpness (quality) of the RF 85 1.2 and the F4 or F2.8 at their common F-Stop.
I hope the videos helped! I love the form factor of the RF4. I don't know if I said it in this video but I always think of it as a can of pop. After decades of a 70-200 taking up a huge a mount of space in my bag I am really happy that I can store it underneath my camera. I just added the 85 / 70-200 comparrison to my list. Its actually something I need to know for myself. I am also wondering if the 28-70 f2 at 70 is better at 70mm than the 70-200 at 70.
The other monkey wrench you can throw in is the 24-105 RF. I owned the EF Mark I version a decade ago and loved it for walk around work, but I have heard it has significantly improved in the RF mount. I'm curious how it would compare with at the 70, 85 and 105 focal lengths with the 70-200 F4 RF. John, I should just write your next dozen youtube video's for you ;) Easier than doing them myself. Cheers from your neighbor of to the north here in Green Bay.
Great to hear about the performance of these lenses. Im glad that i chose the RF f4 70- 200mm, is coming on the mail along the RF 85 1.2 when i need the bokeh indoors and at close distance. Thank you for your detailed review.
Hi John. Your friend from across the pond again. Thank you for this upload. I was exactly in the same position as you a couple of months ago and tested both lenses before I bought one. I opted for the 2.8 in the end. I just knew I wouldn't be happy knowing that the 2.8 was sharper, especially since my work seems to be going towards photojournalism with the last couple of jobs I had. Never had a job before doing this kind of style (as you know product is my style) but as long as I can tell the story. I also found the AF on the 2.8 outdoors to be quicker. At the end of the day, ask yourself if you would be OK with the knowledge that the 2.8 was that bit sharper. Same story as when you had to choose with the 85mm. It does make a difference outside the studio. Take care fella!
Thanks Pete! If I was still doing journalism I would definitely choose the 2.8 too. I guess it might be time for me to suck it up and open my wallet. Happy Christmas!
With the cost savings between the f/2.8 and f/4 I could buy a used EF 85mm f/1.4L. Also for portraits sometimes the sharpest images aren't the most flattering. I will probably go with the f/4 eventually based on price, weight, and the fact I have a Sigma EF 70-200 f/2.8 in my kit already. The REAL problem this video has illustrated, for me, is that none of my models are as handsome as yours.
This video is nearly 2 years old but, nevertheless, I still can't help but comment. From looking at your samples the thing that impressed me the most was the increased contrast of the f2.8 vs the f4.0. That's what sold me the most. I'd like to have the smaller size of the f4.0 but don't want to sacrifice quality for this so I think I will probably purchase the f2.8.
For studio work, save your money and get the F4. Put the money towards other things that will elevate the final results more than a lens will. HMUA, Styling, Locations, Experienced models, projects.
Good points. It would seem for some studio work you’d want every last bit of micro-contrast possible, but in that case keeping your 85mm prime and buying a 135mm prime would seem to be the answer. (Or a Hasselblad). On the other hand, that f/2.8 zoom looks good enough the perhaps with a 50 megapixel sensor, there would be no further improvement, especially since you don’t shoot wide open in the studio. If you shoot weddings or environmental portraits sometimes, then the faster zoom would be practical for many situations, but wide open shots to hide distracting backgrounds would favor the primes. For the sort of work you show us in all these videos, I’d probably go with the too primes.
Good points. I used to have the EF135. Maybe the RF version would be a nice edition when it comes out. If I was shooting more on location including events, I would be all in on the 2.8.
Great review thanks John i’m leaning more towards the F/4 I’m more of a prime shooter with that being said I’ll finish off with the RF 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.2 the three and only lenses I want this year.
I always like the ability to crop as much as possible when in reality I crop as less as possible, and I for one would hate to think there's a limitation on my gear. They say it's not the mountain you climb that kills you, but the rock in your shoe. The peace of mind in getting the best glass available and not having to think an image could have been sharper or better is worth the premium imo. I have the 2.8 and rarely shoot below f/8 myself. It's worth the money. Because as-is, the 2.8 BARELY manages to hold its own versus the 28-70 and new RF 100mm… It's the TINIEST bit less sharp than them but close enough I don't worry about it. Any less, and I'd be doing everything possible to not use that lens which is a whole lot of added stress.
@@JohnGress I can't recall seeing a video comparison… I just did my own tests when I first got the 28-70! Compared the two at 70mm. The 28-70 is just BARELY noticeably sharper, but it's not a big enough difference to keep me up at night like how unsharp the 24-105 f/4 was… That's the lens I upgraded from. It drove me INSANE!
Hi John, Nice review. It was interesting that you pointed out the 2.8 was sharper but in the end, chose what worked for your use cases. 👍 Which led me to curiously comb through the comments section responses. I saw a lot of apples vs oranges comparison but to each of its own. There was a lot of comments mentioning outdoor use cases will make use of 2.8 but that is not so accurate because when you shoot landscape, you’re usually f8 and above. I think they meant outdoor lowlight and shooting portraits or objects that you want background separation with more bokeh and shallow dof at 2.8. For me, whether you can afford it or not is not as relevant as good value for money vs performance. If the performance is better but the price is 60-70% more, then “what you’re willing to pay” comes into play. So for me, it’s budget (not what you can afford but rather willing to pay, i.e. good value for money vs performance) and your own use cases. I actually still haven’t ventured from EF to RF yet for that reason as the metabones (for lowlight) and drop in filter (for bright daylight) adapters are trade offs I am willing to work with until more 3rd party options that give same or better performance that matches the good value for money vs performance. The f4 seems to fit my travel, landscape, and portrait use cases and I’m considering it as my next purchase in the future. FYI, prices are now $1300-$1400 on grey market and new is $1459.
Hello! The RF lenses are in general significantly sharper than the EF lenses. I did decided to keep my EF 16-35f4 so I could use the speed booster on my C70. To your point the RF 85.12 is significantly better than the RF 85mm f2. However, when it comes to the 70-200 f2.8 v f4, the differences are less pronounced most of the time.
I already knew I wanted the 2.8 for the work I do and this just confirms it. I rented the lens for a project a few months ago and comparing it to my EF version was night and day in shooting experience, the weight and size and how smooth and fast it focused made it a no brainer , I don't think my clients would ever notice the difference in the final images.
That is true about the clients and while I did see some test charts showing the EF2.8 v3 was sharper than the RF lens (which seems crazy), without looking it up, I bet the RF4 is a lot better than the EF4.
There is no difference in optical quality between the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 III version (version 3). EF is heavier; however, it is much more resistant. it has a much better construction than the RF version. I would prefer the RF F/4 version because of the size and weight.
Thanks again John. I was really pondering this this week. I am about to pull the trigger this week. Looks like the 2.8 is king For sports and wedding the extra stop will be great
70-200 2.8 really shines when you're outdoors, in low light or when you really need the reach. Just keep the f4 as a backup, stick with the 85. Merry Christmas.
Thanks for this very informative and practical video. I’ve always thought that prime lenses ruled the studio and zoom lenses were great for everything else, especially when it’s not convenient to take so many lenses along. Do you have a link where you compared the 85 f/1.2 with the 70-200 f/2.8?
Thanks. As a subscriber, I really appreciate your work. I used to own an EF 85 f/1.2, but sold it. I’m hoping Canon produces an RF 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/2 (or 1.8!).
Re your question - since you already have the 2.8, I would just keep it because the extra sharpness will future-proof it for when the camera resolutions get even higher in the future. Maybe if you didn’t have as high a resolution camera, like an R6 then the f4 might have been fine, but again, you might notice it when you upgrade in the future.
@@JohnGress oops 😬 well for what it’s worth I’ve never looked at an image you’ve posted and thought that it wasn’t sharp….but since you do earn money with your gear, it does pay to get the best your budget and needs allow 👍
Good lens review 👍 however, it may be time for an upgrade mainly because shooting the lens on location outdoors and having a lens that can open up a full stop is a major advantage to blur out the background. It's Christmas time therefore you should treat yourself and have a year end business write off. Merry Christmas! 🎄
While I would probably love the 2.8, I will probably get the f4 because it will be replacing my very old nonIS 70-200mm 2.8 and I am PRETTY sure the new f4 will outperform that old thing, which as of now I am still pretty happy with.
Thanks for the video. For me, it is NOT worth it. First, I shoot birds and bugs, so I think I appreciate biting sharpness more than your typical portrait tog. I wanted take a butter knife to the models face to smooth out those pores. I don’t the the super-sharpness helps there, but it does make the hair look good. i think a lens that renders an image well is way more important that sheer sharpness.. Dustin Abbott takes about lens rendering in some of his lenses reviews. I think there is where you want to spend the money, not just sharpness.
I’m into Sony and I own the f4 version with my a7iv. I can’t go for the GM f2.8 (💸) but I got the sony macro 90 mm 2.8 for when I want max resolution, still I love the sony 70-200 f4, it is very sharp and so light to bring it out and take pics of the kids🙂 .
Both are L lenses and have the professional claim. I think an upgrade would be unnecessary. As a customer, I wouldn't care about the small difference. If it really goes in resolution, medium format is necessary... :)
I dont really see the point of buying this kind of lens for portrait photography. The f4 for versatility and weight over the 2.8. If you need sharper, go prime.
WHen shooting at 5.6-8 there isn't a big difference between the prime and the zoom. th-cam.com/video/qxEovwpCPIM/w-d-xo.html Plus you can always get back far enough to us an 85mm.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for doing this. The contrast of the 2.8 version is impressive and this is the first clear demonstration I've seen. The differences are real but pretty subtle, and easily swamped by any number of changes you could make in lighting or post-processing. I'd expect the RF 85/1.2 would be better still and would be my choice for these kinds of crisp studio shots. I picked the f4 version mainly for size/weight reasons. BTW, the TSE 90L has perhaps the most biting contrast of them all. I'd love to see you give it a try some time just so we can see it up as a reference.
Thanks Ken! I live that I can store the 70-200 f4 horizontally under my camera, but yeah I think the 85 1.2 will just be my BFF going forward. 😁
Thanks for this video John. You've made the best and more useful side by side I've seen with exactly the topics I need to see compared.
I have the R6 and R6 Mk II and at the moment I have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and practically I never use it due to its weight and size. That's why I am deciding the switch to the RF 70-200mm f/4L.
I see a small difference in image quality between RF F/4 and f/2.8 in favor of f/2.8. However, perhaps it is a difference that only we photographers can see when we enlarge the photo on screen.
The difference in value, weight and size of the f/4 makes me decide that it is the option I am looking for.
Thank you Diego.I wish I still had that EF lens when I made this comparison. In general I can say the the RF lenses blow the EF lenses out of the water. BUT you have me wondering if you would even see the difference between the RF 2.8 and 4 at 24mp.
Thanks for doing this great comparison. I have neither lens but the 2.8 has been on my radar. Now ya got me thinking I can save some money. I’ll see if others have found similar results.
I like to shoot low light and have always believed an aperture more appropriate for that is how to go. But here with your tests the difference is quite minor. There is a difference, but you have to take into account how the final images will be used as well. For people who flip through their iPad showing gramma family pictures, the 2.8 would be obviously unnecessary.
I am an amateur photographer and have been struggling over the choice here myself, so your interesting review is timely. I do not shoot in a studio, so the weight of these lens is a real issue. I think your review has decided me to go for the lighter F4.
Weight can be an important factor. One of the things that I love about the F4 is that it fits horrizontally at the bottom of my camera bag.
I had the F4 and was great but I would buy the F2.8 for those low-light situations that I wished it was more brighter
I think what we are seeing is better micro contrast and highlight control on the F2.8 lens. Would not be enough for me to buy the F2.8 if I was moving to RF mount/camera.
Interesting assessment.
great in detailed video, love the way you explained it. Honestly I'm deciding between the f4 and 2.8, i had the ef version mk2 and it worked amazing on my r6. not even too sure why i sold it. so a few days ago, borrowed my friend's ef f4 is and shots were amazing, i love this length for my boys candid photos. The sharpness was great, im sure if i did side by side and 200% i 'might' notice a difference, but like you said, at print and web sizes, does it really matter. In the end, psychology wise, ill probably get the rf 2.8, but the f4 is more than enough for my needs
Thanks and thanks for sharing. I really wish I compared the RF 4 with the EF 2.8 II when I had both for a few moments.
@JohnGress oh now that would be quite interesting, making me regret selling my ef mk2 2.8 even more. I have thr rf 85 1.2 and I think combine with thr 70 to 200 f4 itll be great. But I feel if I get the f2.8, I'll probably not use my 85 as much. Ah, first world problems, gotta love it
Ha. I Have the 85 1.2 too and I stuck with the 70-200 f4. I use the 85 most of the time, but I use the zoom more when I travel to teach workshops.
hey john, very well done comparison of the lenses, you are a well organised person.
1 question i have for you, is the the focusing point sticking to subject and focusing speed of both the lenses are similar or is there a difference? price difference is not justified i feel
Thanks Kiran! I didn't test that but I have never noticed an AF performance difference between any of my RF lenses. Maybe it would be different if I shot sports or events.
Thanks for pointing me towards this comparison video from your other. I'm always impressed when a content creator responds quick to questions. This definitely comes down to a subjective choice in lens and that is why I will be renting both. Weight and ease of use will play a factor too and not just sharpness or shallow depth of field. For the cost of the F4 it's tempting to get the EF 2.8 III if I can get past the bulky and weight of the lens. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on these two lenses for a week. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing you do a comparison in sharpness (quality) of the RF 85 1.2 and the F4 or F2.8 at their common F-Stop.
I hope the videos helped! I love the form factor of the RF4. I don't know if I said it in this video but I always think of it as a can of pop. After decades of a 70-200 taking up a huge a mount of space in my bag I am really happy that I can store it underneath my camera. I just added the 85 / 70-200 comparrison to my list. Its actually something I need to know for myself. I am also wondering if the 28-70 f2 at 70 is better at 70mm than the 70-200 at 70.
@@JohnGress that would be an awesome comparison! Thank you!
The other monkey wrench you can throw in is the 24-105 RF. I owned the EF Mark I version a decade ago and loved it for walk around work, but I have heard it has significantly improved in the RF mount. I'm curious how it would compare with at the 70, 85 and 105 focal lengths with the 70-200 F4 RF. John, I should just write your next dozen youtube video's for you ;) Easier than doing them myself. Cheers from your neighbor of to the north here in Green Bay.
Great to hear about the performance of these lenses. Im glad that i chose the RF f4 70- 200mm, is coming on the mail along the RF 85 1.2 when i need the bokeh indoors and at close distance. Thank you for your detailed review.
Thank you! That is the exact combo I chose. It's funny to think that were using the most and least expensive lens in their class.
@@JohnGress my first 70 to 200 EF or RF. Your welcome!
Hi John. Your friend from across the pond again. Thank you for this upload. I was exactly in the same position as you a couple of months ago and tested both lenses before I bought one. I opted for the 2.8 in the end. I just knew I wouldn't be happy knowing that the 2.8 was sharper, especially since my work seems to be going towards photojournalism with the last couple of jobs I had. Never had a job before doing this kind of style (as you know product is my style) but as long as I can tell the story. I also found the AF on the 2.8 outdoors to be quicker. At the end of the day, ask yourself if you would be OK with the knowledge that the 2.8 was that bit sharper. Same story as when you had to choose with the 85mm. It does make a difference outside the studio. Take care fella!
Thanks Pete! If I was still doing journalism I would definitely choose the 2.8 too. I guess it might be time for me to suck it up and open my wallet. Happy Christmas!
@@JohnGress And a happy Christmas to you too!
With the cost savings between the f/2.8 and f/4 I could buy a used EF 85mm f/1.4L. Also for portraits sometimes the sharpest images aren't the most flattering. I will probably go with the f/4 eventually based on price, weight, and the fact I have a Sigma EF 70-200 f/2.8 in my kit already. The REAL problem this video has illustrated, for me, is that none of my models are as handsome as yours.
Ha! TIme to find better models. =P Trading off the 2.8 for the 4 in order to buy another lens is a great idea.
really good point
This video is nearly 2 years old but, nevertheless, I still can't help but comment. From looking at your samples the thing that impressed me the most was the increased contrast of the f2.8 vs the f4.0. That's what sold me the most. I'd like to have the smaller size of the f4.0 but don't want to sacrifice quality for this so I think I will probably purchase the f2.8.
Enjoy your purchase!
For studio work, save your money and get the F4. Put the money towards other things that will elevate the final results more than a lens will. HMUA, Styling, Locations, Experienced models, projects.
Solid advice.
Good points. It would seem for some studio work you’d want every last bit of micro-contrast possible, but in that case keeping your 85mm prime and buying a 135mm prime would seem to be the answer. (Or a Hasselblad). On the other hand, that f/2.8 zoom looks good enough the perhaps with a 50 megapixel sensor, there would be no further improvement, especially since you don’t shoot wide open in the studio. If you shoot weddings or environmental portraits sometimes, then the faster zoom would be practical for many situations, but wide open shots to hide distracting backgrounds would favor the primes. For the sort of work you show us in all these videos, I’d probably go with the too primes.
Good points. I used to have the EF135. Maybe the RF version would be a nice edition when it comes out. If I was shooting more on location including events, I would be all in on the 2.8.
I would have to ask, is the 2.8 going to make you more money than the f4?
Great review thanks John i’m leaning more towards the F/4 I’m more of a prime shooter with that being said I’ll finish off with the RF 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.2 the three and only lenses I want this year.
I hear ya. The more I use them the more I realize I should be using the 85mm unless I need a different focal length.
I always like the ability to crop as much as possible when in reality I crop as less as possible, and I for one would hate to think there's a limitation on my gear. They say it's not the mountain you climb that kills you, but the rock in your shoe. The peace of mind in getting the best glass available and not having to think an image could have been sharper or better is worth the premium imo. I have the 2.8 and rarely shoot below f/8 myself. It's worth the money. Because as-is, the 2.8 BARELY manages to hold its own versus the 28-70 and new RF 100mm… It's the TINIEST bit less sharp than them but close enough I don't worry about it. Any less, and I'd be doing everything possible to not use that lens which is a whole lot of added stress.
This are all great points! Do you have a link to the 28-70 comparison?
@@JohnGress I can't recall seeing a video comparison… I just did my own tests when I first got the 28-70! Compared the two at 70mm. The 28-70 is just BARELY noticeably sharper, but it's not a big enough difference to keep me up at night like how unsharp the 24-105 f/4 was… That's the lens I upgraded from. It drove me INSANE!
Those mid range EF zooms were always a FAR cry from the primes.
Hi John,
Nice review. It was interesting that you pointed out the 2.8 was sharper but in the end, chose what worked for your use cases. 👍
Which led me to curiously comb through the comments section responses. I saw a lot of apples vs oranges comparison but to each of its own.
There was a lot of comments mentioning outdoor use cases will make use of 2.8 but that is not so accurate because when you shoot landscape, you’re usually f8 and above. I think they meant outdoor lowlight and shooting portraits or objects that you want background separation with more bokeh and shallow dof at 2.8.
For me, whether you can afford it or not is not as relevant as good value for money vs performance. If the performance is better but the price is 60-70% more, then “what you’re willing to pay” comes into play.
So for me, it’s budget (not what you can afford but rather willing to pay, i.e. good value for money vs performance) and your own use cases.
I actually still haven’t ventured from EF to RF yet for that reason as the metabones (for lowlight) and drop in filter (for bright daylight) adapters are trade offs I am willing to work with until more 3rd party options that give same or better performance that matches the good value for money vs performance.
The f4 seems to fit my travel, landscape, and portrait use cases and I’m considering it as my next purchase in the future. FYI, prices are now $1300-$1400 on grey market and new is $1459.
Hello! The RF lenses are in general significantly sharper than the EF lenses. I did decided to keep my EF 16-35f4 so I could use the speed booster on my C70.
To your point the RF 85.12 is significantly better than the RF 85mm f2. However, when it comes to the 70-200 f2.8 v f4, the differences are less pronounced most of the time.
I already knew I wanted the 2.8 for the work I do and this just confirms it. I rented the lens for a project a few months ago and comparing it to my EF version was night and day in shooting experience, the weight and size and how smooth and fast it focused made it a no brainer , I don't think my clients would ever notice the difference in the final images.
That is true about the clients and while I did see some test charts showing the EF2.8 v3 was sharper than the RF lens (which seems crazy), without looking it up, I bet the RF4 is a lot better than the EF4.
There is no difference in optical quality between the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 III version (version 3). EF is heavier; however, it is much more resistant. it has a much better construction than the RF version. I would prefer the RF F/4 version because of the size and weight.
Thanks again John.
I was really pondering this this week. I am about to pull the trigger this week.
Looks like the 2.8 is king
For sports and wedding the extra stop will be great
Sure thing Karl. The DOF will probably be better for sports too.
As I contemplate going into the R world next year this was one of my questions. Thanks for this
I hope it was helpful. Good luck with your journey!
I chose the F4 since I already have the 28-70 F2 & I can always sharpen the image if needed in post.
Me too! I don’t notice the 28-70 being sharper than the 70-200.
3.896% sharpens worth $1300+ tax extra?
Well now that you mention the tax 😉
70-200 2.8 really shines when you're outdoors, in low light or when you really need the reach. Just keep the f4 as a backup, stick with the 85. Merry Christmas.
Thanks Lance.
Thanks , John. I didn't know you were in Chicago too.
Thanks! Greetings from Pilsen!
Greetings from South Shore.
Love the festive colours in the background :)
Thanks! Merry Christmas!
@@JohnGress merry Christmas to you and your family too - first at new place!
Thanks for this very informative and practical video. I’ve always thought that prime lenses ruled the studio and zoom lenses were great for everything else, especially when it’s not convenient to take so many lenses along. Do you have a link where you compared the 85 f/1.2 with the 70-200 f/2.8?
Thanks! I only compared the f4 and the 1.2.
th-cam.com/video/qxEovwpCPIM/w-d-xo.html
Thanks. As a subscriber, I really appreciate your work. I used to own an EF 85 f/1.2, but sold it. I’m hoping Canon produces an RF 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/2 (or 1.8!).
Thanks I really appreciate it. I wonder if they will make a 85 1.8 since they made the 85f2 macro.
Re your question - since you already have the 2.8, I would just keep it because the extra sharpness will future-proof it for when the camera resolutions get even higher in the future. Maybe if you didn’t have as high a resolution camera, like an R6 then the f4 might have been fine, but again, you might notice it when you upgrade in the future.
Oh. I own the f4. I borrowed the 2.8 from a friend
@@JohnGress oops 😬 well for what it’s worth I’ve never looked at an image you’ve posted and thought that it wasn’t sharp….but since you do earn money with your gear, it does pay to get the best your budget and needs allow 👍
I got the F4 instead of the F2.8 because of weight, size, and cost. The F4 is close enough to an F2.8 and offers excellent images for what I do
Great! I do love the size of the f4.
Good lens review 👍 however, it may be time for an upgrade mainly because shooting the lens on location outdoors and having a lens that can open up a full stop is a major advantage to blur out the background. It's Christmas time therefore you should treat yourself and have a year end business write off. Merry Christmas! 🎄
Ha! Thank you snd Merry Christmas!
that 2.8 looked like it had better dr as well. the hightlights simmed to be better controled to me. do you agree?
It was hard to tell on my iPad, half the time I thought the f4 lens was better and half the time I thought the f2.8 was better.
👍🏼👍🏼Well that may have just proved that the f4 is just fine.
I choose rf70-200 f4L because i have already rf 28-70 f2L and rf 85 f1.2L🙏
Same here!
From y experience , C.A. usually occurs in backlit , or sunny outdoor situations. It is not too likely in studio setting with flash/studio lighting ?
Back lit situations often happen in the studio too as well as white text or blocks next to dark colors.
I'm looking at these pictures, and I got the rf f4. I couldn't send an extra $1000 for the Rf 2.8
Same here
While I would probably love the 2.8, I will probably get the f4 because it will be replacing my very old nonIS 70-200mm 2.8 and I am PRETTY sure the new f4 will outperform that old thing, which as of now I am still pretty happy with.
I bet it will be night and day. Enjoy!
So, in the end what Didja do?
I kept the 70-200 f4 and my money!
Wouldn’t the image in the viewfinder be brighter with the 2.8 vs the 4.0?
Not unless you're using exposure simulation and your images are underexposed.
John Gress I was thinking DSLR.
I don't recall ever noticing a difference switching from a 1.2 lens to a 2.8 lens on the same shoot.
John Gress its a noticeable difference if using the viewfinder.
Thanks for the video. For me, it is NOT worth it. First, I shoot birds and bugs, so I think I appreciate biting sharpness more than your typical portrait tog. I wanted take a butter knife to the models face to smooth out those pores. I don’t the the super-sharpness helps there, but it does make the hair look good. i think a lens that renders an image well is way more important that sheer sharpness.. Dustin Abbott takes about lens rendering in some of his lenses reviews. I think there is where you want to spend the money, not just sharpness.
Extreme pixel peeping is not good for your wallet. And ONLY photographers care. No normal non photographer does this. And sharpness isnt everything.
Thus I kept the f4
I’m into Sony and I own the f4 version with my a7iv. I can’t go for the GM f2.8 (💸) but I got the sony macro 90 mm 2.8 for when I want max resolution, still I love the sony 70-200 f4, it is very sharp and so light to bring it out and take pics of the kids🙂 .
Great video. Very helpful, as usual. (Please please cut the music, drives me insane)
There will be music in next weeks Christmas themed video , but after that, you will be safe.
👍👍👍EXCELLENT
Thank you! Cheers!
I am done with slower lenses. If the 70-200mm was f1.8 and $2000 more, I would get it.
The 7lbs might slow you down!
@@JohnGress It might that’s why we have to lift weights for everything we do. And the final product makes everything worthwhile.
💪🏼💪🏼
🙏🏾
You're welcome!
Both are L lenses and have the professional claim. I think an upgrade would be unnecessary. As a customer, I wouldn't care about the small difference. If it really goes in resolution, medium format is necessary... :)
Thanks Felix!
I dont really see the point of buying this kind of lens for portrait photography. The f4 for versatility and weight over the 2.8. If you need sharper, go prime.
WHen shooting at 5.6-8 there isn't a big difference between the prime and the zoom. th-cam.com/video/qxEovwpCPIM/w-d-xo.html Plus you can always get back far enough to us an 85mm.
@@JohnGress if that's the case, than you should never use primes for studio work