Scrolling through search results for the RF 70-200 f/2.8, I was looking for an in-depth analysis by a reviewer who respects himself and his viewers. As soon as I saw your name, I gave a sigh of relief. I trust you and your research and presentations. Thank you for your thoroughness and professionalism.
I see a lot of people are being put off by the sharpness. I own this lens, and let me tell you, it's extremely sharp. Third party lenses like Tamron and Sigma produce great lenses and they are great options. They always shine in terms of sharpness. But sharpness should not be the importance. In my opinion what third-party lenses lack is the overall "character." That's where these Canon lenses shine. The overall look is unique to Canon and this lens delivers. Yeah, I guess it seems very soft on the edges in this review but I think that's the trade off to its AMAZING bokeh. I'd say if you're considering it, rent one out first and see for yourself. You'll be extremely happy. These TH-cam reviews are great to watch but there's nothing like reviewing your own images.
I think this is a very fair assessment, and a point that I tried to make in this review. I love the LOOK of the images from this lens while not necessarily being impressed with the technical, pixel level performance.
@@burritobrosvideos8060 not as sharp doesn't mean inferior. But if it does to you I understand. My point is that OVERALL the canon is superior. That's my opinion though. I've tried both, plus sigma, plus the EF versions.
@@patricioderito3722 its not a matter of opinion, if one lens is sharper than the other while providing equal contrast and colors than it is objectively better in image quality. If you prefer convenience over image quality than I understand your point of view, which really is fine. Its just that people expect image quality typically when looking for lenses
@@burritobrosvideos8060 what you dont understand is that it’s not better or worse, they are different, Two different looks, for instance, these Canon lenses have a special bokeh, and this special bokeh makes everything look dreamy, a 3D pop to your subject that most 3rd party lenses lack, most people don’t really see it. And that’s why they are not soooooo sharp compared to tamron. It’s a trade off. But not a big one because they are still super sharp. Same with the old canon 85mm 1.2, That lens was super slow and definitely not sharp, but people praised it because the bokeh was incredible, and it made the whole image dreamy. If you have the money I’d highly recommend you at least rent it first and see if you like it. I think it’s expensive, but after I tried it, I loved it, more than anything the SIZE of it. 70-200 in that size 😍😍.
As a serious hobbyist this was my second lens purchase with the first being the RF 24-70mm f/2.8...yeah, a bit deep in the pockets. I have been very satisfied for the past 10 months of use.
Dust is not the only problem those kind of lenses may or not may have. Cold, rain and moist and sport eg. Marathons etc. Deadly when humidity gets inside, the warm hand makes the moist vaporize, the cold glass mist up.. (so far the EF 70-200 was/is very save in such circumstances). The RF-70-200 has to prove after a few hundert hours in cold and wet circumstances.. (sorry for bad english.. not my language)
I do find it comical how well-performing the Tamron lenses have been vs 1st party offerings by Canon, Nikon, Sony. If anything, this sells the Tamron lenses. Really hard to beat
There's some truth to this, though right now on Canon RF mount, it is a moot point. I'm hoping we start to see third party development on the platform.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i agree, but i am a Sony shooter. The 3rd party lenses being 1st-party-like is the main reason i went to Sony. I can no longer justify spending 2-3x more on 1st party lenses. From any maker.
Excellent and timely review. I ordered this lens Thursday and I’m looking forward to getting my hands on it. Thank you Dustin, for the hard work you put into these video reviews.
Horrified at some of the corner performance shown here. I don't see any need to upgrade from my EF mkii. I hope Dustin receives the rf 100-500 for review.
The reason for upgrade would not be optical performance, but rather the compact size and excellent autofocus performance. There really isn't an optical upgrade here that I can see.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm becoming more and more happy with my A7R IV with my GM glass, the more RF glass is put through its paces. The 70-200 GM seems to outperform this in optical peformance and AF is on par? Albeit in a bigger formfactor. Turns out Canon isn't the end-all-be-all camera system. I wonder where we are in 3 years time when I can reconsider my system.
The GM is also overpriced. It isn't a better lens optically than the Canon: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1137&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for this, why did your RF 70-200 look so aweful in the corners? That link looks better. Also why is the 42MP bigger than the 33MP on that link, seems like swome weird scaling. Can you do your own comparison if you still have the Sony version on hand? All premium on-brand lenses are too expensive. :S
I don't have the GM on hand. If you change the comparison there to the Tamron that I used for comparison, you'll find that it is sharper than both of those lenses at most focal lengths.
To hear the well composed Dustin Abbott describe the lack of Arca Swiss compatibility as "stupid", makes me feel even more justified in my frustration with that particular persistent design choice ;) If lenses that are half the price can do it (thinking of Tamron's offerings) I would think that in 2020, Canon could certainly do the same. On a side note - There are various manufacturers that produce either short metal lens hoods, or flexible silicone ones that extend according to the level of shielding required/appropriate that screw into 77mm filter thread. While less convenient because it takes more turns to get it properly seated, I find myself increasingly throwing one of them into my camera bag to have a bit of shielding (with a single 77mm step up ring mounted to all lenses by default) when needed, without having to bring 3 different hoods that take up considerable space.
the IBIS definitely ruins your corner sharpness .R5 & R6 IBIS still has some glitch to it. i suggest you turn off the IBIS and shooting with tripod for this kind of test in the future.
@@DustinAbbottTWI really? my opinion come after observing test image on your website . dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/canon-rf-70-200l-review/34-Corner-Improvement.jpg and comparing with digital-picture result. those looks like f/2.8 image suffer from motion blur (135° shift on x-y plane) . the top left & bottom right corner looks way sharper than the opposite side. if its not because of the IBIS maybe the shutter shock does. or worse you got a lemon lens... to be honest im pretty surprised those image taken with IBIS off.
Too bad you didn't test for focus breathing. I think Canon has really been focusing on video optimization with the RF releases, making sure they do well in both traditional photography as well as video. Focus breathing in video can be a serious problem, so it would be nice to see how it handles focus at the edge of its reach.
I wish the zoom element didn’t slide out like that. The EF 2.8 is internal as we all know and that’s def preferred imo. Either way I want this lens lol
That's a general trend with things like Sony GM lenses, too. They have the most features, often the nicest build, but aren't always the winners optically.
I'll grant the 135GM (perhaps the sharpest lens that I ever tested, so I snapped one up). The 24 GM is good, for sure, but I'm not sure it's sharper than the 20G.
Im not sure about the extending zoom mechanism on these RF lenses, at least on the F/2.8 lens with its heavier glass elements. It makes quick zooming cumbersome when shooting fast action and increases dust and water ingress. The primary advantage is packability? Canon seems to be prioritizing aesthetics and compactness over function and usability. Wonder if they are planning to release an internal zoom model?
Two years after, I completely agree with you about 70mm @f/2.8. Had to check my technique, test the lens, and find some reviews that took the time to check focal lengths and areas within the frame. THANK YOU for so many great reviews, Dustin!...Compared to the newer primes, way soft. But still very good for portraiture, especially stopped down a stop and at 100mm plus. Hard to claim it as the "king" of 70-200mm's.
I have had the EF 70-200 L IS II for six years. That lens really stood out with its image quality even in the corners wide open, which set it apart from the earlier versions. This RF lens, while nicely compact, does not justify the extreme price tag in my opinion. Yes, of course, professional photographers will buy the lens anyway and they are the target audience. But with the fact that adapted EF lenses work really well on the new Canon cameras, I think the strongest competitor for this lens are the EF 70-200 2.8L IS Mark 2 and Mark 3 lenses on the used market. I have just sold mine for less than the Tamron 70-180 costs.
@@unknownKnownunknowns At the time I sold my EF 70-200 2.8L II, I had already switched to Sony. And there I let it go because adapted with the Sigma MC-11 it had just too many focus issues, sadly. I went with the Sigma 85 mm DG DN, because I wanted to have a smaller lens for portraits that fit in my shoulder bag, and did not want to pay the insane price of the Sony 70-200. For portraits, the 85 mm is amazing, but I have lots of situations where I miss owning a 70-200 because of its flexibility. My only long lens is a 200-600 now, and 200 mm minimum focal length is too long in some cases. Today I would probably buy some sort of 70-200 again instead of the 85 mm, just to have that flexible lens instead of a portrait specialist. Compared to the EF 70-200 2.8L II, there are lighter lenses available now, like the RF and the new Sony which both shave off about 500 grams. But still I would not want to pay that much, so maybe the F4 instead.
thanks for another great review. Was thinking I "needed" to upgrade from my EF MK2 version and now I think I can hold off. One thing I do notice when I set the EF lens to focus 1.2 to infinity it hunts and pecks a lot when I change it to 2.5 the lens works perfectly. not sure if that is a firmware issue with the R5 it does not seem to happen on the R
Dustin please do comparison between canon ef 70-200 f2.8 with adopter vs canon rf 70-200 f2.8 on canon r5 it's very important lens in most of the people's work.. So let us know ur views
Hi Shiva, I don't actually have either lens on hand, so I don't think I'll be able to do that. My schedule is full through the end of the year with other reviews.
Still impressed by Tamron 70-180 mounted on Sony 42mp camera. Once Tamron gets into the RF mount we may see interesting and more budget friendly lenses. Currently all fast RF lenses are very expensive and I can't wait to see Sigma or Tamron offerings.
I completely agree. This lens is competitive on a lot of fronts, but I was relatively unimpressed by the optical performance relative to what we've seen from alternatives.
@SwitchRich So far all my third parties EF lenses work pretty well on the EOS R. If Samyang/Rokinon is able to develop and manufacture RF lenses with AF why Sigma or Tamron wouldn't be able to do it? Even if Canon decides not to share protocol with others surely they are capable of reverse engineering it.
@SwitchRich - unfortunately I think you're right. Sony actually has some ownership in Tamron, so we've gotten some pretty special Tamron lenses on Sony.
Right now, problem with RF system is just expensive lenses. The body is expensive but it's doable but adding lenses, it is just too much. I stil use a lot of my EF lenses and the only RF mount lense I have is the 35mm 1.8 STM (not really sharp imo) and soon the 50mm 1.8 STM (maybe). I wanted to get the Samnyang 85mm f1.4 RF but then I still got my sigma art 85mm f1.4 on EF adapter. I would have bought the Samnyang one if it has the new ring. In summary, I am still waiting for 3rd party lenses with new rings etc to expand my lense for RF.
I just think there are practical limits to what IS can do, and the rating in stops doesn't always tell the full story. I'm skeptical of the real world 7.5 stop possibilities.
Thanks Dustin. I have no doubt of your results as you are an excellent reviewer, however do you think it could have been a bad sample? I don’t believe I’ve seen similar reporting and it’s strange that Canon would design a lens with such short comings. Would it be worth getting a different version of the lens to test? I appreciate it would be a lot of work.
Size-wise, I think this lens is Canon's biggest strength at this point. How I wish Sony had something like that. (Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we've got the 70-180 Tamron, which is a great pick.) It is disappointing to see that such an expensive lens doesn't deliver in terms of corner sharpness, though.
Great review! So disappointed in sharpness. I’ll stick with my EF version Mark 2, although I’d love the compactness of the RF version. Hopefully Tamron releases an RF version (can’t believe the Tamron is only 810grams)
I wouldn't be put off by that sharpness test. I own the lens and I can tell you, it's freaking sharp!! and bokeh is amazing. Yeah the corners are a bit soft but that's the price to a beautiful overall rendering of the image, it's liek art, it's got a special character to it. Tamron and Sigma make great lenses, they are super sharp but lack that special "character." If you're considering it, I would say rent the land and take a look for yourself. It's great to see these reviews but there's nothing like reviewing your own images.
There's some truth to what Patricio is saying. It isn't a sharper lens than the competition, but it does make images that are more pleasing on a global level than may competitors.
Thanks for the review. Though longer than a Canon It is still a great will build Sony lens for those who wishes to have Sony native lens with OIS and 30fps. Personally I still prefer the versatility of the combination setup of a Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and the Sony A7R V's 60MP/26MP (super sampling sharper than 33MP A7 IV image) and skip carrying all the extra weight or the need of swapping prime/macro/zoom lenses. Maybe a small and lightweight 16-28mm or 16-35mm in a small backpack/sling or even a full size flash that is able to manufacture light when I needed which is much more useful at all time. Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range with Full-Frame and APS-C mode: @ f/2.0 Total available range: 35mm-58.5mm (FF range: 35mm-39mm + APS-C range: 52.5mm-58.5mm) @ f/2.2 Total available range: 40mm-88.5mm (FF range: 40mm-59mm + APS-C range: 60.0mm-88.5mm @ f/2.5 Total available range: 60mm-118.0mm (FF range: 60mm-79mm + APS-C range: 90.0mm-118.0mm) @ f/2.8 Total available range: 80mm-225.0mm (FF range: 80mm-150mm + APS-C range: 120.0mm-225.0mm)
I wasn't crazy about the externally zooming *telescoping barrel* but could probably get over that under the right circumstances. What I can't deal with is how much you need to turn the zoom ring to get all the way from 70-200mm. I like my EF 70-200mm for now and will keep using it until Canon comes out with a better version (for my needs) of the RF 70-200mm. Great idea about the lens collar being Arca-Swiss compatible, that would make lots of sense. FYI - the audio is really bright on this video, almost harsh sibilance.
I know a lot of people feel this way, but I shot with the EF 70-300L for years and had ZERO problems with the extending barrel. It was rock solid and never had problems with dust or moisture...even shooting in our -30 degree winters.
Awesome, sir! You must have been a great teacher in classes. I appreciate the talking being so smooth and fluent. And this review itself is very helpful for me considering buying the lens. Thank you!
I recently purchased this lens for my Canon R6. I was hoping you would have explained what the ring at the base of the lens is for and how to set it up. Do I set it up and sync it through the camera ? Thank you in advance.
When you go through your camera settings to set custom controls, you'll see an option for the control ring. You can set whatever value to it that you prefer.
Thanks for another great in depth review. Do you happen to have a "faulty" lens? Gordon Laing compared the RF and EF versions too, and his finding was the opposite when it comes to sharpness. The RF was sharp, and sharper wide open than the EF Mark III... thanks
I suspect that I did have a lens that underperformed, but getting Canon loaners has proven challenging in recent years for some reason, so it's harder to check.
I understand that the deep analysis at pixel level is indispensable for a definitive review but I think this is a good example of how a lens is much more than MTFs or said amplified scrutiny. You kept saying you were not "wowed" or overly impressed by the lens and I kept finding it perfect for what I think a 70-200 f/2.8 should deliver, as I watched the final overall results. For instance, a 70-200 f/2.8 is mainly a flexible portrait tool for many photographers, hence, I feel, Canon's good design options in what regards the corners. It is critical that this kind of lens performs perfectly in the center but not so much in the corners. My EF 70-200 f/2.8 II, for example, shows this trait, this design option, in such a noticeable way, that I have deemed it pretty much unusable as a perspective-compression landscape lens and I always resort to the 100-400 for that purpose, when traveling. As I saw your examples, one after the other, I kept finding that the way this lens resolves color rendition, contrast and OOF areas is pretty much perfect for a 70-200 and, certainly, is a very good example of what Canon L lenses are all about. In any case, thank you for yet another excellent review.
I don't disagree with you, and I made that point several times in the review. My perspective is that I really liked the images on a global level even if I wasn't wowed on a technical, pixel level.
Exactly my thoughts: very impressive design for the use cases of a 70-200 2.8 in sports, weddings, reportage. It setts the edge of the market in all what matters in this genres: reliable AF and IS, pleasing OOF areas, and yes: seize and weight to be carried days long within a kit. Not for landscape, not for architecture, not for pixel peeping, .... And in the genres mentioned an extender was never in use.
I would love to see If Canon could pump out these fast zooms with a much smaller footprint(and of course smaller price tag) and sacrificing extreme sharpness. I’d argue that clinical sharpness isn’t the most important feature for over 75% of people using these cameras. From my experience speaking with and observing reel photographers, they never even mention the sharpness of the lenses they use. They seem to focus more on the character of each lens and how that “character” helps them express what they’re trying to show the clients.
Debating between this one and the EF version I hate the lens extending and you can't put a tele on it, but soft corners got me worried especially for a lens that basically 3k ugh
Great to see that this lens has some character to it's overall rendering, despite the disappointing corner performance. It makes me wonder how it compares to the latest EF version in these regards...
Take a look here: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 | I don't think the RF lens is sharper, but it does deliver nicer bokeh and rendering.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for pointing this out, Dustin. Wide open, the RF f/2.8 appears sharper than the EF III on T-D-P's charts in center and mid, but not a reason to upgrade if you own EF ii or iii, right? Your charts indicate the RF f/4 looking sharper than the RF f/ 2.8, The f/4 now discounted to $1500, $1300 less that the F/2.8, which is tempting...
Thanks, I always prefer internal Zoom because of the dust issue, I have crazy dust issue with the old 100-400L mk 1, I usually shoot at beach and desert area. Do you think this lens is good in dusty area? thanks.
Another great review Dustin. I just ordered one since selling my EF 70-200mm F2.8 iii. I was disappointed to hear about the average sharpness as I was really impressed with the sharpness of the EF version 3. Thanks for the detailed review.
I just picked up one of these used. The lens focuses well, but on continuous focus (like following a bird for example) it makes an ongoing noise that's easily audible. This is on a R5, and is the same with IS on and off. I do not have a similar sound with the 24-105mm F4. Is this normal for the lens, or is there possibly something wrong with the nano USM?
Great review as always Dustin - love your thorough analysis of the lens too. Super helpful to see how it compares to the tamron. The RF lens system is looking like it will have all the needed lenses for pro's natively soon. This lens looks great for a 2.8 70-200. Given the design/quality compromise vs their other RF lenses do you think there will be a higher quality f/2 telezoom similar to their 28-70/2? Do you think Canon's proprietary approach to the RF mount will hinder 3rd parties from releasing lenses in RF mount. I know Sony release specifications for E-Mount where Canon and Nikon don't licence EF/RF/Z/F-mount?
I do think third party development will come. They had to overcome the same hurdles on the EF and F mounts. I'm skeptical that an F2 version that covers a full 70-200 range will come. Such a lens would be very large and extremely expensive. Something that ran from 75-135mm is possible (and has been hinted at)
Great vid as always Dustin! Thank you. The canon rf 70-200 f4 is already out! Maybe a review/ comparison? Also the rf 100-500 could be a better alternative? Looking forward to know. :) keep it up
Hi Kiran, I definitely will look at the F4 version, though it will be a bit as I'm already booked solid for at least six weeks. I see the 100-500mm as having a completely different purpose than this lens.
Sir I have a question... For a RF 70-200 2.8 on a FF camera. is the Background Blur at 200mm 2.8 greater than the Background blur at 70mm 2.8 ? or is it same or less. ( Same distance between the background and the subject and the camera.)
I had been tempted by the entire RF system because of this lens, but those corners, woof... Maybe you got a bad copy. Look forward to Roger@LR to provide some multi-copy data
That's fair, as that's always a possibility. I would be incredibly tempted by this lens if I saw a more compelling optical performance, as the bokeh and rendering from the lens is pretty lovely.
I still own the Canon 70/200 f2.8 L IS ll, which I always considers a nice lens on my 5Dlll. but I bought that lens when the 5Dlll first came out. and I would expect a new Canon 70/200 f2.8 L in the new bragged about bigger RF mount with the shorter flange distance to go to another level in image quality. so it is really surprising and disappointing to me to see you say that the new Tamron 70/180 f2.8 which is less than half the price is sharper. a lens that is less than half the price. and designed for a smaller size mount, Canon had all of this press about the bigger lens mount. and so far I am not impressed with the results of the bigger mount. so far we have the new 85 L RF mount which people are saying isn't as sharp as the new Sigma 85 Art. and the new 85 art is only 625g. almost half the weight of the Canon. yes I know its f1.4. and the new 35L that you just reviewed got a so so review. and now the new 70/200 f2.8 L gets a so so review. yet I am still always seeing people talk about the new Canon glass and how great it is. it's as if the new L lenses are benefiting from the L reputation. and people are saying how great they are just because they look like they must be great, after all they have the red ring on them right. and this is why for now I am sticking with my Sony A7r lll. way more third party lens choices that compete with the high priced brands for way less money. plus all the great Sony glass. This Canon review now has me considering buying the Tamron 70/180 f2.8. and I will let the Canon people who don't have any native choices buy the new Canon L for almost three grand.
There are aspect about this lens that are amazing. I love the size, it handles great, and has fabulous autofocus. But no, I don't think the image quality is improved in terms of sharpness. I think the bokeh is nicer than the LII and LIII, but it isn't sharper.
I have one question that i have asked many camera reviewer, but no one responded. My question is does camera sensor has effective life like film. how well does the different sensor from different manufacturer last. If you have a set of review using color chart, dated 10 years ago, can you bring back the old camera and do the same test on the colour chart and compare the results, also pitch each brand against each other. So far, no one responded. I mean, it is a valid question. Canon’s pro camera life cycle is 5 years, will a 10 years old, or 5 years old camera retain their sensor performance. Should I change camera every 2 years just to keep the sensor “fresh”?
Hi there, I've never heard of that being an issue. There are still plenty of people using a 5D Mark III, for example, which is an 8 year old camera at this point.
I have a 6D mark 1 and it is fine after 8 years of use (and it was only a prosumer body at the time) I do have one hot pixel I can see in long exposures of night sky but other than that nothing to write home about. And I only had the sensor cleaned once 2 years ago at a Canon service centre. Just for peace of mind.
Really struggling here. Love the smaller size and weight reduction, but I already have a 2x teleconverter for the EF mount. I probably wouldn’t hike or travel with this lens anyway, so maybe it’s best to save some money and go with the EF mkiii? Thinking about using it for sports and portrait use. This is a hard choice.
Sharpness issues for flat subjects are probably due to a complex, bending focus field shape. In the typical use case (portraits) this should not be an issue, and might even contribute to the character of the image. I’d be more worried about sharpness at infinity, for landscape, as I don’t think Canon optimized the lens for that use case.
I would love to be able to calm your fears, but there are two problems with that. 1) it is near impossible to diagnose "sounds" over the internet, and I'm not a Canon repair tech anyway and 2) I review at least four lenses a month on average, so trying to make a judgment call on something like this from my memory is not a reliable solution for you. I would ask Canon about it
Quality information as always! Most important was precluding the use of extenders. I am not going to buy it! I have to decide between EF 100-400 F/4-5.6 and EF70-200 F/2.8 with extenders. I respect your courage to say that it is not exceptional. Switching from Nikon was not easy. But I will take Canon.
Love the review. Been using my Tamron G2 with adapter. With the focus system on new canon cameras, the results are amazing! The only downside is that the lens is not fully compatible and therefore had to send it back to Tamron for review. Fingers crossed.
Oh, the metal used on many lens feet from the manufacturers wouldn't stand up to being used with an araca mount or machining. Often that part is cast so machining it wouldn't be an option and if you did it could easily break. You'll find images posted of the Sony lens foot snapping on some users if you peruse the facebook forums, they call it "pot" metal.
I've owned a number of Tamron zooms with Arca machining and NEVER had a problem with the metal not standing up. I don't think this is a valid argument.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Oh, I agree they should use a suitable metal and machine it to arca, I'd love that and have purchased Kirk feet for all my lenses. My point was the current metal they're using for the feet would not stand up to machining if it was large enough and you did it yourself. I considered doing so with mine having access to a machine shop but after measuring it wasn't possible and then I saw reports of the metal breaking quite easily on the sony lens feet due to the composition of the metals used. Agreed, no excuse on a 2500 dollar lens! Tamron and Canon may use another metal, I'm speaking only from what I've seen posted on various groups with Sony feet snapping off where they affix to the lens.
This is strange. Most other reviews I have seen have concluded that this lens has better corner sharpness than the latest EF version. I have the RF version, and the corner sharpness is better than the EF version - at least v2 that I previously owned. The corner sharpness is also one of the major key points for Canon in their advertisements of this lens.
I considering Bryan Carnathan to be one of the kings of chart testing, and that's not what his tests show: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok. Regardless of how the sharp corners are, I bought this lens mainly for its size and weight. But compared to my old 70-200 2.8 v2, the RF is a bit sharper.
Thanks for this, Dustin! The softnesss in the corners is really disappointing. Though I'm still considering this lens due to its compactness and aperture size.
Not sure why Tamron, Sigma, and Sony have managed to do it, then. I don't think this is the reason; Canon has got enough money to pay a licensing fee if that were the case.
Hi Dustin! Great review! I just watched your 70-200 f4 RF review and then watched this one and now I'm going back to watch the f4 again. Did you decide to purchase the 70-200 2.8 RF? I shoot professionally with the 15-35 2.8 RF 5 days a week and love it. I'm back and fourth with 70-200 2.8 rf, f4 rf or just do the 70-200 EF Mark III with the adapter. BTW...I knew there was something other than camera's that I thought was awesome about you. Glad to hear you know Christ. What type of denomination are you a pastor at?
Hi Dustin. I have seen the review, very good as usual. I have also read several responses you have given to the comments and I see that this lens is definitely not that sharp compared to the Tamron you used or other examples you have given. My question: Why don't these expensive lenses compare in image quality to cheaper lenses? Build Quality? Good. Performance? Good. Image definition? Average. Why?
Tamron achieved its performance and size in part by choosing to reduce the focal range a bit and by relying on IBIS for stabilization. That allowed them to keep the cost of the lens down while also allowing them to optimize the performance across a smaller zoom ratio. This is a formula they've used with a number of their pro-grade zooms on Sony, and it has paid dividends. Canon chose the route of creating a smaller lens while also trying to retain all of the features of previous 70-200 lenses. Maybe you can't have it all...
@@DustinAbbottTWI That’s makes a lot of sense. More mechanical elements more complex off course. And that complexity affects quality. Fair enough. Thanks for the response Dustin.
Thank you for another fully packed and meaningful review. I have a recommendation question for you. I used to have a 5D mIV, but it and all my lenses were stolen. So, I decided to invest in the R series and picked up the R6. Looking to get a 70-200. I do a lot of horse event shooting, and horse documentary work including a lot of portrait shots. I can afford the RF at the cost of maybe not buying at 85mm prime for another year (due to the budget I have to replace all my gear). I respect your views and honest opinions on lenses, and find myself agreeing with you on most of the points after I've used the same lens. With all that, would you recommend the Sigma, Tamron, Canon EF, or RF lens. I do like the option with the Sigma, Tamron, and EF to have an extender, but I've never used one to date--just rented a EF 100-400mm. thanks for your time and consideration of my question.
If you don't mind using the adapter and the larger size, investing in an EF mount lens will certainly save you money. The Tamron G2 probably stands out as the best value for money, and does work well with the Tamron TCs. A used LII is probably also a great value, and works even better with TCs. To me the single greatest values of the RF version are the compact size (which I think is a big deal!) and the fabulous autofocus performance. I also think the bokeh is nicer than the alternatives.
As I'm reading comments about the sharpness I feel like I got very lucky with my copy of this lens. I did the same test wide open and mine is razor sharp from edge to edge throughout the entire range. From what I've seen in this review, it looks like you really got much worse copy, especially looking at the corners. There are sadly still variations in lenses...Great Review tho
As always, a perfect review, thanks! Love your reviews for their hard and practical, but also closer and technical examinations! But the result of the optical qualities surprises me. Opticallimits und Gordon Laing from Camera Labs resulted, that the lens was extremly sharp from edge to edge, even at f/2.8. Could it be, that you had a "Monday-Model" or weren't they peeping as much?
That's obviously hard for me to say. I did use the higher resolution EOS R5, so that could be a factor. Still, though, I don't think Bryan Carnathan's chart tests are radically different than what I saw: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
It looks like Bryan's results weren't really far off mine: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1507&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think The Digital Picture paragraph: "This lens is extremely sharp. Despite the reduced proportions, overall image quality was not sacrificed (a bit more peripheral shading) and even improved in some regards (better flare resistance). The impressive-performing 5-stop image stabilization system will help realize impressive image quality even when shooting handheld." ...says a lot. I appreciate and thank you for your fantastic reviews. Mr. Abbott.
I have a Canon EOS R and I own the Sigma EF 70-200mm F2.8 and am wondering how it compares to the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8. As you know that's a huge price difference. $1850 CAD vs. $3500 CAD.
It definitely breathes a bit at close focus distances for stills. You can tell that because it focuses much closer than, say, the Sony 70-200 GM and yet has a lower magnification figure.
Great review ..........I have been searching, including contacting Tamron regarding this .....do you think Tamron will make their Sony "Holy Trinity" of lenses for the Canon R system ? ......some have suggested that the Canon mount is too big and the whole lens would have to be redesigned to fit the R system ........ Thus far Tamron has not replied to my question about this issue
I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to port over the FE versions of these lenses...but Canon may be acting protective of focus algorithms right now. I think the R5 and R6 will sell well enough to convince Tamron and Sigma to take the plunge on RF
If you are in eos R system, you better buy RF lens now while you can still sell your EF glasses for a good price. If you wait for RF price to drop in the future, your EF will drop a lot more. If you don’t have any EF glasses and you are new to EOS R system, you can wait for RF price to drop or third party lens options. I’m sure that everyone who are in EOS R system will plan to upgrade to RF glasses sooner or later unless you want to use DSLR for next decade.
That's an interesting perspective, actually, and there could be some validity to it. Traditionally EF lenses (particularly L series) have held their value well, but will that be true if the mount becomes increasingly obsolete?
Dustin, I enjoyed listening to this video while driving into work this morning. You make a justifiable case for today's Tamron lenses. In your judgment, would you bank on a Tamron lens for business purposes... Event photography they you don't really get a second chance at?
Thank you Dustin for this review! So the 70-200 is not that sharp! I expected more from it, frankly. I own one but weren’t aware of the lack of sharpness, mostly at 70 mm. I will check out my on the R5. Must see what the canonist thedigitalpicture says about it too. Thank you once again!
I don't think saying it is "not sharp" is the right takeway. It's not sharper than the EF lenses (some give and take), but I do think it creates more pleasing images: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Wow , beautiful snow outside, where are you located ? Honest and Solid review as we are used to get from you ! That 10 second shot of yourself says enough about the quality of the combine IS system. Corner test scared me a bit for such a lens ;-) Must say , that Tamron is not bad for that price. Bokeh looks good. Bit disappointed over all compared to the old 70-200 and taking the price in consideration. Anyway, thanks again for the effort, very informative.
@21:09 WOW! Thats terrible! I'm shocked! For such an expensive lens I would expect absolute perfection. This is a terrible performance. The outcome of this review is; Buy the R5 with the EF converter and Tamron glass.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think you are right. Other reviews arent getting results like this it seems. I have to say, I appreciate your thorough testing and presentation
Isn’t the Tamron a Sony lens?? Would’ve liked to see the the EF and Tamron G2 compared. It’s really not smaller. Most people spend a lot of time at 200mm with these lenses and fully extended its about the same. In this specific case I feel the Ef lens is better. Internal zoom is always better and it’s way cheaper.
Hi Sol, yes, the Tamron is a Sony lens, but it is essentially the only other compact full frame zoom with a roughly similar focal range and aperture. I also had it on hand and wanted to give some perspective on the optical performance, whereas I had neither of the other two lenses you mention available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh I figured you didn’t have them no worries I knew why you added it. Didn’t mean it negatively just what I was thinking. The G2 is such an amazing lens and the L mark iii also just saying of it extends anyway might as well try those with the adapter might have better results for much cheaper and it seems the adapter is doing an amazing Job
This is my second time to view this video. It's very useful. The EF 70-200 f/2.8 was one of my favorite lenses, and I had been looking forward to getting the RF version and was just about to pull the trigger. I thought I would give your review another go and am glad I did. The Sony system is looking better. I've been a Canon shooter for a long time, so it would be a big move. Thanks for your work. Hmm. Less than stellar image quality, non compatibility with tele extenders. Big issues.
I think the copy that I reviewed may not have been performing up to spec, but I do still favor the new Sony 70-200mm GM II because it 1) is internally zooming and 2) is compatible with teleconverters. It also has higher magnification.
I'm actually using a good lav mic, but I have experimented some with the position. Since I've spent a lot of time with the EQ response, I would say that the characterization of a "strong echo" is really overstating things. That being said, I don't like it as well as my standard position on my body.
Hi Michael, it is an improvement in terms of rendering, but not really in terms of sharpness. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Everything I have read says the new RF is supposed to be sharp as heck, even better than the EF versions. This review says otherwise. Might need to rethink wanting to go from EF version 3 to the RF copy.
I wonder if people actually compared them to the last two EF versions. Bryan Carnathan's chart tests seem not to indicate that it is sharper: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I’ve heard optical performance on the EF III is virtually the same as the RF version, so I’d keep your EF III. Only reason to “upgrade” is portability/convenience. Although I must admit, i do love the RF 70-200 for size alone. The 1 lb drop is really noticeable when using for extended periods handheld.
@@xkben90 this is why I'm kind of wondering if Dustin didn't get a soft copy. Every review I've watched about even the newest third part lenses says they're not as good as the Canon version, but the cost to performance ratio makes them solid contenders.
@@mikezupancic2182 I can’t compare the EF 70-200 vs the RF 70-200 because I only have the RF version, but what I can say about Canon lenses in general: they were never about being the absolute sharpest. As an example, my Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is my sharpest lens I own of all my lenses. However, my Canon lenses (15-35 and the 70-200) have a certain look to it that makes me appreciate it more. I can’t put m y finger on it, but it’s definitely more of a “personal choice” than a technical one. Think coloration, bokeh, how the image is rendered, etc... What I’m trying to say is this... reviewers like Dustin are VERY useful for potential buyers, but they use extreme tests to compare sharpness and other factors from lens to lens. In real use (assuming you’re not zooming in 10x to check), you will not see the difference. I used to think that the sharpest lenses were the most used/desired, but as I see more and more professionals and their tools, it is a matter of preference/personal taste. If you have the money, RF 70-200 all day in my opinion .If you don’t, the EF is virtually the same minus the size and weight (and the fact that you have to use an adapter).
@@mikezupancic2182 If you want real-world use and not pixel peeping, I'd look up Jared Polin as well. I'm actually not huge into photography, but he did a good job of comparing the two, and based on his remarks, it seems like he didn't notice any difference in sharpness either. He sums up the comparison around the 21 min mark. th-cam.com/video/pEYYW-VQwj4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JaredPolin
Canon really should have improved the edge sharpness to justify the price increase. Size and weight drop good, no extender capability really bad oversight.
The truth of the matter is that I'm not sure how important edge sharpness is to many real world users of the lens. But yes, using the ability to use TCs is a definite blow, and the lens is overpriced.
if the lens at F2.8 is not so great ,,will it be better to buy F4.0 lens and it costs much lens, which is just announced, request you to do a comparison test
Hi Dustin. Is it possible your copy is a bit worse than others? I read other reviews and measurements and if corners are weaker, they were not so bad 🧐
That's always a possibility, though when I look at the raw data from some other reviewers, I'm not sure that's the case: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1507&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 | I guess a separate concern would why there might be severe sample variation in a $2700 lens.
By the way Dustin, thinking about the lack of contrast you mention for close up (the example with the flowers), do you have the lastest firmware of the lense? There is a back or front focus issue with this lense, solved by this firmware. I saw other samples and it did not look bad at all for closeups
Yeah great Lens! :D if i didn't own the Sigma 70-200/2.8 Sports i would definitly buy this one!!! 9:00 maybe there will be a thirt party option for those who need that arca-swiss tripod collar.
@@DustinAbbottTWI now i own the RF 70-200 2.8 and sold my Sigma. I don't regret it. Yes its much more expensive. But in terms of sharpness, lightweight and size a big upgrade. Unfortunately no compatibility to Canons RF extender. For me its a big con!!!
There is only one reason not to shoot 70-200 lenses: You not having it in your bag/ better just having it mounted at the body in your hand. If it happens, one of two root cause may have taken place: 1. Size and weight of traditional 70-200 2.8 s are beyond a no brainer to always carry with you: This new lens is a game changer. We will have to wait to the 4.0 sibling's performance to even beat this RF workhorse. 2. Price. Yes we need 3rd party options on the market!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, the f4 version seem to be an impressive compact design. I do have one proposal for your reviews thinking about those tele zooms: One use case is nature photography thinking about insects like butterflies, dragonflies, ... There are two relevant specifications defining the chances of success: max magnification ratio and focus distance. You can calculate an equivalent focal length at minimum distance out of the two data: i.e. - EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM: minimum 0.98m, 0.31x -> 224mm equivalent focal length @ minimum distance (lens set to "400mm") - EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM: minimum 1.0m, 0.27x -> 167mm equivalent focal length @ minimum distance (lens set to "200mm") The 70-200 is quite close in distant insect shooting compared to the much more bulky, heavy and expensive 100-400, not expected at all. I do not expect the tiny RF version to have the same genes in this use case, but we will see. I am looking forward to your review. You will have your fingers more early than I will hav to a copy of this interesting lens.
Once again after so many wow-like reviews an honest one... For this kind of money, I would simply expect way more (almost the same story as with RF15-35). The corners are simply an issue for all the work besides portrait/sport...
Scrolling through search results for the RF 70-200 f/2.8, I was looking for an in-depth analysis by a reviewer who respects himself and his viewers. As soon as I saw your name, I gave a sigh of relief. I trust you and your research and presentations. Thank you for your thoroughness and professionalism.
My pleasure.
I see a lot of people are being put off by the sharpness. I own this lens, and let me tell you, it's extremely sharp. Third party lenses like Tamron and Sigma produce great lenses and they are great options. They always shine in terms of sharpness. But sharpness should not be the importance. In my opinion what third-party lenses lack is the overall "character." That's where these Canon lenses shine. The overall look is unique to Canon and this lens delivers. Yeah, I guess it seems very soft on the edges in this review but I think that's the trade off to its AMAZING bokeh. I'd say if you're considering it, rent one out first and see for yourself. You'll be extremely happy. These TH-cam reviews are great to watch but there's nothing like reviewing your own images.
I think this is a very fair assessment, and a point that I tried to make in this review. I love the LOOK of the images from this lens while not necessarily being impressed with the technical, pixel level performance.
You're nuts. Im not going to pay thousands for "unique" inferior image quality
@@burritobrosvideos8060 not as sharp doesn't mean inferior. But if it does to you I understand. My point is that OVERALL the canon is superior. That's my opinion though. I've tried both, plus sigma, plus the EF versions.
@@patricioderito3722 its not a matter of opinion, if one lens is sharper than the other while providing equal contrast and colors than it is objectively better in image quality. If you prefer convenience over image quality than I understand your point of view, which really is fine. Its just that people expect image quality typically when looking for lenses
@@burritobrosvideos8060 what you dont understand is that it’s not better or worse, they are different, Two different looks, for instance, these Canon lenses have a special bokeh, and this special bokeh makes everything look dreamy, a 3D pop to your subject that most 3rd party lenses lack, most people don’t really see it. And that’s why they are not soooooo sharp compared to tamron. It’s a trade off. But not a big one because they are still super sharp. Same with the old canon 85mm 1.2, That lens was super slow and definitely not sharp, but people praised it because the bokeh was incredible, and it made the whole image dreamy. If you have the money I’d highly recommend you at least rent it first and see if you like it. I think it’s expensive, but after I tried it, I loved it, more than anything the SIZE of it. 70-200 in that size 😍😍.
Canon is killing it! Size and weight matters. Wedding, landscape and travel photographers will all want this lens.
There are definitely many applications for this.
As a serious hobbyist this was my second lens purchase with the first being the RF 24-70mm f/2.8...yeah, a bit deep in the pockets. I have been very satisfied for the past 10 months of use.
I think if it is used like most people shoot the focal length, it is plenty sharp. I found it very sharp midframe...which is where most people shoot.
Dust is not the only problem those kind of lenses may or not may have. Cold, rain and moist and sport eg. Marathons etc. Deadly when humidity gets inside, the warm hand makes the moist vaporize, the cold glass mist up.. (so far the EF 70-200 was/is very save in such circumstances). The RF-70-200 has to prove after a few hundert hours in cold and wet circumstances.. (sorry for bad english.. not my language)
I used the Canon EF 70-300L with an extending barrel in all kinds of weather for years without issue.
I do find it comical how well-performing the Tamron lenses have been vs 1st party offerings by Canon, Nikon, Sony. If anything, this sells the Tamron lenses. Really hard to beat
There's some truth to this, though right now on Canon RF mount, it is a moot point. I'm hoping we start to see third party development on the platform.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i agree, but i am a Sony shooter. The 3rd party lenses being 1st-party-like is the main reason i went to Sony. I can no longer justify spending 2-3x more on 1st party lenses. From any maker.
I want to see a third party competitor to the 28-70 f/2.0, so we can have some less expensive options.
Excellent and timely review. I ordered this lens Thursday and I’m looking forward to getting my hands on it. Thank you Dustin, for the hard work you put into these video reviews.
Enjoy your new lens!
Early winter in its whole beauty nicely matches the lens.
Agreed. I think images have a nice overall feel to them.
Horrified at some of the corner performance shown here. I don't see any need to upgrade from my EF mkii.
I hope Dustin receives the rf 100-500 for review.
The reason for upgrade would not be optical performance, but rather the compact size and excellent autofocus performance. There really isn't an optical upgrade here that I can see.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm becoming more and more happy with my A7R IV with my GM glass, the more RF glass is put through its paces. The 70-200 GM seems to outperform this in optical peformance and AF is on par? Albeit in a bigger formfactor. Turns out Canon isn't the end-all-be-all camera system. I wonder where we are in 3 years time when I can reconsider my system.
The GM is also overpriced. It isn't a better lens optically than the Canon: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1137&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for this, why did your RF 70-200 look so aweful in the corners? That link looks better. Also why is the 42MP bigger than the 33MP on that link, seems like swome weird scaling. Can you do your own comparison if you still have the Sony version on hand? All premium on-brand lenses are too expensive. :S
I don't have the GM on hand. If you change the comparison there to the Tamron that I used for comparison, you'll find that it is sharper than both of those lenses at most focal lengths.
To hear the well composed Dustin Abbott describe the lack of Arca Swiss compatibility as "stupid", makes me feel even more justified in my frustration with that particular persistent design choice ;) If lenses that are half the price can do it (thinking of Tamron's offerings) I would think that in 2020, Canon could certainly do the same.
On a side note - There are various manufacturers that produce either short metal lens hoods, or flexible silicone ones that extend according to the level of shielding required/appropriate that screw into 77mm filter thread. While less convenient because it takes more turns to get it properly seated, I find myself increasingly throwing one of them into my camera bag to have a bit of shielding (with a single 77mm step up ring mounted to all lenses by default) when needed, without having to bring 3 different hoods that take up considerable space.
I've seen hoods like that, and this might be a good application for one when traveling light.
the IBIS definitely ruins your corner sharpness .R5 & R6 IBIS still has some glitch to it. i suggest you turn off the IBIS and shooting with tripod for this kind of test in the future.
I always do all of my chart tests with a tripod, no IBIS, and a 2 second timer. IBIS should have nothing to do with this result.
@@DustinAbbottTWI really? my opinion come after observing test image on your website .
dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/canon-rf-70-200l-review/34-Corner-Improvement.jpg
and comparing with digital-picture result.
those looks like f/2.8 image suffer from motion blur (135° shift on x-y plane) . the top left & bottom right corner looks way sharper than the opposite side. if its not because of the IBIS maybe the shutter shock does. or worse you got a lemon lens...
to be honest im pretty surprised those image taken with IBIS off.
Too bad you didn't test for focus breathing. I think Canon has really been focusing on video optimization with the RF releases, making sure they do well in both traditional photography as well as video. Focus breathing in video can be a serious problem, so it would be nice to see how it handles focus at the edge of its reach.
I wish the zoom element didn’t slide out like that. The EF 2.8 is internal as we all know and that’s def preferred imo. Either way I want this lens lol
That's probably the chief complaint that I've heard, though you don't get the compact lens without that.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes agreed
... well, not as impressive as I thought, but at least a good lens. 🤷🏼♂️ But a great review, thx ...
That's a general trend with things like Sony GM lenses, too. They have the most features, often the nicest build, but aren't always the winners optically.
... ha, what about the 135 GM, 24 GM and 20 G or the 12-24 GM. 😏 ... sorry, was just a joke! 😉
I'll grant the 135GM (perhaps the sharpest lens that I ever tested, so I snapped one up). The 24 GM is good, for sure, but I'm not sure it's sharper than the 20G.
Don't be fooled. His photos, out of focus, looked like user error and not necessarily the lenses fault.
Im not sure about the extending zoom mechanism on these RF lenses, at least on the F/2.8 lens with its heavier glass elements. It makes quick zooming cumbersome when shooting fast action and increases dust and water ingress. The primary advantage is packability?
Canon seems to be prioritizing aesthetics and compactness over function and usability. Wonder if they are planning to release an internal zoom model?
I don't think you are actually limited in fast zooming; the zoom action is smooth here.
Two years after, I completely agree with you about 70mm @f/2.8. Had to check my technique, test the lens, and find some reviews that took the time to check focal lengths and areas within the frame. THANK YOU for so many great reviews, Dustin!...Compared to the newer primes, way soft. But still very good for portraiture, especially stopped down a stop and at 100mm plus. Hard to claim it as the "king" of 70-200mm's.
I've often wondered if I tested a poor copy of the lens, as others seem to be much more positive.
I have had the EF 70-200 L IS II for six years. That lens really stood out with its image quality even in the corners wide open, which set it apart from the earlier versions. This RF lens, while nicely compact, does not justify the extreme price tag in my opinion. Yes, of course, professional photographers will buy the lens anyway and they are the target audience. But with the fact that adapted EF lenses work really well on the new Canon cameras, I think the strongest competitor for this lens are the EF 70-200 2.8L IS Mark 2 and Mark 3 lenses on the used market. I have just sold mine for less than the Tamron 70-180 costs.
I would say the LII and LIII lenses are a bit sharper in the corners, yes. I also agree that the RF lens is overpriced.
HI - curious what you purchased after selling EF II ? and how does it compare to the EF II ?
@@unknownKnownunknowns At the time I sold my EF 70-200 2.8L II, I had already switched to Sony. And there I let it go because adapted with the Sigma MC-11 it had just too many focus issues, sadly. I went with the Sigma 85 mm DG DN, because I wanted to have a smaller lens for portraits that fit in my shoulder bag, and did not want to pay the insane price of the Sony 70-200. For portraits, the 85 mm is amazing, but I have lots of situations where I miss owning a 70-200 because of its flexibility. My only long lens is a 200-600 now, and 200 mm minimum focal length is too long in some cases. Today I would probably buy some sort of 70-200 again instead of the 85 mm, just to have that flexible lens instead of a portrait specialist. Compared to the EF 70-200 2.8L II, there are lighter lenses available now, like the RF and the new Sony which both shave off about 500 grams. But still I would not want to pay that much, so maybe the F4 instead.
thanks for another great review. Was thinking I "needed" to upgrade from my EF MK2 version and now I think I can hold off. One thing I do notice when I set the EF lens to focus 1.2 to infinity it hunts and pecks a lot when I change it to 2.5 the lens works perfectly. not sure if that is a firmware issue with the R5 it does not seem to happen on the R
It could possible be a firmware issue.
@@DustinAbbottTWI got my lens station today and upgraded the firmware it solves the issue and now IBIS works perfectly
Dustin please do comparison between canon ef 70-200 f2.8 with adopter vs canon rf 70-200 f2.8 on canon r5 it's very important lens in most of the people's work.. So let us know ur views
Hi Shiva, I don't actually have either lens on hand, so I don't think I'll be able to do that. My schedule is full through the end of the year with other reviews.
Still impressed by Tamron 70-180 mounted on Sony 42mp camera. Once Tamron gets into the RF mount we may see interesting and more budget friendly lenses. Currently all fast RF lenses are very expensive and I can't wait to see Sigma or Tamron offerings.
I completely agree. This lens is competitive on a lot of fronts, but I was relatively unimpressed by the optical performance relative to what we've seen from alternatives.
I saw Sigma say in their Instagram comments that "2021 is going to be a great year for sigma users with the RF mount". I cannot wait.
@SwitchRich So far all my third parties EF lenses work pretty well on the EOS R. If Samyang/Rokinon is able to develop and manufacture RF lenses with AF why Sigma or Tamron wouldn't be able to do it? Even if Canon decides not to share protocol with others surely they are capable of reverse engineering it.
@SwitchRich - unfortunately I think you're right. Sony actually has some ownership in Tamron, so we've gotten some pretty special Tamron lenses on Sony.
Right now, problem with RF system is just expensive lenses. The body is expensive but it's doable but adding lenses, it is just too much. I stil use a lot of my EF lenses and the only RF mount lense I have is the 35mm 1.8 STM (not really sharp imo) and soon the 50mm 1.8 STM (maybe). I wanted to get the Samnyang 85mm f1.4 RF but then I still got my sigma art 85mm f1.4 on EF adapter. I would have bought the Samnyang one if it has the new ring. In summary, I am still waiting for 3rd party lenses with new rings etc to expand my lense for RF.
That's a very valid point.
As always an informative review. Your audio however is very echoey, are you filming in a different room or farther from the mic?
I experimented with placing the lav mic slightly further away (on the plant nearby me). It wasn't fully satisfying!
Thankfully you mentioned in IS performance about 'real word usage', it really does still come down to the users ability to keep camera/lens steady.
I just think there are practical limits to what IS can do, and the rating in stops doesn't always tell the full story. I'm skeptical of the real world 7.5 stop possibilities.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You and me both, Dustin. You'd still have to have a very steady hand to shoot at 1 second or longer.
Thanks Dustin. I have no doubt of your results as you are an excellent reviewer, however do you think it could have been a bad sample? I don’t believe I’ve seen similar reporting and it’s strange that Canon would design a lens with such short comings. Would it be worth getting a different version of the lens to test? I appreciate it would be a lot of work.
hi Greg, I think there is a very good possibility of that, as it really seems that others found different results than me.
Size-wise, I think this lens is Canon's biggest strength at this point. How I wish Sony had something like that. (Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we've got the 70-180 Tamron, which is a great pick.) It is disappointing to see that such an expensive lens doesn't deliver in terms of corner sharpness, though.
Agree on both points.
Just ordered my R5 & 70-200 to augment my R6 and 28-70. Thanks for your review.
Nice. That will be a sweet kit.
Great review! So disappointed in sharpness. I’ll stick with my EF version Mark 2, although I’d love the compactness of the RF version. Hopefully Tamron releases an RF version (can’t believe the Tamron is only 810grams)
I wouldn't be put off by that sharpness test. I own the lens and I can tell you, it's freaking sharp!! and bokeh is amazing. Yeah the corners are a bit soft but that's the price to a beautiful overall rendering of the image, it's liek art, it's got a special character to it. Tamron and Sigma make great lenses, they are super sharp but lack that special "character." If you're considering it, I would say rent the land and take a look for yourself. It's great to see these reviews but there's nothing like reviewing your own images.
There's some truth to what Patricio is saying. It isn't a sharper lens than the competition, but it does make images that are more pleasing on a global level than may competitors.
Thanks for the review. Though longer than a Canon It is still a great will build Sony lens for those who wishes to have Sony native lens with OIS and 30fps. Personally I still prefer the versatility of the combination setup of a Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and the Sony A7R V's 60MP/26MP (super sampling sharper than 33MP A7 IV image) and skip carrying all the extra weight or the need of swapping prime/macro/zoom lenses. Maybe a small and lightweight 16-28mm or 16-35mm in a small backpack/sling or even a full size flash that is able to manufacture light when I needed which is much more useful at all time.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range with Full-Frame and APS-C mode:
@ f/2.0 Total available range: 35mm-58.5mm (FF range: 35mm-39mm + APS-C range: 52.5mm-58.5mm)
@ f/2.2 Total available range: 40mm-88.5mm (FF range: 40mm-59mm + APS-C range: 60.0mm-88.5mm
@ f/2.5 Total available range: 60mm-118.0mm (FF range: 60mm-79mm + APS-C range: 90.0mm-118.0mm)
@ f/2.8 Total available range: 80mm-225.0mm (FF range: 80mm-150mm + APS-C range: 120.0mm-225.0mm)
I do love the 35-150mm, though it doesn't take away from how good the new Sony is.
I wasn't crazy about the externally zooming *telescoping barrel* but could probably get over that under the right circumstances.
What I can't deal with is how much you need to turn the zoom ring to get all the way from 70-200mm.
I like my EF 70-200mm for now and will keep using it until Canon comes out with a better version (for my needs) of the RF 70-200mm.
Great idea about the lens collar being Arca-Swiss compatible, that would make lots of sense.
FYI - the audio is really bright on this video, almost harsh sibilance.
There's definitely a lot of people who are offput by the external zooming. It doesn't bother me, but I've had a lot of similar feedback to yours.
Not a fan of the barrel extension, should of been internal for a pro lens keeping my EF lenses for the moment.
I know a lot of people feel this way, but I shot with the EF 70-300L for years and had ZERO problems with the extending barrel. It was rock solid and never had problems with dust or moisture...even shooting in our -30 degree winters.
Awesome, sir! You must have been a great teacher in classes. I appreciate the talking being so smooth and fluent. And this review itself is very helpful for me considering buying the lens. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I recently purchased this lens for my Canon R6. I was hoping you would have explained what the ring at the base of the lens is for and how to set it up. Do I set it up and sync it through the camera ? Thank you in advance.
When you go through your camera settings to set custom controls, you'll see an option for the control ring. You can set whatever value to it that you prefer.
Thanks for another great in depth review. Do you happen to have a "faulty" lens? Gordon Laing compared the RF and EF versions too, and his finding was the opposite when it comes to sharpness. The RF was sharp, and sharper wide open than the EF Mark III... thanks
I suspect that I did have a lens that underperformed, but getting Canon loaners has proven challenging in recent years for some reason, so it's harder to check.
I understand that the deep analysis at pixel level is indispensable for a definitive review but I think this is a good example of how a lens is much more than MTFs or said amplified scrutiny. You kept saying you were not "wowed" or overly impressed by the lens and I kept finding it perfect for what I think a 70-200 f/2.8 should deliver, as I watched the final overall results. For instance, a 70-200 f/2.8 is mainly a flexible portrait tool for many photographers, hence, I feel, Canon's good design options in what regards the corners. It is critical that this kind of lens performs perfectly in the center but not so much in the corners. My EF 70-200 f/2.8 II, for example, shows this trait, this design option, in such a noticeable way, that I have deemed it pretty much unusable as a perspective-compression landscape lens and I always resort to the 100-400 for that purpose, when traveling. As I saw your examples, one after the other, I kept finding that the way this lens resolves color rendition, contrast and OOF areas is pretty much perfect for a 70-200 and, certainly, is a very good example of what Canon L lenses are all about. In any case, thank you for yet another excellent review.
I don't disagree with you, and I made that point several times in the review. My perspective is that I really liked the images on a global level even if I wasn't wowed on a technical, pixel level.
Exactly my thoughts: very impressive design for the use cases of a 70-200 2.8 in sports, weddings, reportage.
It setts the edge of the market in all what matters in this genres: reliable AF and IS, pleasing OOF areas, and yes: seize and weight to be carried days long within a kit.
Not for landscape, not for architecture, not for pixel peeping, ....
And in the genres mentioned an extender was never in use.
I would love to see If Canon could pump out these fast zooms with a much smaller footprint(and of course smaller price tag) and sacrificing extreme sharpness. I’d argue that clinical sharpness isn’t the most important feature for over 75% of people using these cameras.
From my experience speaking with and observing reel photographers, they never even mention the sharpness of the lenses they use. They seem to focus more on the character of each lens and how that “character” helps them express what they’re trying to show the clients.
@@peterebel7899 dude, its overpriced canon gear. Its not setting the edge for anything. Tamron is the future and other companies are going to follow.
Debating between this one and the EF version I hate the lens extending and you can't put a tele on it, but soft corners got me worried especially for a lens that basically 3k ugh
That's fair, though I will say that I personally burn out on using lenses via adapter. Your mileage may vary, obviously.
... missing Arca compatibility is indeed a negative point.
I certainly think so.
Great to see that this lens has some character to it's overall rendering, despite the disappointing corner performance. It makes me wonder how it compares to the latest EF version in these regards...
Take a look here: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 | I don't think the RF lens is sharper, but it does deliver nicer bokeh and rendering.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for pointing this out, Dustin. Wide open, the RF f/2.8 appears sharper than the EF III on T-D-P's charts in center and mid, but not a reason to upgrade if you own EF ii or iii, right? Your charts indicate the RF f/4 looking sharper than the RF f/ 2.8, The f/4 now discounted to $1500, $1300 less that the F/2.8, which is tempting...
Thanks, I always prefer internal Zoom because of the dust issue, I have crazy dust issue with the old 100-400L mk 1, I usually shoot at beach and desert area. Do you think this lens is good in dusty area? thanks.
I had the 70-300L for years and have had the 100-400L II for years and haven't had any issue. I'm pretty sure Canon thought long and hard about this.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Great, thank you.
Another great review Dustin. I just ordered one since selling my EF 70-200mm F2.8 iii. I was disappointed to hear about the average sharpness as I was really impressed with the sharpness of the EF version 3. Thanks for the detailed review.
Let me know how you find the sharpness of your lens. It’s possible that I had a soft copy, as others seem to have found the lens sharper than I did.
I just picked up one of these used. The lens focuses well, but on continuous focus (like following a bird for example) it makes an ongoing noise that's easily audible. This is on a R5, and is the same with IS on and off. I do not have a similar sound with the 24-105mm F4. Is this normal for the lens, or is there possibly something wrong with the nano USM?
I don't recall a lot of focus noise, but it is very hard to diagnose things like this over the internet.
Great review as always Dustin - love your thorough analysis of the lens too. Super helpful to see how it compares to the tamron.
The RF lens system is looking like it will have all the needed lenses for pro's natively soon.
This lens looks great for a 2.8 70-200. Given the design/quality compromise vs their other RF lenses do you think there will be a higher quality f/2 telezoom similar to their 28-70/2?
Do you think Canon's proprietary approach to the RF mount will hinder 3rd parties from releasing lenses in RF mount. I know Sony release specifications for E-Mount where Canon and Nikon don't licence EF/RF/Z/F-mount?
I do think third party development will come. They had to overcome the same hurdles on the EF and F mounts. I'm skeptical that an F2 version that covers a full 70-200 range will come. Such a lens would be very large and extremely expensive. Something that ran from 75-135mm is possible (and has been hinted at)
Great vid as always Dustin! Thank you. The canon rf 70-200 f4 is already out! Maybe a review/ comparison? Also the rf 100-500 could be a better alternative? Looking forward to know. :) keep it up
Hi Kiran, I definitely will look at the F4 version, though it will be a bit as I'm already booked solid for at least six weeks. I see the 100-500mm as having a completely different purpose than this lens.
Sir I have a question...
For a RF 70-200 2.8 on a FF camera.
is the Background Blur at 200mm 2.8 greater than the Background blur at 70mm 2.8 ?
or is it same or less.
( Same distance between the background and the subject and the camera.)
Definitely much more blur at 200mm.
I had been tempted by the entire RF system because of this lens, but those corners, woof...
Maybe you got a bad copy. Look forward to Roger@LR to provide some multi-copy data
That's fair, as that's always a possibility. I would be incredibly tempted by this lens if I saw a more compelling optical performance, as the bokeh and rendering from the lens is pretty lovely.
I still own the Canon 70/200 f2.8 L IS ll, which I always considers a nice lens on my 5Dlll. but I bought that lens when the 5Dlll first came out. and I would expect a new Canon 70/200 f2.8 L in the new bragged about bigger RF mount with the shorter flange distance to go to another level in image quality. so it is really surprising and disappointing to me to see you say that the new Tamron 70/180 f2.8 which is less than half the price is sharper. a lens that is less than half the price. and designed for a smaller size mount, Canon had all of this press about the bigger lens mount. and so far I am not impressed with the results of the bigger mount. so far we have the new 85 L RF mount which people are saying isn't as sharp as the new Sigma 85 Art. and the new 85 art is only 625g. almost half the weight of the Canon. yes I know its f1.4. and the new 35L that you just reviewed got a so so review. and now the new 70/200 f2.8 L gets a so so review. yet I am still always seeing people talk about the new Canon glass and how great it is. it's as if the new L lenses are benefiting from the L reputation. and people are saying how great they are just because they look like they must be great, after all they have the red ring on them right. and this is why for now I am sticking with my Sony A7r lll. way more third party lens choices that compete with the high priced brands for way less money. plus all the great Sony glass. This Canon review now has me considering buying the Tamron 70/180 f2.8. and I will let the Canon people who don't have any native choices buy the new Canon L for almost three grand.
There are aspect about this lens that are amazing. I love the size, it handles great, and has fabulous autofocus. But no, I don't think the image quality is improved in terms of sharpness. I think the bokeh is nicer than the LII and LIII, but it isn't sharper.
I have one question that i have asked many camera reviewer, but no one responded.
My question is does camera sensor has effective life like film. how well does the different sensor from different manufacturer last.
If you have a set of review using color chart, dated 10 years ago, can you bring back the old camera and do the same test on the colour chart and compare the results, also pitch each brand against each other.
So far, no one responded. I mean, it is a valid question. Canon’s pro camera life cycle is 5 years, will a 10 years old, or 5 years old camera retain their sensor performance. Should I change camera every 2 years just to keep the sensor “fresh”?
Hi there, I've never heard of that being an issue. There are still plenty of people using a 5D Mark III, for example, which is an 8 year old camera at this point.
I have a 6D mark 1 and it is fine after 8 years of use (and it was only a prosumer body at the time) I do have one hot pixel I can see in long exposures of night sky but other than that nothing to write home about. And I only had the sensor cleaned once 2 years ago at a Canon service centre. Just for peace of mind.
Really struggling here. Love the smaller size and weight reduction, but I already have a 2x teleconverter for the EF mount. I probably wouldn’t hike or travel with this lens anyway, so maybe it’s best to save some money and go with the EF mkiii? Thinking about using it for sports and portrait use. This is a hard choice.
That's a real challenge that many users will have to face. It sounds like that may be your best option.
Haven’t used it much yet with my R6 but it sure was always quick and accurate
That's very true. AF is fantastic.
Sharpness issues for flat subjects are probably due to a complex, bending focus field shape. In the typical use case (portraits) this should not be an issue, and might even contribute to the character of the image. I’d be more worried about sharpness at infinity, for landscape, as I don’t think Canon optimized the lens for that use case.
It's pretty good at smaller apertures at infinity
Hello. Dod you find that this lens made clicking noises while focusing? I have mine and im a little worried
I would love to be able to calm your fears, but there are two problems with that. 1) it is near impossible to diagnose "sounds" over the internet, and I'm not a Canon repair tech anyway and 2) I review at least four lenses a month on average, so trying to make a judgment call on something like this from my memory is not a reliable solution for you. I would ask Canon about it
Quality information as always! Most important was precluding the use of extenders. I am not going to buy it! I have to decide between EF 100-400 F/4-5.6 and EF70-200 F/2.8 with extenders. I respect your courage to say that it is not exceptional. Switching from Nikon was not easy. But I will take Canon.
Thanks for the feedback.
I just bought this lens today. I went out and shot. and now looking at reviews after the fact. LOL. kind of backwards. but I love it so far.
That is a little backwards, but if you are happy that's all that really matters.
Love the review. Been using my Tamron G2 with adapter. With the focus system on new canon cameras, the results are amazing! The only downside is that the lens is not fully compatible and therefore had to send it back to Tamron for review. Fingers crossed.
The autofocus is definitely an improvement on mirrorless.
Oh, the metal used on many lens feet from the manufacturers wouldn't stand up to being used with an araca mount or machining. Often that part is cast so machining it wouldn't be an option and if you did it could easily break. You'll find images posted of the Sony lens foot snapping on some users if you peruse the facebook forums, they call it "pot" metal.
I've owned a number of Tamron zooms with Arca machining and NEVER had a problem with the metal not standing up. I don't think this is a valid argument.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Oh, I agree they should use a suitable metal and machine it to arca, I'd love that and have purchased Kirk feet for all my lenses. My point was the current metal they're using for the feet would not stand up to machining if it was large enough and you did it yourself. I considered doing so with mine having access to a machine shop but after measuring it wasn't possible and then I saw reports of the metal breaking quite easily on the sony lens feet due to the composition of the metals used. Agreed, no excuse on a 2500 dollar lens! Tamron and Canon may use another metal, I'm speaking only from what I've seen posted on various groups with Sony feet snapping off where they affix to the lens.
This is strange. Most other reviews I have seen have concluded that this lens has better corner sharpness than the latest EF version. I have the RF version, and the corner sharpness is better than the EF version - at least v2 that I previously owned. The corner sharpness is also one of the major key points for Canon in their advertisements of this lens.
I considering Bryan Carnathan to be one of the kings of chart testing, and that's not what his tests show: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok. Regardless of how the sharp corners are, I bought this lens mainly for its size and weight. But compared to my old 70-200 2.8 v2, the RF is a bit sharper.
Thanks for this, Dustin! The softnesss in the corners is really disappointing. Though I'm still considering this lens due to its compactness and aperture size.
I've come to believe that the copy I tested was softer than average. I'd like to look at a second copy at some point.
8:55 I am thinking the Arca Swiss issue could be due to licensing? But I could be wrong.
Not sure why Tamron, Sigma, and Sony have managed to do it, then. I don't think this is the reason; Canon has got enough money to pay a licensing fee if that were the case.
Why would AS enforce licensing ? More AS compatible lenses means less competition and more sales.
You can add Olympus to the list of manufacturers that are compatible.
Hi Dustin! Great review! I just watched your 70-200 f4 RF review and then watched this one and now I'm going back to watch the f4 again. Did you decide to purchase the 70-200 2.8 RF? I shoot professionally with the 15-35 2.8 RF 5 days a week and love it. I'm back and fourth with 70-200 2.8 rf, f4 rf or just do the 70-200 EF Mark III with the adapter. BTW...I knew there was something other than camera's that I thought was awesome about you. Glad to hear you know Christ. What type of denomination are you a pastor at?
I haven't made that decision yet. I have a big Sony kit at this point along with a lot of EF lenses, which allows me to build the RF kit slowly
I'm a Pentecostal pastor, BTW
Hi Dustin. I have seen the review, very good as usual. I have also read several responses you have given to the comments and I see that this lens is definitely not that sharp compared to the Tamron you used or other examples you have given. My question: Why don't these expensive lenses compare in image quality to cheaper lenses? Build Quality? Good. Performance? Good. Image definition? Average. Why?
Tamron achieved its performance and size in part by choosing to reduce the focal range a bit and by relying on IBIS for stabilization. That allowed them to keep the cost of the lens down while also allowing them to optimize the performance across a smaller zoom ratio. This is a formula they've used with a number of their pro-grade zooms on Sony, and it has paid dividends. Canon chose the route of creating a smaller lens while also trying to retain all of the features of previous 70-200 lenses. Maybe you can't have it all...
@@DustinAbbottTWI That’s makes a lot of sense. More mechanical elements more complex off course. And that complexity affects quality. Fair enough. Thanks for the response Dustin.
Thank you for another fully packed and meaningful review. I have a recommendation question for you. I used to have a 5D mIV, but it and all my lenses were stolen. So, I decided to invest in the R series and picked up the R6. Looking to get a 70-200. I do a lot of horse event shooting, and horse documentary work including a lot of portrait shots. I can afford the RF at the cost of maybe not buying at 85mm prime for another year (due to the budget I have to replace all my gear). I respect your views and honest opinions on lenses, and find myself agreeing with you on most of the points after I've used the same lens. With all that, would you recommend the Sigma, Tamron, Canon EF, or RF lens. I do like the option with the Sigma, Tamron, and EF to have an extender, but I've never used one to date--just rented a EF 100-400mm. thanks for your time and consideration of my question.
If you don't mind using the adapter and the larger size, investing in an EF mount lens will certainly save you money. The Tamron G2 probably stands out as the best value for money, and does work well with the Tamron TCs. A used LII is probably also a great value, and works even better with TCs. To me the single greatest values of the RF version are the compact size (which I think is a big deal!) and the fabulous autofocus performance. I also think the bokeh is nicer than the alternatives.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for your input!
As I'm reading comments about the sharpness I feel like I got very lucky with my copy of this lens. I did the same test wide open and mine is razor sharp from edge to edge throughout the entire range. From what I've seen in this review, it looks like you really got much worse copy, especially looking at the corners. There are sadly still variations in lenses...Great Review tho
Hi Jakub, I'm glad you are enjoying your lens.
Very compact, looks a very nice lens
It is very nicely compact.
As always, a perfect review, thanks! Love your reviews for their hard and practical, but also closer and technical examinations!
But the result of the optical qualities surprises me. Opticallimits und Gordon Laing from Camera Labs resulted, that the lens was extremly sharp from edge to edge, even at f/2.8. Could it be, that you had a "Monday-Model" or weren't they peeping as much?
That's obviously hard for me to say. I did use the higher resolution EOS R5, so that could be a factor. Still, though, I don't think Bryan Carnathan's chart tests are radically different than what I saw: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI Interesting! But of course that doesn't weaken the strength of you review.
Hi Dustin have you checked Gordon’s review from cameralabs.com he shows very good corner image quality. I hope your copy is not bad.
It looks like Bryan's results weren't really far off mine: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1507&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think The Digital Picture paragraph: "This lens is extremely sharp. Despite the reduced proportions, overall image quality was not sacrificed (a bit more peripheral shading) and even improved in some regards (better flare resistance). The impressive-performing 5-stop image stabilization system will help realize impressive image quality even when shooting handheld."
...says a lot.
I appreciate and thank you for your fantastic reviews. Mr. Abbott.
Would be interesting to see your review of the Sigma EF 70-200mm F2.8 Sport mount compared to the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8
I have a Canon EOS R and I own the Sigma EF 70-200mm F2.8 and am wondering how it compares to the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8. As you know that's a huge price difference. $1850 CAD vs. $3500 CAD.
We'll talk about that kind of comparison when Sigma makes one for RF.
@@DustinAbbottTWIsounds good, but doesn't help those that own the EF mount version. Cheers!
Hey Dustin, great review as usual! I was wondering if you experienced any focus breathing with the lens?
Are you referring to video or photography focus breathing (two different things).
@@DustinAbbottTWI Both. I've experienced it on my R5 and its fairly annoying
It definitely breathes a bit at close focus distances for stills. You can tell that because it focuses much closer than, say, the Sony 70-200 GM and yet has a lower magnification figure.
Great review ..........I have been searching, including contacting Tamron regarding this .....do you think Tamron will make their Sony "Holy Trinity" of
lenses for the Canon R system ? ......some have suggested that the Canon mount is too big and the whole lens would have to be redesigned to fit the
R system ........ Thus far Tamron has not replied to my question about this issue
I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to port over the FE versions of these lenses...but Canon may be acting protective of focus algorithms right now. I think the R5 and R6 will sell well enough to convince Tamron and Sigma to take the plunge on RF
I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into your reviews, thank you.
Glad you like them!
If you are in eos R system, you better buy RF lens now while you can still sell your EF glasses for a good price. If you wait for RF price to drop in the future, your EF will drop a lot more. If you don’t have any EF glasses and you are new to EOS R system, you can wait for RF price to drop or third party lens options. I’m sure that everyone who are in EOS R system will plan to upgrade to RF glasses sooner or later unless you want to use DSLR for next decade.
That's an interesting perspective, actually, and there could be some validity to it. Traditionally EF lenses (particularly L series) have held their value well, but will that be true if the mount becomes increasingly obsolete?
Superb, highly detailed review. Thanks for that.
Glad it was helpful!
Does anyone know if you're able to rotate the camera body while using the tripod collar? (while on a tripod)
Yes you are.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I thought so! I tried to only once, but I don't think I was doing it properly. I'll keep trying. Thanks, Dustin!
Dustin, I enjoyed listening to this video while driving into work this morning. You make a justifiable case for today's Tamron lenses. In your judgment, would you bank on a Tamron lens for business purposes... Event photography they you don't really get a second chance at?
I've shot probably more than a dozen weddings and dozens of events with Tamron zooms. No problems.
Is it significantly better than my OLD 70-200 2.8 L (no IS)?
In many ways, yes. Much better AF, much better stability, lighter and more compact, a native mount, and it will be sharper.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thx. How come it always costs me money watching your videos (**)?
Unfortunately that is a common side effect...or so I've been told.
Did the front zoom ring not bother you? I imagine it to feel very weird and unintuitive.
I've used a lot of lenses with a front zoom ring, so no, it doesn't bother me at all.
The front zoom is the same as the 100-400L ii. Having the focus ring close works great for me when I manual focus in difficult conditions.
Thank you Dustin for this review! So the 70-200 is not that sharp! I expected more from it, frankly. I own one but weren’t aware of the lack of sharpness, mostly at 70 mm. I will check out my on the R5.
Must see what the canonist thedigitalpicture says about it too.
Thank you once again!
I don't think saying it is "not sharp" is the right takeway. It's not sharper than the EF lenses (some give and take), but I do think it creates more pleasing images: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Great review as always
Thanks again!
Wow , beautiful snow outside, where are you located ?
Honest and Solid review as we are used to get from you !
That 10 second shot of yourself says enough about the quality of the combine IS system.
Corner test scared me a bit for such a lens ;-)
Must say , that Tamron is not bad for that price.
Bokeh looks good.
Bit disappointed over all compared to the old 70-200 and taking the price in consideration.
Anyway, thanks again for the effort, very informative.
I'm located in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Yes, I wasn't particularly impressed with the corner performance myself.
The Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 IS III , is THE SHARPEST 70-200 there is for ALL platforms, hands down...
I'm not sure that's true, but if you're happy with your lens, that's all that matters.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Nah I was joking, but it is the sharpest in the Canon line up though...
@21:09 WOW! Thats terrible! I'm shocked! For such an expensive lens I would expect absolute perfection. This is a terrible performance. The outcome of this review is; Buy the R5 with the EF converter and Tamron glass.
I think I may have had a bad copy of the lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think you are right. Other reviews arent getting results like this it seems. I have to say, I appreciate your thorough testing and presentation
Isn’t the Tamron a Sony lens?? Would’ve liked to see the the EF and Tamron G2 compared.
It’s really not smaller. Most people spend a lot of time at 200mm with these lenses and fully extended its about the same. In this specific case I feel the Ef lens is better. Internal zoom is always better and it’s way cheaper.
Hi Sol, yes, the Tamron is a Sony lens, but it is essentially the only other compact full frame zoom with a roughly similar focal range and aperture. I also had it on hand and wanted to give some perspective on the optical performance, whereas I had neither of the other two lenses you mention available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh I figured you didn’t have them no worries I knew why you added it. Didn’t mean it negatively just what I was thinking. The G2 is such an amazing lens and the L mark iii also just saying of it extends anyway might as well try those with the adapter might have better results for much cheaper and it seems the adapter is doing an amazing Job
This is my second time to view this video. It's very useful. The EF 70-200 f/2.8 was one of my favorite lenses, and I had been looking forward to getting the RF version and was just about to pull the trigger. I thought I would give your review another go and am glad I did. The Sony system is looking better. I've been a Canon shooter for a long time, so it would be a big move. Thanks for your work.
Hmm. Less than stellar image quality, non compatibility with tele extenders. Big issues.
I think the copy that I reviewed may not have been performing up to spec, but I do still favor the new Sony 70-200mm GM II because it 1) is internally zooming and 2) is compatible with teleconverters. It also has higher magnification.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you.
Thanks for your review!!
My pleasure!
Very strong echo in last few videos, maybe try a good lav mic?
I'm actually using a good lav mic, but I have experimented some with the position. Since I've spent a lot of time with the EQ response, I would say that the characterization of a "strong echo" is really overstating things. That being said, I don't like it as well as my standard position on my body.
... great lens. Very happy with it 👍.
It has a lot of great qualities, for sure. I just wish it cost about $600 less!
Great review, but the new lens appears not to live up to expectations which given the history of the focal range is quite a shock.
Hi Michael, it is an improvement in terms of rendering, but not really in terms of sharpness. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I’m keeping my ef version only because I like having the teleconverter option.
Fair enough. For some users having a TC option is very important.
Dustin, it’s snowing in the background?
It was that day. It melted by afternoon, but this time of year is fairly volatile in weather around here.
@@DustinAbbottTWI holy crap, that’s kind of early?! But nevertheless, your reviews are highly appreciated. One of the good true ones.
@@DustinAbbottTWI however, seems to me the review was a disappointment? At least to me it was, expecting superior image quality.
I was a bit underwhelmed on a technical level, though I think the lens produces beautiful images on a global level.
Everything I have read says the new RF is supposed to be sharp as heck, even better than the EF versions. This review says otherwise. Might need to rethink wanting to go from EF version 3 to the RF copy.
I wonder if people actually compared them to the last two EF versions. Bryan Carnathan's chart tests seem not to indicate that it is sharper: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I’ve heard optical performance on the EF III is virtually the same as the RF version, so I’d keep your EF III. Only reason to “upgrade” is portability/convenience. Although I must admit, i do love the RF 70-200 for size alone. The 1 lb drop is really noticeable when using for extended periods handheld.
@@xkben90 this is why I'm kind of wondering if Dustin didn't get a soft copy. Every review I've watched about even the newest third part lenses says they're not as good as the Canon version, but the cost to performance ratio makes them solid contenders.
@@mikezupancic2182 I can’t compare the EF 70-200 vs the RF 70-200 because I only have the RF version, but what I can say about Canon lenses in general: they were never about being the absolute sharpest.
As an example, my Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is my sharpest lens I own of all my lenses. However, my Canon lenses (15-35 and the 70-200) have a certain look to it that makes me appreciate it more. I can’t put m y finger on it, but it’s definitely more of a “personal choice” than a technical one. Think coloration, bokeh, how the image is rendered, etc...
What I’m trying to say is this... reviewers like Dustin are VERY useful for potential buyers, but they use extreme tests to compare sharpness and other factors from lens to lens. In real use (assuming you’re not zooming in 10x to check), you will not see the difference. I used to think that the sharpest lenses were the most used/desired, but as I see more and more professionals and their tools, it is a matter of preference/personal taste. If you have the money, RF 70-200 all day in my opinion .If you don’t, the EF is virtually the same minus the size and weight (and the fact that you have to use an adapter).
@@mikezupancic2182 If you want real-world use and not pixel peeping, I'd look up Jared Polin as well. I'm actually not huge into photography, but he did a good job of comparing the two, and based on his remarks, it seems like he didn't notice any difference in sharpness either. He sums up the comparison around the 21 min mark.
th-cam.com/video/pEYYW-VQwj4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JaredPolin
hope to see same kind of Nikon Z lens reviews from you... as always great lens review 👍
Hi Ari, I'm sorry, but I don't review Nikon.
Watching now. Great lens. I have this. Beautiful at the 135mm
135mm is definitely a strong point in the zoom range.
I 200% agree its amazing at 135mm!
In other words Tamron is the better lens in regards to price and performance. If Tamron makes an RF version it will sell amazingly well.
I do think the Tamron would sell very well...so long as they nailed autofocus (which seems easier to do on mirrorless)
Canon really should have improved the edge sharpness to justify the price increase. Size and weight drop good, no extender capability really bad oversight.
The truth of the matter is that I'm not sure how important edge sharpness is to many real world users of the lens. But yes, using the ability to use TCs is a definite blow, and the lens is overpriced.
Thanks for another great indepth review! I wish I could afford this lens!
That's the way a lot of people could feel.
if the lens at F2.8 is not so great ,,will it be better to buy F4.0 lens and it costs much lens, which is just announced, request you to do a comparison test
Hi Kiran, I definitely will look at the F4 version, though it will be a bit as I'm already booked solid for at least six weeks.
Hi Dustin. Is it possible your copy is a bit worse than others? I read other reviews and measurements and if corners are weaker, they were not so bad 🧐
That's always a possibility, though when I look at the raw data from some other reviewers, I'm not sure that's the case: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1507&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 | I guess a separate concern would why there might be severe sample variation in a $2700 lens.
Dustin Abbott optical limits has different measures. Worse on the edges but not so bad. Who knows...🤷🏻♂️
Dustin Abbott th-cam.com/video/dituzmm4VvU/w-d-xo.html Look at 5:40 please. 70f4 really sharp here 🧐
By the way Dustin, thinking about the lack of contrast you mention for close up (the example with the flowers), do you have the lastest firmware of the lense? There is a back or front focus issue with this lense, solved by this firmware. I saw other samples and it did not look bad at all for closeups
Yeah great Lens! :D
if i didn't own the Sigma 70-200/2.8 Sports i would definitly buy this one!!!
9:00 maybe there will be a thirt party option for those who need that arca-swiss tripod collar.
The Sigma is a very strong value...though it goes to the opposite extreme in terms of size and weight.
@@DustinAbbottTWI now i own the RF 70-200 2.8 and sold my Sigma. I don't regret it. Yes its much more expensive. But in terms of sharpness, lightweight and size a big upgrade.
Unfortunately no compatibility to Canons RF extender. For me its a big con!!!
There is only one reason not to shoot 70-200 lenses: You not having it in your bag/ better just having it mounted at the body in your hand.
If it happens, one of two root cause may have taken place:
1. Size and weight of traditional 70-200 2.8 s are beyond a no brainer to always carry with you: This new lens is a game changer. We will have to wait to the 4.0 sibling's performance to even beat this RF workhorse.
2. Price. Yes we need 3rd party options on the market!
I'm pretty excited about the possibility of the F4 version. It makes this lens seem huge, which is impressive!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, the f4 version seem to be an impressive compact design.
I do have one proposal for your reviews thinking about those tele zooms:
One use case is nature photography thinking about insects like butterflies, dragonflies, ...
There are two relevant specifications defining the chances of success: max magnification ratio and focus distance.
You can calculate an equivalent focal length at minimum distance out of the two data: i.e.
- EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM: minimum 0.98m, 0.31x -> 224mm equivalent focal length @ minimum distance (lens set to "400mm")
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM: minimum 1.0m, 0.27x -> 167mm equivalent focal length @ minimum distance (lens set to "200mm")
The 70-200 is quite close in distant insect shooting compared to the much more bulky, heavy and expensive 100-400, not expected at all.
I do not expect the tiny RF version to have the same genes in this use case, but we will see.
I am looking forward to your review. You will have your fingers more early than I will hav to a copy of this interesting lens.
Any idea if a Mark II version of this lens will be released soon?
Not that I'm aware of.
Mark IV in 2035
Once again after so many wow-like reviews an honest one... For this kind of money, I would simply expect way more (almost the same story as with RF15-35). The corners are simply an issue for all the work besides portrait/sport...
I think that some reviewers give very short shrift to corner performance and mostly evaluate center sharpness.
@@DustinAbbottTWI indeed
Ah, there it is! :D
Enjoy!