I've never used anything but a 70-200 f4, both EF and RF, and my other 2 most used lenses are f4 versions too (RF 14-35 f4 L IS and RF 24-105 f4 L IS). Love my RF 70-200 f4 L IS. I shoot as the subject requires, wide open or stopped down.
Wow, I would never have thought of a 70-200 f4. This lens looks amazing and it's definitely on my radar. I shoot Sony primarily and I just got a Canon R8 so I will be shooting both platforms. Great review and your children are beautiful.
I just picked up the RF 70-200 f4 for 1000 bucks in new condition and it produces VERY nice IQ and sharpness. I also did some low light test and it still performed VERY well on my R5. Most of us would love the 2.8 version but the price tag just breaks the bank lol. So with that being said many people will be pleased with the F4 version. I recommend it.
Great video. I love it when I buy a lens and 2 weeks later a TH-camr confirms I made the right choice. I hope to get Canon 70-200mm F4 out this long weekend up here in Canada. Thanks again for making me feel so smart
My problem is I love my Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 and there are plenty of times I wish I could get more light but now with the R6 the iso is way better. Better than the RP. With the RF 70-200 the lightness is really a factor I think about and how small it is. And the tameon 70-200 that 2.8 would be a dream but then with my 35-150 I miss having anything below the 70 range. And to be honest I really just keep my lens at f4 and from everything from events to portraits im happy.
I purchased canon rf 70-200mm f4. It was my first ever 70-200mm. I loved it. After almost 6 month of using it decided to try canon rf 70-200mm f2.8. I loved it even more. I wish I had purchased f2.8 from the beginning. After thinking for month finally decided to buy canon RF 70-200mm F2.8. 70-200mm is my most used lens love it. although I own rf 50mm f1.2 and rf 15-35mm f2.8. For while was thinking to sell f4. Hell no! Decided to keep both😊
Out of curiosity, why did you keep the f4 version too? How often do you use the f4 compared to the f2.8? I guess I'm looking for a pros and cons list 😉
@@JaredHoyman A couple of reasons I kept f4 as well. f2.8 is slightly heavy and very expensive so cannot take it everywhere with me. F4 I could take it everywhere. It’s joy to use. Another reason is that I cannot sell it to its original price which i have bought. Rather than selling it to $1100-1200 dollar I would rather keep it😊. I already own rf 24-105mm f4l. And I love this two lightweight combination.
Hi. I saw that you commented that the RF lens has more light transmission at f/4. Do you find that it still makes an entire f/stop of difference to the Tamron at f/2.8, or is it less?
That's a good question. I unfortunately did not go deep down that path of testing, but I will say that it was enough for me that I ended up selling the Tamron. The other main factor is weight and portability in my bag. I shoot a lot more with the RF 70-200 f4 than I did with previous 70-200 lenses just because its more convenient. It's not always fun, but you could rent and compare. You may be out $80-100 dollars for a week rental, but its better than purchasing and being out $1200. I tend to take the risks and just buy. It may not be the wisest route so you have to do what you feel comfortable doing.
@@JaredHoyman No worries, thank you for replying! To be honest I've been inclined to purchase the 2.8, and I just ordered it today, on a sale in my country. Cheers!
I've been looking at the 70-200 ƒ4 and I've heard a lot of good things about it. I've read reviews on the Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8 and it sounds like it's a bit on the soft side wide open and when you stop it down to ƒ4 it's sharp, but the ƒ4 version is sharp wide open out of the box. I'm 90% certain that's going to be my next lens. Another light lens is the 100-400mm ƒ5.6-ƒ8. It's a nice focal length for $650 USD-ish and I've enjoyed using it. It's also about 1.5Lbs, so it's another reason why I like the idea of the 70-200 ƒ4.
The 70-200 F4 RF has been in my bag since I have it just in case I want to use it and sometimes I forget I have it in there its so compact and light. It's a great lens that produces a great image. F2.8 would be nice, but for the things I would use 2.8 I might as well get a prime that is wider in aperture like the 135mm.
I had the canon non IS F4 years ago I loved it for out door sports on an APSC body. I’m changing from Fuji to full frame. I was considering the R6II and the Sony A7IV. I wanted one of the F4 70-200s. I was leaning towards the R6II, because on paper it looks like the better camera. But, I choose the Sony because I can use a teleconverter on the 70-200.
I wish you'd do a comparison between RF 70-200 2.8 and Tamron 7-200 2.8 G2. I am hesitant to make the switch, but would love to have just RF. That price though. I need to 2.8 for indoor sports otherwise I'd go with the F4.
The RF 70-200 F4 one of the primary reasons to stay with Canon. With the 14-35 F4 and the 24-105 F4 you have 95% of what I normally shoot. I did upgrade the 24-105 F4 to a 24-70 F2.8, but that is not needed. With the RF 100 2.8 L macro, I can carry what I need comfortably. There is no other company giving us anything like the RF70-200 F4L. I love Nikon Z S line lenses, but I don’t love carrying them. This lens is the main reason for staying with Canon.
I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and use it on my R7. I agree I dont like the size anymore compared to when I was using it on the 7DII 5years ago. I am def looking at switching to the f4 because of size and weight. As a hobbiest I am starting to see 2.8 isnt really NEEDED as much compared to f4 these days with better high ISO and how good the AI noise reduction is in apps like DXO Pureraw3. Old me would have bought all 2.8 but I already got the 14-35 f4, probably will get the 24-105f4 and swap to the 70-200 f4 and be happy
I have both of these lenses. I almost never use the Tamron.. while the Canon comes with me everywhere. It's just too much of a hassle to pack the Tamron in most cases.
@@JaredHoyman every time daytime outside, sometimes i shoot indoor sport and I found the extra stop of the rf100 2.8 handy but every time out side and in day time is my choice
Outside of the obvious, which is the focal ranges, I believe their quality if very similar. I have not done a side by side between these two lenses, but if you want wide to telephoto then the 24-105 f4 would be the lens for you. If you are looking for more telephoto then I would go with the 70-200 f4. The 24-105 will be more versatile for walk around.
Ive paid a fortune on my canon ef 70-200 2.8 IS iii so…. Unless i can do a 1:1 trade with RF equivalent im not moving :D but honestly i pick the 100mm 2.8 is with me mostly cause the other one is BIG.
Not sure where you live but the place is amaizing, if I live in sort of areas probably I'll be most of the day outside shooting and enjoy the nature. Wonderful
Question, which should i go for if i want to upgrade from my canon 70-200 f4 ( non image stabilised ef lens, upgrade from it to a newer 70-200 or go for a bigger telephoto 400 or 600 mm ? I use canon rp
If you like the 70-200 range I would go with the 70-200 f4. It is sharper and lighter than the EF versions. You could save up and get the 100-500 rf which I hear is great. That lens range is designed more for animal and bird photography.
Once you see how sharp it is and its extreme lightness & compact feel you may forget about the extra stop of light. I did. I’m using this more often than my previous 2.8 g2 from tamron because how convenient it is to carry with my other gear.
Check out this video I did with the camera. My Favorite CANON RF Lens of 2023 PLUS Check out my NEW camera Operator th-cam.com/video/HaWOaZAShGE/w-d-xo.html
No magic... Just a difference in light transmission as F-stop != T-stop. Another 70-200 2.8 (like a Canon EF or RF) may transmit more or less light. But the manufacturers don't generally release that stuff on spec sheets.
I sold mine on Facebook marketplace place. I hate selling there but if you sell items under $1000 it’s not horrible. I bought mine used for $700 and sold it for just about that too. In my market it sat for a few weeks till I got the right buyer.
@@JaredHoyman So I bought mine for $1200, and it's literally in mint condition. Looked around and couldn't find anywhere willing to pay more than at most about $700. I suppose I could place it on eBay or something and try to get more, but after some consideration I just decided to keep it. I now have two 70-200s, an EF 2.8 and an RF 4.0. TBH, I can still use the 2.8 in lower light situations and I'm cool with that, whereas the F4 will act as my run and gun. I'm just stunned at the depreciation on the lens though. It's not even a year old. Oh well.
@@samrazi1 that is frustrating. The RF L does hold value but at the same time if I wanted to sell my RF 24-70 2.8 ever I would only get around $1400 so it makes more sense for me to keep it.
@@JaredHoyman Makes sense. If you can get enough of the investment back by selling it then fine, otherwise there’s something to be said about keeping a lens that has served you well. You’ll probably know exactly when to use it. I don’t regret keeping the Tamron. Anyway, thanks for the awesome content as always. Keep it up! Love your stuff.
To be honest I'm a bit biased and have a skewed view on the topic of zooms. I came from a Panasonic m43 world where even f4 on FF have the DOF look of f2.0 on m43. So even f5.6 zooms are pretty darn amazing to me on FF. With that said I did have Tamron G2 f2.8 zooms because of the m43 cameras and they naturally carried over with me to Canon on my R6 and R5. They are nice but I find myself using the Canon RF 100-400 outdoors most of the time because of its much longer reach. The 100mm isn't that much tighter than the 70mm on a 70-200 and yet it allows me to get so much more on the long end. Plus if I'm outdoors it's really not a big deal usually to just take a half step back to get that tiny bit of extra coverage. I'm also considering selling off my Tamron G2s because of this. Heck I even find myself using the RF 24-240 a lot more because of its size/weight and huge range of coverage. Optically nowhere near the same league but it makes up for it in versatility. Like I said I'm a bit more wowed by what f4 and f5.6 can look like on a good FF body which does help me start to feel like f2.8 zooms are just not as glamorous as they once were. On the opposite end I'm back to using primes a lot more and if I really did want to go crazy DOF or had a need for a difficult indoor low light situation I'm more likely going to grab my primes now. I have the RF 24, 35, 50 and 85mm f2.0/f1.8 set and I love them. A bit more effort to swap them out vs a f2.8 24-70 lens but I tend to only swap them for a certain type of look and it's not really a big deal to swap. If I want to really go compact and light I have really started to love shooting with primes again. When I was on m43 primes were a must and the only way to get decent performance. Now it's a size/weight choice and a way to force me to think about the composition and FOV a bit more. I rarely ever use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 because in that range I always found its easy to just move my feet a bit. I do feel like that lens was a complete waste of money for me. For others I know that lens is their bread and butter. Its just for me if I'm going wide I'm much more likely to just use the RF 35mm and only swap lenses if I'm in a super cramped spot and the 24mm can help or if I want a more portrait look and feel and swap to the 85mm. I rarely use the 50mm anymore either. It's pretty much an 60% 35mm, 30% long zoom, 10% everything else. I keep the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 around just in case I'm in a dark indoor long distance situation but even then the 200mm on FF is a bit short so it has limited use. It's also a beast of a lens.
Primes are nice, but I hate swapping all the time. I completely understand your experience coming from m43 to full frame. I went from aps-c 12yrs ago to full frame and f4 was a great look for me. I probably wont address most of your comment, but here is my experience. I owned the 24-70 g2 and loved it, but I will say the RF 24-70 2.8 is like having primes because of how sharp and amazing the contrast is on it. My bread and butter is the 15-35 2.8 RF so I do get that overlap. The only prime I get more excited about is the 24mm just so I can get a little more shallow depth of field. I also I agree on experience over image in some situations and the 70-200 RF F4 makes that happen. The image is crisp and beautiful and its light enough that i just keep it in my bag for a just in case, where as the 70-200 2.8 G2 would be too heavy. Use whatever makes you shoot the most.
The tamron has my arms wanting to fall off by the end of weddings days (paired on the r6m2 as well) Can’t afford the rf 2.8 but maybe the 4 would be a decent compromise
For me and my case use I want light and portable. The sharpness of the F4 canon and amount of light it lets in has out performed the 2.8 of the Tamron.
I've never used anything but a 70-200 f4, both EF and RF, and my other 2 most used lenses are f4 versions too (RF 14-35 f4 L IS and RF 24-105 f4 L IS). Love my RF 70-200 f4 L IS. I shoot as the subject requires, wide open or stopped down.
Wow, I would never have thought of a 70-200 f4. This lens looks amazing and it's definitely on my radar. I shoot Sony primarily and I just got a Canon R8 so I will be shooting both platforms. Great review and your children are beautiful.
Thank you! They obviously take after my wife.
I shoot with a Canon 90D and use a canon 70-200 F4 one of my best lens
thanks for the review. Today I bought the RF70-200/4 and am very happy. I spent a long time choosing between 2.8 and 4, probably like many fans
This is great. I'm going for the RF 70-200. Thanks. And by the way, good man admitting that you were wrong. Respect.
Thanks, Jared!! Happy holidays
This 70-200mm really shines! For professional use I tend to go like 6.3-7.1f, and it really looks great here!!
I just picked up the RF 70-200 f4 for 1000 bucks in new condition and it produces VERY nice IQ and sharpness. I also did some low light test and it still performed VERY well on my R5. Most of us would love the 2.8 version but the price tag just breaks the bank lol. So with that being said many people will be pleased with the F4 version. I recommend it.
It's seriously a great lens. You will love the travel aspect of it.
Great video. I love it when I buy a lens and 2 weeks later a TH-camr confirms I made the right choice.
I hope to get Canon 70-200mm F4 out this long
weekend up here in Canada.
Thanks again for making me feel so smart
Thats my job! It definitely is a fun lens to shoot with.
My problem is I love my Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 and there are plenty of times I wish I could get more light but now with the R6 the iso is way better. Better than the RP.
With the RF 70-200 the lightness is really a factor I think about and how small it is. And the tameon 70-200 that 2.8 would be a dream but then with my 35-150 I miss having anything below the 70 range. And to be honest I really just keep my lens at f4 and from everything from events to portraits im happy.
I purchased canon rf 70-200mm f4. It was my first ever 70-200mm. I loved it. After almost 6 month of using it decided to try canon rf 70-200mm f2.8. I loved it even more. I wish I had purchased f2.8 from the beginning. After thinking for month finally decided to buy canon RF 70-200mm F2.8. 70-200mm is my most used lens love it. although I own rf 50mm f1.2 and rf 15-35mm f2.8. For while was thinking to sell f4. Hell no! Decided to keep both😊
It's so light! I have it in my bag today just in case.
Out of curiosity, why did you keep the f4 version too? How often do you use the f4 compared to the f2.8? I guess I'm looking for a pros and cons list 😉
@@JaredHoyman A couple of reasons I kept f4 as well. f2.8 is slightly heavy and very expensive so cannot take it everywhere with me. F4 I could take it everywhere. It’s joy to use.
Another reason is that I cannot sell it to its original price which i have bought. Rather than selling it to $1100-1200 dollar I would rather keep it😊. I already own rf 24-105mm f4l. And I love this two lightweight combination.
Great review! I enjoy shooting with this lens. Great for landscape and nature walks.
Thank you! I hope to get out with it this weekend.
Hi. I saw that you commented that the RF lens has more light transmission at f/4. Do you find that it still makes an entire f/stop of difference to the Tamron at f/2.8, or is it less?
That's a good question. I unfortunately did not go deep down that path of testing, but I will say that it was enough for me that I ended up selling the Tamron. The other main factor is weight and portability in my bag. I shoot a lot more with the RF 70-200 f4 than I did with previous 70-200 lenses just because its more convenient. It's not always fun, but you could rent and compare. You may be out $80-100 dollars for a week rental, but its better than purchasing and being out $1200. I tend to take the risks and just buy. It may not be the wisest route so you have to do what you feel comfortable doing.
@@JaredHoyman No worries, thank you for replying! To be honest I've been inclined to purchase the 2.8, and I just ordered it today, on a sale in my country. Cheers!
I've been looking at the 70-200 ƒ4 and I've heard a lot of good things about it. I've read reviews on the Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8 and it sounds like it's a bit on the soft side wide open and when you stop it down to ƒ4 it's sharp, but the ƒ4 version is sharp wide open out of the box. I'm 90% certain that's going to be my next lens. Another light lens is the 100-400mm ƒ5.6-ƒ8. It's a nice focal length for $650 USD-ish and I've enjoyed using it. It's also about 1.5Lbs, so it's another reason why I like the idea of the 70-200 ƒ4.
The 70-200 F4 RF has been in my bag since I have it just in case I want to use it and sometimes I forget I have it in there its so compact and light. It's a great lens that produces a great image. F2.8 would be nice, but for the things I would use 2.8 I might as well get a prime that is wider in aperture like the 135mm.
I had the canon non IS F4 years ago I loved it for out door sports on an APSC body. I’m changing from Fuji to full frame. I was considering the R6II and the Sony A7IV. I wanted one of the F4 70-200s. I was leaning towards the R6II, because on paper it looks like the better camera. But, I choose the Sony because I can use a teleconverter on the 70-200.
I don’t have any experience with Sony, but from my understanding it’s a solid comparison to the r6 II.
Thanks, I have been considering these two same options for my Canon R6 Mark II.
0:40 don't try this on your girl friend 😂😂😂😂😂
I got the 100-400 rf instead. If I have a zoom lense I want to be able to zoom properly.
Two weeks ago, Best Buy was selling this lens for $1295. Bought it immediately. Such a great lens
That's a great price there. I love that I have this in my bag all the time and I can't tell a weight change.
"this one needs a wheelchair"😂
I wish you'd do a comparison between RF 70-200 2.8 and Tamron 7-200 2.8 G2. I am hesitant to make the switch, but would love to have just RF. That price though. I need to 2.8 for indoor sports otherwise I'd go with the F4.
If I can get my hands on a 2.8 I will.
The RF 70-200 F4 one of the primary reasons to stay with Canon. With the 14-35 F4 and the 24-105 F4 you have 95% of what I normally shoot. I did upgrade the 24-105 F4 to a 24-70 F2.8, but that is not needed. With the RF 100 2.8 L macro, I can carry what I need comfortably. There is no other company giving us anything like the RF70-200 F4L. I love Nikon Z S line lenses, but I don’t love carrying them. This lens is the main reason for staying with Canon.
This lens has made telephoto so much easier and fun when just walking around.
I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and use it on my R7. I agree I dont like the size anymore compared to when I was using it on the 7DII 5years ago. I am def looking at switching to the f4 because of size and weight. As a hobbiest I am starting to see 2.8 isnt really NEEDED as much compared to f4 these days with better high ISO and how good the AI noise reduction is in apps like DXO Pureraw3. Old me would have bought all 2.8 but I already got the 14-35 f4, probably will get the 24-105f4 and swap to the 70-200 f4 and be happy
Check out my latest vid with the 70-200 f4 RF. It’s amazing!
If you sell the Tamron, drop me a note!
I just spit dr pepper all over my computer. I hope you're happy.
LOL. You win comment of the day.
I have both of these lenses.
I almost never use the Tamron.. while the Canon comes with me everywhere. It's just too much of a hassle to pack the Tamron in most cases.
I agree! I love the Tamron but I think I may sell it.
nice video! That f4 is a great alt to the f2.8 for sure.
Thank you! It does offer a great image.
Selling my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 this week and picking up the RF 70-200mm f4!
I think you will like it.
My first rf lover the f4 70/200
How often do you find yourself shooting with it?
@@JaredHoyman every time daytime outside, sometimes i shoot indoor sport and I found the extra stop of the rf100 2.8 handy but every time out side and in day time is my choice
Could you tell me to different between canon RF F4 70-200 vs Canon RF 24-105 L IS
Outside of the obvious, which is the focal ranges, I believe their quality if very similar. I have not done a side by side between these two lenses, but if you want wide to telephoto then the 24-105 f4 would be the lens for you. If you are looking for more telephoto then I would go with the 70-200 f4. The 24-105 will be more versatile for walk around.
Very good, funny and informative video! Thanks! Subbed!
Thank you! Welcome aboard!
Ive paid a fortune on my canon ef 70-200 2.8 IS iii so…. Unless i can do a 1:1 trade with RF equivalent im not moving :D but honestly i pick the 100mm 2.8 is with me mostly cause the other one is BIG.
Thanks for this review. Did you ever end up selling the Tamron?
Just recently actually. I didn’t want to at first but when I reached for the RF f4 version all the time I couldn’t justify keeping it.
Hahaha nice review. Just don't show it to your wife 😂
Not sure where you live but the place is amaizing, if I live in sort of areas probably I'll be most of the day outside shooting and enjoy the nature. Wonderful
Thank you. It’s northeast Wisconsin.
Question, which should i go for if i want to upgrade from my canon 70-200 f4 ( non image stabilised ef lens, upgrade from it to a newer 70-200 or go for a bigger telephoto 400 or 600 mm ? I use canon rp
If you like the 70-200 range I would go with the 70-200 f4. It is sharper and lighter than the EF versions. You could save up and get the 100-500 rf which I hear is great. That lens range is designed more for animal and bird photography.
I just ordered the f4 for my r6 mark11. My dslr is f2.8. Hope I'm making the right decision
Once you see how sharp it is and its extreme lightness & compact feel you may forget about the extra stop of light. I did. I’m using this more often than my previous 2.8 g2 from tamron because how convenient it is to carry with my other gear.
Check out this video I did with the camera. My Favorite CANON RF Lens of 2023 PLUS Check out my NEW camera Operator
th-cam.com/video/HaWOaZAShGE/w-d-xo.html
Do you have the raw files? I'd like to compare the two.
I may have to do a follow up with some samples to download.
No magic... Just a difference in light transmission as F-stop != T-stop. Another 70-200 2.8 (like a Canon EF or RF) may transmit more or less light. But the manufacturers don't generally release that stuff on spec sheets.
@JaredHoyman Where do you recommend to sell lenses generally. I think I'm ready to sell my Tamron 70-200 2.8. Mine's in mint condition pretty much.
I sold mine on Facebook marketplace place. I hate selling there but if you sell items under $1000 it’s not horrible. I bought mine used for $700 and sold it for just about that too. In my market it sat for a few weeks till I got the right buyer.
@@JaredHoyman So I bought mine for $1200, and it's literally in mint condition. Looked around and couldn't find anywhere willing to pay more than at most about $700. I suppose I could place it on eBay or something and try to get more, but after some consideration I just decided to keep it. I now have two 70-200s, an EF 2.8 and an RF 4.0. TBH, I can still use the 2.8 in lower light situations and I'm cool with that, whereas the F4 will act as my run and gun. I'm just stunned at the depreciation on the lens though. It's not even a year old. Oh well.
@@samrazi1 that is frustrating. The RF L does hold value but at the same time if I wanted to sell my RF 24-70 2.8 ever I would only get around $1400 so it makes more sense for me to keep it.
@@JaredHoyman Makes sense. If you can get enough of the investment back by selling it then fine, otherwise there’s something to be said about keeping a lens that has served you well. You’ll probably know exactly when to use it. I don’t regret keeping the Tamron. Anyway, thanks for the awesome content as always. Keep it up! Love your stuff.
I'm sure that's a great lens, but there's nothing wrong with the pics from my EF 2.8 version. IJS
Thats a good lens. Plus, you have more options with adapters like nd adapters.
It’s the focus breathing compensation
Man I couldn't stop laughing! Why you cheat on leans!!!
I have the Tamron g2 - it’s awesome
@H-H-sk7om in which situation do you find it is difficult to use?
I have this lens tamron too I'm using it on Canon eos R
To be honest I'm a bit biased and have a skewed view on the topic of zooms. I came from a Panasonic m43 world where even f4 on FF have the DOF look of f2.0 on m43. So even f5.6 zooms are pretty darn amazing to me on FF. With that said I did have Tamron G2 f2.8 zooms because of the m43 cameras and they naturally carried over with me to Canon on my R6 and R5. They are nice but I find myself using the Canon RF 100-400 outdoors most of the time because of its much longer reach. The 100mm isn't that much tighter than the 70mm on a 70-200 and yet it allows me to get so much more on the long end. Plus if I'm outdoors it's really not a big deal usually to just take a half step back to get that tiny bit of extra coverage.
I'm also considering selling off my Tamron G2s because of this. Heck I even find myself using the RF 24-240 a lot more because of its size/weight and huge range of coverage. Optically nowhere near the same league but it makes up for it in versatility.
Like I said I'm a bit more wowed by what f4 and f5.6 can look like on a good FF body which does help me start to feel like f2.8 zooms are just not as glamorous as they once were.
On the opposite end I'm back to using primes a lot more and if I really did want to go crazy DOF or had a need for a difficult indoor low light situation I'm more likely going to grab my primes now. I have the RF 24, 35, 50 and 85mm f2.0/f1.8 set and I love them. A bit more effort to swap them out vs a f2.8 24-70 lens but I tend to only swap them for a certain type of look and it's not really a big deal to swap. If I want to really go compact and light I have really started to love shooting with primes again. When I was on m43 primes were a must and the only way to get decent performance. Now it's a size/weight choice and a way to force me to think about the composition and FOV a bit more. I rarely ever use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 because in that range I always found its easy to just move my feet a bit. I do feel like that lens was a complete waste of money for me. For others I know that lens is their bread and butter. Its just for me if I'm going wide I'm much more likely to just use the RF 35mm and only swap lenses if I'm in a super cramped spot and the 24mm can help or if I want a more portrait look and feel and swap to the 85mm. I rarely use the 50mm anymore either. It's pretty much an 60% 35mm, 30% long zoom, 10% everything else. I keep the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 around just in case I'm in a dark indoor long distance situation but even then the 200mm on FF is a bit short so it has limited use. It's also a beast of a lens.
Primes are nice, but I hate swapping all the time. I completely understand your experience coming from m43 to full frame. I went from aps-c 12yrs ago to full frame and f4 was a great look for me. I probably wont address most of your comment, but here is my experience. I owned the 24-70 g2 and loved it, but I will say the RF 24-70 2.8 is like having primes because of how sharp and amazing the contrast is on it. My bread and butter is the 15-35 2.8 RF so I do get that overlap. The only prime I get more excited about is the 24mm just so I can get a little more shallow depth of field. I also I agree on experience over image in some situations and the 70-200 RF F4 makes that happen. The image is crisp and beautiful and its light enough that i just keep it in my bag for a just in case, where as the 70-200 2.8 G2 would be too heavy. Use whatever makes you shoot the most.
The tamron has my arms wanting to fall off by the end of weddings days (paired on the r6m2 as well)
Can’t afford the rf 2.8 but maybe the 4 would be a decent compromise
The weight difference is HUGE. It's like having a walk around lens now.
I appreciate the intro bro 😆 😅
This video 😂
Lol
F4 on a 70-200 , no thanks.
Unless u are not a RF L series Lens 😂
You are comparing f4 with 2.8 . 2.8 will be heavier. Same holds true for canon 2.8 ...... Comparison is not fair 😮😮😮
For me and my case use I want light and portable. The sharpness of the F4 canon and amount of light it lets in has out performed the 2.8 of the Tamron.