You reviews simply are as good as it get's concerning photgraphy content on UA-cam. The thorough, unhyped way you tell things how they are on the products side, without suggesting what that supposedly means for the viewer (a pitfall almost all other fall into on a regular basis) is just so refreshing. I don't want anyone to tell me what lens I need/not want. I want info on how the lens performs. I will judge if it's for me or not. You do that so well. And of course, everything is spot on. Thanks!
I just bought this lens and so far I’m loving it. I struggled with getting this versus the f2.8 version, but feel I made the right choice. Super lightweight and compact makes carrying this lens a joy.
Great to see Canon bringing new ideas. Had the RF 70-200 2.8 and liked the idea of using it as a travel lens. After a while I found myself missing out on the wide FOV. In this case I would have to bring two lenses anyways for travel.
It's a sweet combo, for sure. It's difficult, because both Sony and Canon have different strengths at the moment, which muddies the waters for making a choice.
My comment regarding VPN wasn't a personal attack on you but rather a reaction to the aggressive advertisement of VPN providers because they are basing their ads on fear and misrepresentation of the information. You are recording great videos, and I wish you good luck with what you do!
I have the RF 2.8 version of this lens and have no plans to buy this one but I really enjoy your videos. As far as the teleconverters it does suck you cant use them on the 70-200's but there isn't a such a thing as a perfect lens. I have a RF 1.4x I use with my 100-500. It's great, it has a short throw and has no problems focusing on the long end at f10 at 700mm!
Thank you for the detail about the performance of the lens at the different focal lengths. Very helpful as I think about which lens to use in different situations
This really looks great and would make a big difference. In backpacks, 70-200 lenses can't stand, they usually have to lie flat. I only can put my landscape lenses in my backpack with the 70-200 attached to the 5D4. This lens would make things much more comfortable. But on the other side, i really like the non extending design of the "old" EF Version. It gives confidence in bad weather, and i shoot a lot in really, really bad weather. But once i get a R5, i will be very tempted by this lens.
Hmm, can't say I'm convinced. I miss the versatility, but not the weight, of the 70-200 f/2.8 I used to have many years ago, and I was hoping this might be a good compromise, but I don't like the zoom ring being to the rear, the breathing looks pretty strong in your video pull example, and it seems unnecessarily chunky given the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 manages to fit into a 67mm filter. (Which also represents a dramatic cost saving as a frequent user of Tiffen contrast and smoke filters; a new set in 77mm would be nearly £2000!) Your IQ tests and samples look impressive but the same can be said of your review of the Tamron... I think I'll just keep waiting for that to be ported over to RF. Thanks for the extensive reviews anyway. They make these decisions much easier.
When you can get the excellent EF 70-200mm IS III used or gray market for around the same price, who in their right mind would buy this? The Canon RF-EF adaptors and EF teleconverters both work great, with the EF lenses. I get the size and weight thing, but I for one have never been a fan of extending barrel lenses. I would never buy either RF 70-200mm based on their design and lack of ability to use teleconverter's. Plus like I said the EF 70-200mm IS II and III are so good and can be found used in mint condition or even new for around the same price or quite a bit less than the RF f/2.8 70-200mm.
That's a valid point of view, for sure. For some, however, the size and portability will be a gamechanger. It doesn't matter how good a lens is if you never have it along because it is too big and heavy.
I'm going to sell my EF 70-200 F2.8L for this lens so I guess me. I've learned I don't need f2.8 zooms so the smaller lighter lens will be greatly appreciated and won't get left at home near as often.
Thanks for the great review Dustin. How do you compare and rate the EF vs RF in terms of optical qualities? Is the new one lmost same, or raised the bar?
Super review, as well as the previous. Looking for travel lens to pair with R5 with some “reach” especially for landscape. RF 70- 200 f4 looks fantastic. Other lens in the mix, RF 24- 70 f2.8. A little heavy for Italy, but need the wider angle for street and f2.8 for artwork and church interiors. TY for helpful vid. Any comment appreciated.
Hi Dustin, it's been about a year since I watched the review but I'm in a position to buy a new lens right now. And yes it will cost me 1,250 Euros but I think it's definitely worth the price.
Woohoo been waiting for this one. Currently own an R5 and the EF version of this lens. Excited to finish this video and see if it’s worth the $ to save some space and weight for backpacking
@@samuelodihumbo6764 200mm is too little for wildlife in my experience as a casual shooter. Maybe in a controlled environment, but my 100-500 served me much better, so I sold my old EF 70-200 2.8.
How I wish the new Sony 70-200 f4 was as compact and light as this one... People claim that the Sony is sharper, but I doubt I'd notice the difference. What do you think, Dustin?
Thanks for another great and much awaited review! I was really looking forward to this and it seems the expectations I mentioned a few days ago are confirmed. As a hobbyist nature photographer who does hiking, the weight, size and the IQ make this the obvious choice over its f/2.8 sibling. Odd behavior at 135mm - could it be attributed to sample variation?
It could be sample variation, though my testing format is designed to find and amplify flaws. I suspect that in the real way people use lenses, 135mm would look fine. It certainly did on my portrait test.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Have you, by any chance, compared the 70-105mm range on this lens to the same range on the 24-105mm F4 L lens? My intuition favors the former.
@@mentosica29 That comparison is obviously skewed in favour of the 70-200. Comparing > 4:1 range zoom to a < 3:1 and the 24-105 is covering a much more difficult range of compromises, wide-moderate tele, whereas the 70-200 is mild tele to slightly longer tele. If the 70-200 didn’t have a slight advantage- in its ‘comfortable’ range it would be strange.
A typically thorough and practical review. Whilst not strictly relevant to the review itself, this EF Canon owner, once again, to lament Canon's pricing of the L RF mirrorless glass. This ,for many, not with deep pockets to readily move ,fully, to the mirrorless system. Balancing budgets is a real part of daily living and, regrettably, though I have and remain content with my 6D and L glass etc, the price of the new high end glass, more important than the newer bodies, at least to me, will see me remaining where I am. With all the factors leading to world wide inflation, it would be naive to hope for any meaningful price reductions in the L series glass.
great review. Thank you. Compared to your review of the RF 70-200 f/2.8, this lens appears to be be a sharper across the zoom range , esp when each is at f/4 Would you agree? Can't see why a customer would pay extra for the 2.8 version.
That's definitely true of the copies that I tested, but I have a strong suspicion that my copy of the F2.8 was not representative of typical performance.
Please HELP. Trying to decide on the RF 70-200 F4 or F2.8 version. This is for personal use of family photos. I have a 2 year old who will be starting some inside activities soon like gymnastics and wanted to know your opinion on how you think the F4 version would hold up in an inside environment of a recreation center or gymnastics type environment. I understand that higher shutter speeds are necessary for sports BUT he’s still 2 years old so can’t move THAT fast lol. Also outdoor winter sports will be soon and toddler soccer next summer so I think the F4 will be ok in that type of environment but I’ll have less bokeh vs. the F2.8 version. I’m wondering how much of a difference in bokeh would there be when someone is like 30+ feet away from a F4 to F2.8? Thanks for any help anyone can provide!
Thanks for the review, my rf f4 is arriving tomorrow. I’ll be replacing my sigma 2.8 sports. While I don’t mind the heft of that lens while shooting, doing long hikes to NC waterfalls is getting old and I find myself often not reaching for it anymore.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I messed around with it a little bit after work yesterday. Initial impressions shooting on an R6 body It’s soooo light Stabilization is unreal and noticeably better that the adapted sigma. That could also have something to do with the weight difference, but it is also even better. Im not so certain i lost a full stop of light. I did a few side by side non scientific comparisons and it seems like it is less than a full stop. I definitely made the right decision. If i were a professional making money, then i surely would have gone fir the 2.8 version. I will enjoy shooting with this lens for my purposes.
Hello Dustin, excellent review. I own a Canon R7 and an RF 14-35 f/4 and a 24-105 f/4. I would like to upgrade my old Tamron 70-300 and am torn between the Canon 100-400 f/5.6-8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4. For wildlife I already have another telephoto lens. What do you think? Thank you very much in advance for your time.
TY for this review. I watched the review of the 2.8 too and it s great as well. Now I serious wonder if getting 2.8 or f4. My first thought is 2.8 as thanks to its aperture it s more versatile for indoor and portrait as well (i mean that with only 1 lens I can cover more scenarios, almost all scenarios). I am not considering the price at this stage, my only purpose is to have a lens that can support me in all occasions when travelling and hiking without bringing too many lenses with me. So I was initially impressed by the size and weight of the 2.8 (Canon made a huge job on this), on the other hand I was even more impressed when I realize size and weight of the f4. So I guess that for me the point is getting more aperture and a lens can be used everywhere or the f4 considering as winner the weight? Have you had the opportunity to travel/hiking with the 2.8? How do you feel it in your camera bag especially hiking with the bag in you back, travelling around by train, city... and using above all without tripod? Thanks
The sad fact is that the RF 100-500 shares the same compact construction (when the lens is retracted the rear glass elements are near flush with the mount) yet does allow the TC attachment. So why cripple the RF 70-200 lenses by not incorporating the same lock design when the TC is attached? So Canon forces customers to pay considerably more for the RF 100-500 in order to get the additional reach for L glass.
I wonder if the old EF 70-200f4ii at 135@f4 is better or on par with the newer RF? 75% of my shots fall within this focal range(135-200). Thanks for the in depth review!
This suggests that Bryan Carnathan saw similar results at 135mm, and that the 70-200 F4L IS II was sharper at 135mm: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1529&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1198&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
Why do you think the f2.8 version didn’t go towards a similar design in terms of zoom rings? I really don’t enjoy the throw or feeling/stiffness of the rf 2.8 zoom. EF feels better for sports.
Great job as usual Professor. If I didn't have a college degree, I wouldn't be able to keep up. You've got me sold on this lens as a trinity. What other two Canon rf lens would you recommend as must-have lenses?
Frankly I haven't seen any RF mount wide angle lens that I think justifies the price yet. The 14-35mm has some serious flaws (heavy distortion, major vignette), and the 15-35mm is pricy but without being exceptional. The 16mm F2.8 prime is a good value, but it has incredibly high distortion and vignette.
Thinking of going mirrorless but all the RF all have that damm bad corners errr, except the 100-500. Wondering if it be better off getting the ef ones for now untill version 2s come out.
Never had sharpness issues in corners with the RF lenses. I have an R5 body. I also use some of my older EF lenses, including the 17-40 4.0L. Practically as good if you don't mind the bit of extra length due to the adapter ring.
Great Review 👍 .... Just got mine and it is a great little lens would have liked the 2.8 version but not the price lol . So far The only thing that worries me is the stableized element that rattles around when the camera is off . It moves a lot and over time of getting bounced around in a camera bag I'm hoping it will not damage it making the lense useless
That's a floating element to allow for better performance up close. I've had such lenses for years and have never had an issue. That's the way they are designed to operate.
would this lens be great for wedding using canon R6 contemplating on buying either the RF 70-200FL or the Old EF70-200 2.8II since i cant afford the RF 70-200 any suggestion please on which would help
Would you say it’s a high quality plastic they used? I own the ef 70-200 iii and thinking about passing that down to my son and getting this one, would you say somewhere down the road would the body be discoloured? Yellow hue stains?
Excellent review as expected from you Dustin. That's a fantastic lens for sure and I love the size of it. But I will be sticking with my EF 70-200 f4L Mk II for the time being on my EOS R. One reason why is I can use it with my DSLRs. If I have an opportunity to upgrade to the R version I probably will if the prices is right.
An extender can be used on 100-500 lens with the lens partially extended. Is the same for the 70-200, or is the extender not usable regardless of lens extension?
Dustin can a 70 200 lense like this be a very useful good option for a family snapshot lense. I know its so good for landscapes and sports and portraits but no one says about for young kids would it be useful.
is the image quality slightly inferior to the EF 70-200 f4 II at largest apertures and certain focal lengths? wonder what the sample variation is like. at these prices i would expect nothing less than perfection. i heard the EF 70-200 F/4 II was being discontinued. not sure if that was an April fools prank
I bet you never shined a bright flashlight into the rear of your old 70-300 IS L lens, while looking through the front element down into the lens, set at 300mm. I'm sure you would have seen tons of dust and dirt, etc. I went to buy a 70-300mm IS L in 2015, slightly used and about 6 months old according to the owner and I did the flashlight test and found tons of dust. Even fully weather sealed EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and III lenses can and do get some dust inside of them eventually. It finds it way in through the zoom ring or focus rings, or though where the air exits from zooming the lenses in and out. Not that dust effects image quality, but it will effect value if you run into a buyer who knows how to properly inspect a lens. I worked at a major camera store as a buyer and salesman, so I was trained and I know all of the tricks on how to inspect camera gear. You'd be surprised, I've found dust inside of professional grade Nikon and Canon lenses, brand new right out of the box, from the factory. No joke!
Hi Patrick, I have done that kind of test before, and I actually think the person that bought my 70-300L from me did do that. It obviously has a lot do with your environment, too.
Now find 2 identical lenses one with no dust and one with "some" dust in, and show me the difference generated by the output of said lenses, no lens is immune to dust intrusion and that's a fact, bar maybe a sealed smart phone, but good luck on doing the torch test on that!
Really a beautiful performance. I would even say the slight softness at 135mm is a strength as that is a portrait length and softness saves time in post!! :D Question: is f/4 the new f/2.8 in terms of light gathering given the R5/6’s ability to handle higher isos without destroying the image? Depth of field remains an advantage of 2.8, but light gathering is less of an issue, now, right?
I'm not sure I would say that F4 is the new F2.8, as there is more than light gathering in the equation, but I will say that you definitely pay less of a penalty for creeping ISO up than you used to.
@@ryanbutler1530 Bought it for the 6D mk 2. Now using it on the R5 and loving it. For action and wildlife. Or our dog and his friends, that combines both. I might still be getting the RF70-200 f2.8 for concert photograpy, as it is less revealing and 'worrying' than the large Tamron.
Is it also a Dust Sucker like its big Brother f2.8 RF >> no good for African Dust conditions > Hopefully it can take a 1.4 or 2.0 x converter unlike the RF 2.8 version >> what good is that a 70-200 f2.8 lenses great strength is that you can put on a 2x convertor for 140-400 f5.6 Top lenses in one for Wild life , Landscapes . Gimmick designs IMO a pukka 70-200 weighs 1500 grams end of story and is not a dust sucker . You should do an Image Quality comparison Dustin Between the 2.8 RF Canon and the Fabulous Best in class Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 S
Hi Peter, I'm curious - are you calling it a "dust sucker" based on experience, or just because it is a externally zooming lens? As for the final comparison, I don't actually test Nikon, so I'll have to leave that comparison to someone else.
Did not see this with my RF 70-200mm F/2.8 IS L (yet?). However some advice from my time with the old 100-400mm L IS which I took to one of the dustiest places on earth. Most of the dust does not get sucked in with the air circulating in and out of the lens - it comes with dust resting on the extending barrel. So keep that as clean as possible by wiping down the barrel often (with a dry cloth). It really helps a lot. I have noticed that the sealing along the extended part seems better than on the older lens. Time will tell. Good luck.
Peter, read Lens Rentals' article on the 2.8 version. Their experience is prime lenses end up with more dust in them than L zooms, and they say the seals and gaskets in the 2.8 are very robust.
Not true. I just returned from 2 weeks in the Serengeti and it, being the dry season, was dusty beyond belief. During my entire 12 days of safari going I used my RF 100-500mm 100% of the time and I have no dust whatsoever inside the lens. Zero.
@@DustinAbbottTWI you are recording great videos regarding the main topic of your channel. I don't like when somebody uses fear as an instrument for an advertising campaigns. So, this is why I wrote the message. - Nord VPN doesn't anonymize your browsing data. - Nord VPN doesn't protect you from anything at all. - Nord VPN compromises speed by the definition, but even the terminology is inaccurate (sometimes you can get nearly the same throughput, but not the latency, and both of them are highly depending on your location and the location of the VPN server) Nord VPN takes access to the metadata instead of the ISP/administrator of your traffic. VPN protects your data inside the network, but it's not the job of Nord VPN. You can replace Nord VPN with any company name.
You reviews simply are as good as it get's concerning photgraphy content on UA-cam. The thorough, unhyped way you tell things how they are on the products side, without suggesting what that supposedly means for the viewer (a pitfall almost all other fall into on a regular basis) is just so refreshing. I don't want anyone to tell me what lens I need/not want. I want info on how the lens performs. I will judge if it's for me or not. You do that so well. And of course, everything is spot on. Thanks!
Looks like you've nailed my formula!
I just bought this lens and so far I’m loving it. I struggled with getting this versus the f2.8 version, but feel I made the right choice. Super lightweight and compact makes carrying this lens a joy.
I’m strongly considering buying one myself.
I'm so pumped to bring this on trips as travel starts to normalize later this year!
I can't wait for that!
Just bought this lens and waiting for it to come in the next few days. Great to see your review. Thanks for all your work.
Great to see Canon bringing new ideas. Had the RF 70-200 2.8 and liked the idea of using it as a travel lens. After a while I found myself missing out on the wide FOV. In this case I would have to bring two lenses anyways for travel.
A complimentary lens at wider focal lengths would be nice.
Sony shooter here, but damn, the design of this lens together with the camera body just looks really nice. Good job Canon.
It's a sweet combo, for sure. It's difficult, because both Sony and Canon have different strengths at the moment, which muddies the waters for making a choice.
Agree 100%…. Your observation/statement may be 3 years old, but based on the review, I am going to purchase the lens this month…… May 2024
Ironically I just did the same!
Off topic: Bengals are great cats! I've got a silver named Izzie who is now 14 years old. She's been a good companion and very entertaining.
This is our third Bengal, and every one has had a great disposition. I'm sold on the breed.
My comment regarding VPN wasn't a personal attack on you but rather a reaction to the aggressive advertisement of VPN providers because they are basing their ads on fear and misrepresentation of the information.
You are recording great videos, and I wish you good luck with what you do!
Thank you
Congrats on the new Kitten Dustin, he looks so cute! Maybe you can review him next? Haha
Now i want this
LOL - he's worthy of a review!
Looks like a very strong option for Canon shooters, very impressive optically and again you do a great job on your reviews..
Thank you
I’m excited to take this lens with me on vacations.
I see this as a very strong compliment to something like the 24-105 or a wide angle prime for travel.
Great video, it’s amazing that this review came out today! I just sold my ef version and ordered the rf version! Great review!
Good timing!
Mine will arrive this week for my R6. Looking forward to it Dustin. Nice cat.
Thanks...and enjoy the lens!
I just picked this lens up for $1000 and I absolutely love it especially at that price
That's a great price point.
I have the RF 2.8 version of this lens and have no plans to buy this one but I really enjoy your videos. As far as the teleconverters it does suck you cant use them on the 70-200's but there isn't a such a thing as a perfect lens. I have a RF 1.4x I use with my 100-500. It's great, it has a short throw and has no problems focusing on the long end at f10 at 700mm!
That's the focus advantage that I wish more lenses would take advantage of!
Thank you for the detail about the performance of the lens at the different focal lengths. Very helpful as I think about which lens to use in different situations
Glad it was helpful!
This really looks great and would make a big difference. In backpacks, 70-200 lenses can't stand, they usually have to lie flat. I only can put my landscape lenses in my backpack with the 70-200 attached to the 5D4. This lens would make things much more comfortable. But on the other side, i really like the non extending design of the "old" EF Version. It gives confidence in bad weather, and i shoot a lot in really, really bad weather. But once i get a R5, i will be very tempted by this lens.
There's definitely pros and cons to both designs.
The guy’s voice reminds me of Martin Sheen’s. Excellent review.
I've heard that a few times. I don't see it, myself, but you're not the only one to think so.
Thank you for excellent review👍 GOD Bless You and Family🙏
Same to you!
Always great Videos... I am happy with this Lens...
Great to hear!
Hmm, can't say I'm convinced. I miss the versatility, but not the weight, of the 70-200 f/2.8 I used to have many years ago, and I was hoping this might be a good compromise, but I don't like the zoom ring being to the rear, the breathing looks pretty strong in your video pull example, and it seems unnecessarily chunky given the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 manages to fit into a 67mm filter. (Which also represents a dramatic cost saving as a frequent user of Tiffen contrast and smoke filters; a new set in 77mm would be nearly £2000!) Your IQ tests and samples look impressive but the same can be said of your review of the Tamron... I think I'll just keep waiting for that to be ported over to RF.
Thanks for the extensive reviews anyway. They make these decisions much easier.
Fair enough. I really do hope that Tamron does start to develop on RF.
When you can get the excellent EF 70-200mm IS III used or gray market for around the same price, who in their right mind would buy this? The Canon RF-EF adaptors and EF teleconverters both work great, with the EF lenses. I get the size and weight thing, but I for one have never been a fan of extending barrel lenses. I would never buy either RF 70-200mm based on their design and lack of ability to use teleconverter's. Plus like I said the EF 70-200mm IS II and III are so good and can be found used in mint condition or even new for around the same price or quite a bit less than the RF f/2.8 70-200mm.
That's a valid point of view, for sure. For some, however, the size and portability will be a gamechanger. It doesn't matter how good a lens is if you never have it along because it is too big and heavy.
I'm going to sell my EF 70-200 F2.8L for this lens so I guess me. I've learned I don't need f2.8 zooms so the smaller lighter lens will be greatly appreciated and won't get left at home near as often.
Thank you so much Mr Abbott......
You're welcome, Jim
Thanks for the great review Dustin. How do you compare and rate the EF vs RF in terms of optical qualities? Is the new one lmost same, or raised the bar?
The new lens has advantages at several points in the zoom range, but the older lens was better at 135mm
Thank you very much
I like this lens, still I find it surprisingly expensive. Where I live it cost 22500 NOK and the Sony 70-200 f4 cost 16300.
In many markets Canon's prices are really up. That's true here in Canada, too.
Super review, as well as the previous. Looking for travel lens to pair with R5 with some “reach” especially for landscape. RF 70- 200 f4 looks fantastic. Other lens in the mix, RF 24- 70 f2.8. A little heavy for Italy, but need the wider angle for street and f2.8 for artwork and church interiors. TY for helpful vid. Any comment appreciated.
The 70-200 is a great option for the telephoto work. The 24-70 is a good option, for sure, and I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.
TY
Hi Dustin, it's been about a year since I watched the review but I'm in a position to buy a new lens right now. And yes it will cost me 1,250 Euros but I think it's definitely worth the price.
I think you'll enjoy it.
Woohoo been waiting for this one. Currently own an R5 and the EF version of this lens. Excited to finish this video and see if it’s worth the $ to save some space and weight for backpacking
If space and weight are a priority, this lens is a winner.
do you recommend it for wildlife?
@@samuelodihumbo6764 200mm is too little for wildlife in my experience as a casual shooter. Maybe in a controlled environment, but my 100-500 served me much better, so I sold my old EF 70-200 2.8.
@@julius4858 thank you!!
How I wish the new Sony 70-200 f4 was as compact and light as this one... People claim that the Sony is sharper, but I doubt I'd notice the difference. What do you think, Dustin?
This is a great lens, but the Sony is sharper, has macro, and is fully compatible with teleconverters. It IS the better lens.
Thanks for another great and much awaited review! I was really looking forward to this and it seems the expectations I mentioned a few days ago are confirmed. As a hobbyist nature photographer who does hiking, the weight, size and the IQ make this the obvious choice over its f/2.8 sibling.
Odd behavior at 135mm - could it be attributed to sample variation?
It could be sample variation, though my testing format is designed to find and amplify flaws. I suspect that in the real way people use lenses, 135mm would look fine. It certainly did on my portrait test.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Have you, by any chance, compared the 70-105mm range on this lens to the same range on the 24-105mm F4 L lens? My intuition favors the former.
@@mentosica29 That comparison is obviously skewed in favour of the 70-200. Comparing > 4:1 range zoom to a < 3:1 and the 24-105 is covering a much more difficult range of compromises, wide-moderate tele, whereas the 70-200 is mild tele to slightly longer tele. If the 70-200 didn’t have a slight advantage- in its ‘comfortable’ range it would be strange.
A typically thorough and practical review.
Whilst not strictly relevant to the review itself, this EF Canon owner, once again, to lament Canon's pricing of the L RF mirrorless glass.
This ,for many, not with deep pockets to readily move ,fully, to the mirrorless system. Balancing budgets is a real part of daily living and, regrettably, though I have and remain content with my 6D and L glass etc, the price of the new high end glass, more important than the newer bodies, at least to me, will see me remaining where I am.
With all the factors leading to world wide inflation, it would be naive to hope for any meaningful price reductions in the L series glass.
What may happen is that earnings may rise a bit, and the reduction in the value of the dollar makes the new price point more "reasonable".
great review. Thank you. Compared to your review of the RF 70-200 f/2.8, this lens appears to be be a sharper across the zoom range , esp when each is at f/4 Would you agree? Can't see why a customer would pay extra for the 2.8 version.
That's definitely true of the copies that I tested, but I have a strong suspicion that my copy of the F2.8 was not representative of typical performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you
Glad to see this thank you. Hoping to see a 24-70 f4 and a 16(or 15?)-35 f4 on canon sometime soon. Oh and definitely 70-300 on the Rf line too.
Agreed. The F4 options are definitely needed.
Please HELP. Trying to decide on the RF 70-200 F4 or F2.8 version. This is for personal use of family photos. I have a 2 year old who will be starting some inside activities soon like gymnastics and wanted to know your opinion on how you think the F4 version would hold up in an inside environment of a recreation center or gymnastics type environment. I understand that higher shutter speeds are necessary for sports BUT he’s still 2 years old so can’t move THAT fast lol. Also outdoor winter sports will be soon and toddler soccer next summer so I think the F4 will be ok in that type of environment but I’ll have less bokeh vs. the F2.8 version. I’m wondering how much of a difference in bokeh would there be when someone is like 30+ feet away from a F4 to F2.8? Thanks for any help anyone can provide!
It should be fast enough if the lighting is good. If not, then going F2.8 might be the better choice.
Thanks for the review, my rf f4 is arriving tomorrow. I’ll be replacing my sigma 2.8 sports. While I don’t mind the heft of that lens while shooting, doing long hikes to NC waterfalls is getting old and I find myself often not reaching for it anymore.
That's a real world issue, for sure. You'll be shocked at how small and compact this lens is by comparison.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I messed around with it a little bit after work yesterday. Initial impressions shooting on an R6 body
It’s soooo light
Stabilization is unreal and noticeably better that the adapted sigma. That could also have something to do with the weight difference, but it is also even better.
Im not so certain i lost a full stop of light. I did a few side by side non scientific comparisons and it seems like it is less than a full stop.
I definitely made the right decision. If i were a professional making money, then i surely would have gone fir the 2.8 version. I will enjoy shooting with this lens for my purposes.
Great review! God bless!
God bless you, too!
Thanks... helpful.
Glad it was helpful! I finally just got one of these for myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWIMe too..
Bought this yesterday for my R6. Can’t wait to try it.
Enjoy. It's a "sweet spot" lens for me, too.
@@DustinAbbottTWIThank you. As a beginner. What is a must have accessory you recommend?
Hello Dustin, excellent review. I own a Canon R7 and an RF 14-35 f/4 and a 24-105 f/4. I would like to upgrade my old Tamron 70-300 and am torn between the Canon 100-400 f/5.6-8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4. For wildlife I already have another telephoto lens. What do you think? Thank you very much in advance for your time.
I'm a fan of this 70-200. I think its a great lens and extremely useful.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your quick response
TY for this review. I watched the review of the 2.8 too and it s great as well. Now I serious wonder if getting 2.8 or f4. My first thought is 2.8 as thanks to its aperture it s more versatile for indoor and portrait as well (i mean that with only 1 lens I can cover more scenarios, almost all scenarios). I am not considering the price at this stage, my only purpose is to have a lens that can support me in all occasions when travelling and hiking without bringing too many lenses with me. So I was initially impressed by the size and weight of the 2.8 (Canon made a huge job on this), on the other hand I was even more impressed when I realize size and weight of the f4. So I guess that for me the point is getting more aperture and a lens can be used everywhere or the f4 considering as winner the weight? Have you had the opportunity to travel/hiking with the 2.8? How do you feel it in your camera bag especially hiking with the bag in you back, travelling around by train, city... and using above all without tripod? Thanks
I found both lenses light enough for me, though I'm accustomed to some weight. The F4 is definitely a winner in that regard, though.
No extender kills this lens for me. It's a reason I've gone with the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 vs the f/4 version.
That is definitely the vulnerability here.
The sad fact is that the RF 100-500 shares the same compact construction (when the lens is retracted the rear glass elements are near flush with the mount) yet does allow the TC attachment. So why cripple the RF 70-200 lenses by not incorporating the same lock design when the TC is attached? So Canon forces customers to pay considerably more for the RF 100-500 in order to get the additional reach for L glass.
I’m not sure you can use the extender on the two. Eight version either I could be wrong but I was fairly certain I had read that somewhere.
I wonder if the old EF 70-200f4ii at 135@f4 is better or on par with the newer RF? 75% of my shots fall within this focal range(135-200). Thanks for the in depth review!
This suggests that Bryan Carnathan saw similar results at 135mm, and that the 70-200 F4L IS II was sharper at 135mm: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1529&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1198&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
Why do you think the f2.8 version didn’t go towards a similar design in terms of zoom rings? I really don’t enjoy the throw or feeling/stiffness of the rf 2.8 zoom. EF feels better for sports.
It was obviously a quirk of lens design. The EF 70-300L was similar.
I'm considering this over the RF 2.8 version because of price and I how often I would use it.
I think that's a fair reason to consider it.
If you can pay $1000 more for a stop of light, the 2.8 really rocks. Me? I'm using the Sigma EF Sports version.
Fair enough.
Great job as usual Professor. If I didn't have a college degree, I wouldn't be able to keep up. You've got me sold on this lens as a trinity. What other two Canon rf lens would you recommend as must-have lenses?
Hmmm, definitely the 50mm F1.2L. I also find the 24-105mm F4L IS an above average generally useful lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Are you recommending this lens for stills or video? Secondly, are there any rf wide lenses you like?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you. Are there any rf wide lenses you like?
Frankly I haven't seen any RF mount wide angle lens that I think justifies the price yet. The 14-35mm has some serious flaws (heavy distortion, major vignette), and the 15-35mm is pricy but without being exceptional. The 16mm F2.8 prime is a good value, but it has incredibly high distortion and vignette.
Looks like a good compliment to my 16mm and 50mm STM lenses. Where do you live?
In Ontario, Canada
Thinking of going mirrorless but all the RF all have that damm bad corners errr, except the 100-500. Wondering if it be better off getting the ef ones for now untill version 2s come out.
Hmmm, this lens is pretty sharp in the corners.
Never had sharpness issues in corners with the RF lenses. I have an R5 body. I also use some of my older EF lenses, including the 17-40 4.0L. Practically as good if you don't mind the bit of extra length due to the adapter ring.
Great Review 👍 .... Just got mine and it is a great little lens would have liked the 2.8 version but not the price lol . So far The only thing that worries me is the stableized element that rattles around when the camera is off . It moves a lot and over time of getting bounced around in a camera bag I'm hoping it will not damage it making the lense useless
That's a floating element to allow for better performance up close. I've had such lenses for years and have never had an issue. That's the way they are designed to operate.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks that's good to know
would this lens be great for wedding using canon R6 contemplating on buying either the RF 70-200FL or the Old EF70-200 2.8II since i cant afford the RF 70-200 any suggestion please on which would help
The R6 has quite good low light performance, so I would say you could get by with the F4 version.
Would you say it’s a high quality plastic they used? I own the ef 70-200 iii and thinking about passing that down to my son and getting this one, would you say somewhere down the road would the body be discoloured? Yellow hue stains?
I've not really see Canon use anything but premium materials in their L series zooms. I think it should hold up well and without discoloration.
Hey would this lens be good for a canon t6i? Crop sensor camera? Don’t know if I should upgrade my camera or lens 😅
This lens will not work on the T6i. It is only designed for mirrorless cameras like the EOS R sereis.
Do you think this lens on a canon eos rp can make professionnels and profitable bird pictures?
200mm is still not very long for shooting bird photos, unfortunately. You probably need something longer.
Excellent review as expected from you Dustin. That's a fantastic lens for sure and I love the size of it. But I will be sticking with my EF 70-200 f4L Mk II for the time being on my EOS R. One reason why is I can use it with my DSLRs. If I have an opportunity to upgrade to the R version I probably will if the prices is right.
That's a fair point for those that are still using DSLRs, too.
An extender can be used on 100-500 lens with the lens partially extended. Is the same for the 70-200, or is the extender not usable regardless of lens extension?
I don't think it can be used at all.
I thought not. Thanks for getting back to me.
Dustin, did your hood have a snug fit? Mine has some play in it and rattling.
I tested a loaner, but I don’t recall any fit issues on the hood.
Dustin can a 70 200 lense like this be a very useful good option for a family snapshot lense.
I know its so good for landscapes and sports and portraits but no one says about for young kids would it be useful.
It definitely would. Good, fast autofocus, and a flexible zoom range.
Only if your family is a long way away, or you want head shots. I’d think you’d want the intimacy of something wider.
is the image quality slightly inferior to the EF 70-200 f4 II at largest apertures and certain focal lengths? wonder what the sample variation is like. at these prices i would expect nothing less than perfection. i heard the EF 70-200 F/4 II was being discontinued. not sure if that was an April fools prank
I don't think it is inferior, no
Great video ! What kind of lav do you use ?
I use the Rode SmarLav+ (bhpho.to/3qScOsG)
Does the lens hood for the RF 70-200mm f2.8 fit on the RF 70-200mm f4.0?
I don't know for certain. The two hoods are slightly different in designation, but it looks like the bayonet diameter is similar
I bet you never shined a bright flashlight into the rear of your old 70-300 IS L lens, while looking through the front element down into the lens, set at 300mm. I'm sure you would have seen tons of dust and dirt, etc. I went to buy a 70-300mm IS L in 2015, slightly used and about 6 months old according to the owner and I did the flashlight test and found tons of dust. Even fully weather sealed EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and III lenses can and do get some dust inside of them eventually. It finds it way in through the zoom ring or focus rings, or though where the air exits from zooming the lenses in and out. Not that dust effects image quality, but it will effect value if you run into a buyer who knows how to properly inspect a lens. I worked at a major camera store as a buyer and salesman, so I was trained and I know all of the tricks on how to inspect camera gear. You'd be surprised, I've found dust inside of professional grade Nikon and Canon lenses, brand new right out of the box, from the factory. No joke!
Hi Patrick, I have done that kind of test before, and I actually think the person that bought my 70-300L from me did do that. It obviously has a lot do with your environment, too.
I saw a post today about someone getting this lens new with some dust in it.
Now find 2 identical lenses one with no dust and one with "some" dust in, and show me the difference generated by the output of said lenses, no lens is immune to dust intrusion and that's a fact, bar maybe a sealed smart phone, but good luck on doing the torch test on that!
Finaly 📷⚠️
:)
Really a beautiful performance. I would even say the slight softness at 135mm is a strength as that is a portrait length and softness saves time in post!! :D
Question: is f/4 the new f/2.8 in terms of light gathering given the R5/6’s ability to handle higher isos without destroying the image? Depth of field remains an advantage of 2.8, but light gathering is less of an issue, now, right?
I'm not sure I would say that F4 is the new F2.8, as there is more than light gathering in the equation, but I will say that you definitely pay less of a penalty for creeping ISO up than you used to.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I thought it was a bit of an overstatement. Thanks for answering.
Won’t lie, I love a good internally zooming bazooka lens 👌😏
Then this isn't the one for you!
I am still using my Tamron EF 70-200 f 2.8. You can probably get it for the same price. If you don't mind the weight...
@@AndreasLudwigPhD what camera are you using it on?
@@ryanbutler1530 Bought it for the 6D mk 2. Now using it on the R5 and loving it. For action and wildlife. Or our dog and his friends, that combines both. I might still be getting the RF70-200 f2.8 for concert photograpy, as it is less revealing and 'worrying' than the large Tamron.
Is it also a Dust Sucker like its big Brother f2.8 RF >> no good for African Dust conditions > Hopefully it can take a 1.4 or 2.0 x converter unlike the RF 2.8 version >> what good is that a 70-200 f2.8 lenses great strength is that you can put on a 2x convertor for 140-400 f5.6 Top lenses in one for Wild life , Landscapes . Gimmick designs IMO a pukka 70-200 weighs 1500 grams end of story and is not a dust sucker . You should do an Image Quality comparison Dustin Between the 2.8 RF Canon and the Fabulous Best in class Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 S
Hi Peter, I'm curious - are you calling it a "dust sucker" based on experience, or just because it is a externally zooming lens? As for the final comparison, I don't actually test Nikon, so I'll have to leave that comparison to someone else.
Did not see this with my RF 70-200mm F/2.8 IS L (yet?). However some advice from my time with the old 100-400mm L IS which I took to one of the dustiest places on earth. Most of the dust does not get sucked in with the air circulating in and out of the lens - it comes with dust resting on the extending barrel. So keep that as clean as possible by wiping down the barrel often (with a dry cloth). It really helps a lot. I have noticed that the sealing along the extended part seems better than on the older lens. Time will tell. Good luck.
Peter, read Lens Rentals' article on the 2.8 version. Their experience is prime lenses end up with more dust in them than L zooms, and they say the seals and gaskets in the 2.8 are very robust.
Not true. I just returned from 2 weeks in the Serengeti and it, being the dry season, was dusty beyond belief. During my entire 12 days of safari going I used my RF 100-500mm 100% of the time and I have no dust whatsoever inside the lens. Zero.
Another overpriced lens. Dont do nikon reviews, dustin, or you're gonna dissapoint the canon fanboys...
We had a Bengal called Loki 🙂
We lost our Loki to a predator a few months ago, and miss him very much.
So sorry to hear that.
I am sick of false advertisements for VPN services.
Hmmm, I've been using Nord for years. Not quite sure how this counts as "false advertising"
@@DustinAbbottTWI you are recording great videos regarding the main topic of your channel.
I don't like when somebody uses fear as an instrument for an advertising campaigns. So, this is why I wrote the message.
- Nord VPN doesn't anonymize your browsing data.
- Nord VPN doesn't protect you from anything at all.
- Nord VPN compromises speed by the definition, but even the terminology is inaccurate (sometimes you can get nearly the same throughput, but not the latency, and both of them are highly depending on your location and the location of the VPN server)
Nord VPN takes access to the metadata instead of the ISP/administrator of your traffic. VPN protects your data inside the network, but it's not the job of Nord VPN.
You can replace Nord VPN with any company name.
Cool
Tis that!
I'll be selling my EF 70-200 F2.8L III for this lens.
Enjoy!
Any incentives for hitting LIKE button before starting the video :-) , I do it because your videos are so engaging that I keep forgetting to Like
LOL - hard to feel too bad about you getting engrossed in the videos...
Its just so expensive!
Can't argue that, though relative to the F2.8 version...