Maybe you hand is smaller than mine, but I could reach my thumb further around so that I could move through the entire zoom range in one motion. You just have to practice it once or twice to know where you place your hand/thumb to make it work. I’d still like to have a shorter throw, though.
@Ricky Cheung: I’m trying to decide between F4 & F2.8 for taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports (toddler for now). There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation in sporting type environments because they’ll probably be like 30+ feet away for that purpose but I would be taking portraits as well so it would be a bit more noticeable in that situation . I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my Ef24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version. Any input would be appreciated!
70-200 f4 is always have some separation at that focal length but the 24-70 is more questionable. You seem to be shooting in many environments and if you don’t mind weight and/or budget 2.8 will always win out but f4 can still get indoor shots depending on your ambient light but the iso is so good on the r6 you can get away with 8000 iso family personal photos. :)
I love that little lens. I had it for a week and it is sweet. However, I cannot justify its cost for my type of photography. It would collect dust for me. Also would like at 28-70 f/2, but I can’t justify it either. Sad. :(
I hear ya. Not worth it at all unless you are making money from photography. If I was not a photographer professionally I would totally just get a 24-105 f4. SWEET kit.
Bentley B thanks. Another lens on the list I would love to own but in due time I guess. I’m not sponsored in anyway so these are all my own purchases and personal experiences.
I think the 24-105 f4 is all you need for travel and landscapes, like you said you ain't shoot 2.8 and as great as IS and IBIS are they don't replace a tripod for landscapes/architecture. There is also a RF 70-200 f4 coming out soon. Probably even smaller and less weight.
No necessarily. It might feel better when shooting vertical portraits but i feel its a good balance for R mirrorless cameras. Canon has put a lot of thought into the design to make it compact.
Hey Ricky Cheung great video👌 having fun watching your videos. Could you do please some macro photo using the RF70-200? I know its not a lense for macro photography ...i would love to see if its able to do some good macro photos... i am just thinking to buy it. One reason its becouse the versatility, not only for macro. Thanks mr. Cheers 😎
Solid Brix Studios it’s a great lens and if you are moving up from the EF ver. Remember of what I mentioned in the video about the zoom rotation and you’ll get use to it. Whoa, you got it for a steal. Nice!
Great review, you are one of the few that have mentioned the issue with the issue of moving from. 70mm to 200mm, it's not just weddings is also sports. For me is a pretty important flaw, but it's a sacrifice to get a more compact lens. I will take the ability to change focus length faster over the compact size, but that opinion may change with. 70MP cameras.
I can totally see this an issue as a sports photographer. The adjustment in real world situations is real and needs adjustment on how to zoom and/or hold this lens. But all in all the compact size is super nice.
Hey Ricky, I was getting all excited about that lens until halfway through the video when you zoomed in. Yikes! No wonder it's short, it's external focus. The old 70-200 is probably shorter if compared to this lens at full zoom. I do love the the mounting ring opens. Mine requires removal of the camera from the lens. Good work on the review!
Also external focusing is not all that bad. The original 24-70 and many others have this type of zoom feature and not real issues. But I hear ya. All for compact design and super sweet in the bag.
Photographers today complain about everything not just you. lol Yet in still with all this phenomenal advanced camera technology. Photography has not gotten better. This camera bodies out do the photographers. Im a artist not a photographer.
True.. To this day I would still love to shoot with my 5D classic because those files are unmatched digitally but it didn't shoot video and content today is king above all seems. Adaptive I would say.
![Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L MK III | which one is better? english comparison [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AmNQF6WGEJk/mqdefault.jpg)
Maybe you hand is smaller than mine, but I could reach my thumb further around so that I could move through the entire zoom range in one motion. You just have to practice it once or twice to know where you place your hand/thumb to make it work. I’d still like to have a shorter throw, though.
@Ricky Cheung: I’m trying to decide between F4 & F2.8 for taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports (toddler for now). There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation in sporting type environments because they’ll probably be like 30+ feet away for that purpose but I would be taking portraits as well so it would be a bit more noticeable in that situation . I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my Ef24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version. Any input would be appreciated!
70-200 f4 is always have some separation at that focal length but the 24-70 is more questionable. You seem to be shooting in many environments and if you don’t mind weight and/or budget 2.8 will always win out but f4 can still get indoor shots depending on your ambient light but the iso is so good on the r6 you can get away with 8000 iso family personal photos. :)
I love that little lens. I had it for a week and it is sweet. However, I cannot justify its cost for my type of photography. It would collect dust for me. Also would like at 28-70 f/2, but I can’t justify it either. Sad. :(
I hear ya. Not worth it at all unless you are making money from photography. If I was not a photographer professionally I would totally just get a 24-105 f4. SWEET kit.
Getting a RF 70-200mm F2.8L allowed me to sleep well at night. I say that's priceless.
Great honest review. Can you please review the rf 85 1.2 DS
Bentley B thanks. Another lens on the list I would love to own but in due time I guess. I’m not sponsored in anyway so these are all my own purchases and personal experiences.
It’s probably not worth it for landscape togs as those f4 lenses are still small and light and you never need f/2.8 for landscapes.
I think the 24-105 f4 is all you need for travel and landscapes, like you said you ain't shoot 2.8 and as great as IS and IBIS are they don't replace a tripod for landscapes/architecture. There is also a RF 70-200 f4 coming out soon. Probably even smaller and less weight.
Do you feel like you need a battery grip when using it?
No necessarily. It might feel better when shooting vertical portraits but i feel its a good balance for R mirrorless cameras. Canon has put a lot of thought into the design to make it compact.
Hey Ricky Cheung great video👌 having fun watching your videos. Could you do please some macro photo using the RF70-200? I know its not a lense for macro photography ...i would love to see if its able to do some good macro photos... i am just thinking to buy it. One reason its becouse the versatility, not only for macro. Thanks mr. Cheers 😎
I will be some test myself and let you know. Thanks for your support.
Ricky Cheung always😎 thanks man. Cheers...
Got this lens last week for $2399 no tax... love it so far! Gonna shoot a wedding video this weekend with it.
Solid Brix Studios it’s a great lens and if you are moving up from the EF ver. Remember of what I mentioned in the video about the zoom rotation and you’ll get use to it. Whoa, you got it for a steal. Nice!
damn whered you get it at this price?
cant you mount the collar backwards ? :)
You could but you’ll end up hitting the camera body plate.
Great review, you are one of the few that have mentioned the issue with the issue of moving from. 70mm to 200mm, it's not just weddings is also sports. For me is a pretty important flaw, but it's a sacrifice to get a more compact lens. I will take the ability to change focus length faster over the compact size, but that opinion may change with. 70MP cameras.
I can totally see this an issue as a sports photographer. The adjustment in real world situations is real and needs adjustment on how to zoom and/or hold this lens. But all in all the compact size is super nice.
Hey i found copies of your videos on other channels. Idk if you know so thought i'd share
ua-cam.com/video/v5OX808RIoU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/po-CeKlxTjs/v-deo.html
Thanks for looking out man, appreciate it.
No worries!!
Why do people even do that? So weird.
Hey Ricky, I was getting all excited about that lens until halfway through the video when you zoomed in. Yikes! No wonder it's short, it's external focus. The old 70-200 is probably shorter if compared to this lens at full zoom. I do love the the mounting ring opens. Mine requires removal of the camera from the lens. Good work on the review!
AlwaysVideo1 roughly the same size as the EF 70-200 when zoomed out. But for compactness it can’t be beat. Thanks man.
Also external focusing is not all that bad. The original 24-70 and many others have this type of zoom feature and not real issues. But I hear ya. All for compact design and super sweet in the bag.
i bought it for that reason alone. This can go upright in my case attached to a camera
Photographers today complain about everything not just you. lol Yet in still with all this phenomenal advanced camera technology. Photography has not gotten better. This camera bodies out do the photographers. Im a artist not a photographer.
True.. To this day I would still love to shoot with my 5D classic because those files are unmatched digitally but it didn't shoot video and content today is king above all seems. Adaptive I would say.
🎥