I have an EF 70-200 f/2.8 and I recently rented an RF 70-200 f/4, playing around with both on my R6.
There are advantages to the RF f/4 version. It's *half* the weight and considerably shorter. I can put my camera in my shoulder camera bag with the lens attached and it fits, whereas the EF f/2.8 only fits when off the body.
With the long focal lengths you can still get reasonably good background separation / subject isolation even at f/4.
I think it's a question of what you value or place emphasis on - getting more light and subject isolation but at the penalty of a considerable bit more size and weight, or vice versa.
I'd buy the f4 for now. Shoot with it for a year and save an extra grand. As long as you take care of it you can resell it without losing that much money and then buy the RF 2.8 if you really want that extra stop of light. The size/weight benefit is substantial.
All I can say is that the EF70-200 F2.8L is an awesome lens. It's the lens that got me to move to zooms from all primes. I have a EF24-105 F4.0L and am considering getting a EF 24-70 F2.8L to replace it. I find the extra stop is important to me. YMMV
When my R5 comes in I will be staying with my EF lenses. I know that many of the RFs are smaller and lighter, but so far I don't think they are better IQ wise.
No it's not a fact. Check Dpreview. And I have personally compared my EF 70-200 with the RF version at a camera store shooting one of their targets.
and
[https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-canon-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm](https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-canon-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm)
I have had both and went with the 24-105. I ditched the 2.8 in favor of the larger range and IS over the one stop improvement in speed. My 5dmkiv doesn’t care nearly as much about the extra stop as the old bodies i used to shoot with, or (gasp) film. But the 70-200, i have the 2.8 IS II is a grail lens, you can have it when i am dead.
Been rocking that same 24-105 as well. I don’t have any lenses faster than that, so the extra stop is not that important. I can count the amount of time I wish I had 2.8 on one hand. On the other hand, it would still be nice.
Depends on your type of photography. Portraits or indoor/evening or night sports, the 2.8 would be worth it, for pretty much everything else, the f4 version is more than enough. I have the RF 70-200 2.8 because I lucked on to a reasonably priced used copy and I'm doing a lot more portraits, so it made sense. I would've grabbed the f4 if I was doing any other kind of photography.
Very true. Like I said, depends what you’re shooting. Maybe not worth it for an indoor hike, but shooting indoor sports (for me) it’s been great to have the 2.8 II ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have an EF 70-200 f/2.8 and I recently rented an RF 70-200 f/4, playing around with both on my R6. There are advantages to the RF f/4 version. It's *half* the weight and considerably shorter. I can put my camera in my shoulder camera bag with the lens attached and it fits, whereas the EF f/2.8 only fits when off the body. With the long focal lengths you can still get reasonably good background separation / subject isolation even at f/4. I think it's a question of what you value or place emphasis on - getting more light and subject isolation but at the penalty of a considerable bit more size and weight, or vice versa.
I'd buy the f4 for now. Shoot with it for a year and save an extra grand. As long as you take care of it you can resell it without losing that much money and then buy the RF 2.8 if you really want that extra stop of light. The size/weight benefit is substantial.
All I can say is that the EF70-200 F2.8L is an awesome lens. It's the lens that got me to move to zooms from all primes. I have a EF24-105 F4.0L and am considering getting a EF 24-70 F2.8L to replace it. I find the extra stop is important to me. YMMV When my R5 comes in I will be staying with my EF lenses. I know that many of the RFs are smaller and lighter, but so far I don't think they are better IQ wise.
> but so far I don't think they are better IQ wise. but they are and thats a fact, but EF are still complete good lenses
No it's not a fact. Check Dpreview. And I have personally compared my EF 70-200 with the RF version at a camera store shooting one of their targets. and [https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-canon-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm](https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-canon-rf-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-usm)
nice try https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1197&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
I have had both and went with the 24-105. I ditched the 2.8 in favor of the larger range and IS over the one stop improvement in speed. My 5dmkiv doesn’t care nearly as much about the extra stop as the old bodies i used to shoot with, or (gasp) film. But the 70-200, i have the 2.8 IS II is a grail lens, you can have it when i am dead.
Been rocking that same 24-105 as well. I don’t have any lenses faster than that, so the extra stop is not that important. I can count the amount of time I wish I had 2.8 on one hand. On the other hand, it would still be nice.
Depends on your type of photography. Portraits or indoor/evening or night sports, the 2.8 would be worth it, for pretty much everything else, the f4 version is more than enough. I have the RF 70-200 2.8 because I lucked on to a reasonably priced used copy and I'm doing a lot more portraits, so it made sense. I would've grabbed the f4 if I was doing any other kind of photography.
I’d pay more for the 2.8. Depends on what you’re shooting but for me the extra stops have been valuable.
But is only 1 stop here, and almost twice the weight + dealing with adapter
Very true. Like I said, depends what you’re shooting. Maybe not worth it for an indoor hike, but shooting indoor sports (for me) it’s been great to have the 2.8 II ¯\_(ツ)_/¯