I love it how Jared says things that so many people are afraid to say- noise and grain is part of the game! People need to stop thinking photos are ruined because there's noise and grain!
Gordon Laing has a pretty DARN GOOD comparison covering possibly ticking more boxes than Jared's review but you're right. If you have any camera related queries you search on yt for Jared's vid he's got a reputation for that over a decade!
@@TMTM_81 HA! I haven’t made the jump to the RF system as of yet (my 1DX3 is oh so freaking yummy!) but IF I do…it would take something like the R1 (Hopefully) to ditch the EF line!
I traded all my EF glass which was painful specially when you realize you only get half the original cost, but eventually I believe DSLR will be discontinued, then you won’t get diddly for trade ins.
@@Davitor1 I know the pain of getting SHAFTED whenever you trade in glass, that’s why when I DO switch up to the RF system, I’ll just use the adapter…the only EF lens that I WILL buy is the 28-70MM F/2!!! I ache for that lens! 😩
I have the EF f2.8 and I love it but I just bought the RF f4 and I’m not disappointed it is awesome small light and cheaper and the results are fantastic!
I was waiting for this comparison. Too bad there were no direct bokeh comparisons and I had also hoped for more diverse sceneries... because I personally think that you can get stunning results with the F4! With the new sensors and the new lenses I think F4 is the new F2.8 tbh. You can pretty much do everything with it, even to the degree that you make your money with photos off the F4 lens lineup, they're simply that good.
@@sarahkeller6403 Yes all of my lenses are f/4 for landscape photography. If you shoot a lot of sports, stars, etc then you might want the faster ones. I rent them occasionally.
RE: which one would I choose? The F4: 1) As an amateur photographer I am typically stopping done from the max. aperture for better resolution for landscapes rather than shooting wide open to isolate a portrait subject; 2) the more I travel, hike and age, the more important saving that extra 0.9 lbs. becomes; and 3) with Canon’s astronomical lens pricing I need to save some $$ somewhere.
I just bought the f4 2 weeks ago to replace my sigma 2.8 sports. This is my first L glass and my first rf lens. The size and weight and image quality are amazing. Even more amazing is the stabilization. I was able to get a 1.5 second exposure completely in focus. This is huge because i shoot a lot of waterfalls and this means i could actually hike without a tripod if i really wanted to (probably won’t but just saying) While i loved the image quality of the sigma, the heft of that lens did it in. I do a lot of hiking with my gear and i found myself often not even bringing that lens with me. I can hold that all day long and shoot but I definitely get a bit more shakey with it. Like you said this is a fantastic lens for the amateur. If i was a pro getting paid I would most definitely go for the 2.8 just for the flexibility.
How do you compare autofocus in sigma vs canon? I want to buy 70-200 for landscape photography but also for sport photos. In my country the price od both are the same, but i know Sigma weights 3 times more than canon
have u ever tried a monopod? Especially if you are primarily hiking there are monopods with detachable tops that can double as a hiking stick/pole. I never thought of this until my friend introduced me to it, now whenever i think Im hiking and want to take some gear ill take my monopod and detach the head and foot. Also great for making noise hitting stuff while your walking incase u need to keep forest animals away or aware that your in the area.
Personally I went with the 100-500 for more reach. You are giving up a bit of light (f/5 at 200mm) and it’s more expensive than the f/4, and it’s more hefty but I find for what I’m shooting, 200mm just isn’t enough reach to fill the frame and I’m always wanting more.
I still rock my EF 70-200 but im finally moving over to the RF system and the first lens i was thinking of grabbing is the RF100-500. Iv always wanted to get the sigma 150-600 or canon EF 100-400 but could never justify it. Now that i havent spent money on camera gear in a few years i dont mind splurging and the rf100-500 seems like itll get me there better then the Sigma which is old glass at this point will. Also the benefit of it all running natively and being lighter is a bonus. Cant wait to join the 100-500 club! Altho ill probably buy a RF70-200 f4 eventually.
Thank you for posting this comparison. The images captured demonstrate how well the f4 and the f2.8 handle demanding situations with the R5. Very informative.
For the size and the weight, I'd get the f4 as I'd be more likely to take it for landscape hikes and the like. Have an EF 2.8 which is gorgeous but sits at home mostly.
Every lens manufacturer has a special bacterial and bio-hazardous cleaning facilities for cleaning lenses after they receive back units from Jared reviews.
I'm that amateur photographer that Jared talked about. I shoot Landscapes and travel and most of my work is on a tripod so f4 is fine for me. I now have the f4 holy trilogy 14-35mm, 24-105mm and this the 70-200mm. Great lenses and fantastic value for a part timer.
I was thinking of getting that exact same trilogy...but let me ask you one question...if you WERE going to have f 2.8 in ONE lens ONLY...which one would it be?
@@pauledwards5607 wide angle for me. Problem is, i also intend to do some astrophotography. For wide angle, i can get great pictures of milky way, dim lit landscapes and mountains. RF telephoto lenses are barely out, but with high aperture you can get amazing photos of things like the andromeda galaxy, sports, and dimlit places for animals. Its tough. Less zoom, more aperture or more aperture and less zoom. Getting both is more expensive. Im thinking of the rf 100-400, or this rf 70-200 for telephoto. For wide angle, its currently either sigma 14-24 f/2.8, rf 15-35 f/42.8 or the cheaper 14-35 f/4
I own the 15-35 2.8 and i love that lens to death, however i will say i havent found much use of the 2.8 aperture range unless j was taking portraits, or hyper focusing on some object in my composition. If you’re doing strictly landscapes the f4 should be fine since in landscapes you do tend to use apertures in the f11-f16 range. By no means am i an expert and this is only my personal take but i thought id be able to add some info to your comment, hope this helps :)
@@nikhils4785 Yes, this helps and is sort of how I'm leaning. Right now I'm probably going to get the f4 unless there is a compelling reason to go for the 2.8. And for me I don't think there is. Thanks!
It all depends on your intended use for the lens. If you’re shooting people in dark-ish settings, such as wedding receptions or cooking s’mores by a campfire, or enjoy shooting with a shallow depth of field, then the 2.8 is your jam. If the vast majority of the time you’ll be using it in good lighting situations, or with a tripod, and/or mostly shoot with smaller apertures, then the f/4 will work just fine. If it’s rare for you to shoot in poor/low light, then you can crank up the ISO by one stop…the R5 and R6 are so good at moderate ISOs that you’ll be very happy with the results.
Sony’s lead with E mount and embrace of third parties is a major advantage and reason I went for an Alpha instead of the fantastic R6. RF is great and Canon makes great lenses but they need more affordable glass from Sigma and Tamron!
I bought a 70-200 IS f/2.8 mkiii recently of someone who was buying the RF F4 version. His reason was, he is into hiking and wanted the lightest lens possible and with the iso abilities of the R range, there is no need for the 2.8. Me personally, I shoot events and concerts, f2.8 isn't essential, but it earns you money.
Easy choice, F4. Use it, indoors outdoors what ever (I have an R5...). If business picks up, sell it for ohhh $1,300 and put that on the F2.8. Downside is I do like the placement of the zoom ring on the F4 version vs The F2.8 and will have to unlearn that when the time comes.
This video was actually really helpful. I'm a cinematographer and for that I use my Canon C70 which I converted to PL Mount for Cine Lenses, but I also own an R6 as kind of my own personal photography and travel camera... and was pondering about the f/4 vs the f/2.8 and now that I've seen this video... I think I'm sold on the f/4 because of it's compact size. We don't have proper camera stores in Puerto Rico so these lenses are impossible to see/test before hand. (We have Best Buys but their inventory is pretty much non-existent). Thanks anyway.
Since your shoot with a DSLR, you didn't have much choice but to buy an EF lens. This video is about the RF lenses, not sure what point you're trying to make.
I am not a fan of the external zoom lenses. I own 3 of the new canon RFs and I am concerned they will pull dust into the lenses. Time will tell. The image quality has been superb and for now I am a fan of the results.
Jared, if you had to choose between RF 70-200 f4 to the EF 70-200 f2.8 which would you choose? Cost is a lot closer compared to RF 70-200 f2.8. Shooting on R6.
I was surprised by your shots at 5:40 and 6:05. The f2.8 seems like it would gather less light than the f4 at the same aperture. 1/1000s, f4 vs f2.8. That's 1 stop difference, so I would expect the ISO to be double. But with the f2.8 you were at 4000 ISO, with the f4, 5000. You later had some f4 shots at 6400. Basically, there is a 1 stop difference in aperture/DoF, but there appears to be a 1/3 or 2/3 stop difference in light transmission. This means the f4 lens is a better fit for freezing action relative to the f2.8 than it appears on paper. I guess this may be due to vignetting on the f2.8, too. Edit: I saw another video where these two lenses were at the same aperture (f4), but the f2.8 lens was 2/3rds of a stop faster. This is confusing. It almost seems like the f2.8's light transmission doesn't change between f2.8 and f4. I'm sure that this isn't whats reported on the camera :/
I bought the 2.8 for my daughters last two years of volleyball in high school gyms and have travelled with it. It’s a big commitment in your bag when you’re trying to fly light. I’m now watching for a good used f4 in my region and down sizing since I’m no longer in the dark gyms. I almost second guessed myself due to some great shots of SailGP I got in Halifax, but looking at it I realized I had plenty of shutter speed at 200 ISO, even in the rain. So the f4 would have been just as good.
$2700 for the 2.8 70-200 and $2800 for the 100-500. Would it be better to get the 2.8 and use a teleconverter to take it to 400 versus the f5+ 100-500?
Just bought the 70-200 f4. Amazing lens. Currently in the US on holiday. Saw it in a local camera shop. Saved about $300 AUD on it. Am looking forward to shooting around the Long Island, NY area with it.
I wish this video compared sharpness and distortion on identical images at 2-3 different focal lengths. I also wish it showed both lenses @ f4 and what additional value you got out of the f2.8. This felt more like a commercial for canon lenses than a comparison. =/
Awesome video. I think a comparison of the RF 15-35 f2.8 vs the RF 14-35 f4 would complete my training as young JAREDI. As I'm a recent owner of a EOS R with the RF 24-105 f4 usm, Im looking at the options of the F4 trinity. Any info on the subjects is helpful, Mahalo from Maui
Love your videos! I am a hip grandma Now taking pictures of grandkids sports… Football ( i take pics for team Not selling yet tho ) and Volleyball and Skateboarding….I have the Canon RP… will the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 Will they work well with that camera as well? I did read that these 2 lenses seem to be good for action sports… DO YOU OFFER CLASSES?
Have u tried RF glass? Those are not redesigns of EF lenses. RF glass is super sharp and crisp and have better contrast and flare resistance. Yeah, the converter is awesome, but even EF 135/2 is somewhat soft and "muddy" compared to cheapest RF glass.
For $1,100 you could just buy f/2.8 lens hood and use it on the f/4. The size and weight of the f/4 version is way more ideal for landscapes, especially considering you'll never shoot wide open.
Manual focus is great for food and macro photography where you most likely want the focus plane and DoF in a specific part. Sometimes the camera does a very good job at those applications with AF but with manual (and the DoF highlight funcion of the R, RP, R5 and R6) you can get your DOF just like you want it super easily and satisfactory using manual AF. It has NEVER been better to use manual AF with the MF assist modes of modern cameras ❤️
The problem with the RF 70-200F2.8 is the zoom ring is out on the end of the lens. These company's need to stay away from that imo. I'm way more unstable with it that way. Even with my EF converter the old EF 70-200 is much more comfortable and zooms smoother imo. Plus during a rainy shoot the rain cover can get caught in the lens with a external zoom. So for me. The old EF version 3 is still king
And the EF III version has the same optical quality as the RF version. For those who face challenging atmospheric situations, the EF III version is still the best option.
I own the fantastic EF 70-200 f/4 IS II, but using it adapted on my EOS R is getting old... I'm sorely tempted to replace my lens with the RF f/4, but realistically, I would upgrade to the RF f/2.8. It's still an upgrade in terms of size (5.75" vs 6.93" tall), and obviously an upgrade in terms of max aperture. It is heavier though (2.35 lbs vs. 1.72 lbs).
I shoot a lot of youth hockey. I used R6. Im always at iso5000. Most rink lights blow. The eye tracking is on point. I always get beautiful shots. I shoot with sigma 120-300 2.8
Thanks Jared! I own that exact EF version (bought it used). The Adapter doesnt make a huge difference on my R6 as its already a long lense but the weigt difference.... Im just a hobbyist (enthusiastic tho) and you gave me some interesting insight into the thought process about getting an F4 or F2.8 .
Nothing here surprises me, except how tiny the F/4 is. I have the EF 70-200 F/4 Mark II, a really great lens that I've used many times for landscape and occasionally wildlife. The RF F/4 looks like it's half the size of even the EF F/4, NM the F/2.8s in either mount. A trade-in may be in order as weight savings is a consideration for me.
just ordered the RF f2.8 and the fact you did this review with hockey has made me more excited for it to come in! Im a goalie playing in rec league and i just love shooting hockey photos.
I'm happy using my converted Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC G2. I'm hard pressed to give that up for the price difference right now. Both look like nice lenses though.
Hey Jared, as usual thanks for this comparison. Can't wait to see your review on the upcoming Rf 14-35 f4. Also have you heard anything updates on Sigma or Tamron with their Rf mount releases(?). Thanks Fro.
I’m just getting into this and shot my first formula race with only a 50mm prime. Think I’m gonna start with the f4 and if I can start getting gigs you can still sell it all day for 1200 and then upgrade!
Great review Jared, you have such energy and sound down to earth advice. I have a quick question you may be able to help me with. You mentioned about you dont need manual focus on these camera's which I agree but I had a scenario recently where I took my Canon R5 with RF 24-70 F2.8 lens to the zoo and in a few shots it had trouble finding the "animal" and would lock onto some fauna or the like. I never had the animal detect activated but I was thinking would I be better off shooting with single point focus in this situation ? What / how would you set up your camera in that environment ? Thanks in advance.
You said in a couple of videos already " why do you even need manual" For me personally: astrophotography and slower manual focus for video. Other than that yeah I dont use manual focus.
I use manual focus all the time for tricky still subjects. For example when you are shooting through something with glass, plastic, or beads of water on it. You want to get to a specific "layer." My cases usually happen with shorter focal lenses and macro lenses. Not so much with a telephoto lens. The camera needs to be on a tripod and the subject is still.
Just tried the new RF 70-200mm for ice hockey and ringette. Incredible even at low light... Better than my EF 70-200mm I IS for sure. And very light... Wasn't sure about interior ice hockey arena but it's great. I am sure the 2.8 is better but honestly the F4 is perfect for what I do...
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version which would help with both photo and video since I have a small house and my existing 24-70 basically lives on my camera….but then again I only own 1 other lens (EF 50 F1.8) 😂. I know the R6 does pretty good in higher ISO’s but I’m still struggling to make my decision. My only experience with a longer focal length is my older kit lens that went to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) and that was a years ago. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports of my toddler as he grows up. As you said in the video there probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation, especially when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. Do F2.8 lenses tend to hold their value better than F4 versions? Any input would be appreciated!
@@nathan-serny I ended up with the RF 70-200 F2.8 and love it. I kept my EF 24-70 F4 and I’m waiting for the RF35mm F1.4 or 1.2 whenever it comes out and I’ll use that indoors.
@@froknowsphoto not too surprised. I consider you to be more of a purist with your style. But with that being said, I would be interested in your reasons why you are against it. It could make for an interesting video for people to know some of your philosophies, like no cropping. In particular, I don't see much of a difference between Denoise and most other tools, like dodging, burning, b&w conversions. Do you see Denoise as maybe a more destructive tool, like spot removal or frequency separation. Where do you draw the line with certain tools and why?
Downloaded some of the images to the iPad Pro and viewed in Lr. It’s noise reduction feature was able to remove some of the noise from the hi-ISO images that I looked at.
I just got my RF70-200 2.8 , my first fixed aperture lens an noticed something strange in relatively dim conditions in the evening, the ISO would go up considerably while zooming in towards 200mm, aperture stays at 2.8. Would appreciate some technical explanation on what might lead to ISO increase when zooming at same lens opening. And if this is to be expected on all the lens designs, may that be internal or external zooming. Happy holidays!
Great discussion Jared. I both loved the breakdown, and given that I spend way too much time in hockey rinks taking action shots with my 5D Mkiv, the examples struck a chord. Still waffling on whether to jump over to mirrorless. Avid enthusiast with a second mortgage tied up in all my glass :-), so will I get that much out of the new technology? Aargh. I love the idea of the weight savings with the F4 to say nothing about the price point difference, but being able to isolate a goalie or a player with the reduced depth of field with the 2.8, to me is the deciding factor. So that combined with the 'blow test' makes the F2.8 one, price be damned :-) Thanks again
What I'd really like to hear from you is if you think either one is enough better than the EF internal focusing vii. I love mine, and it takes both the EF teleconverters as well. For me, the compactness of the f4 rf lens is appealing for travel... so I might do that one, in addition the the adapted EF version I already own.
I was also thinking of getting a rf 70-200 because I got a first gen 70-200 without is and its just historical glass now. Also with the EF to RF adapter it feels so bulky compared to the RF 70-200 f4 i borrowed from a friend. Ill never get rid of my old EF glass but finally putting effort into rf glass would take so much bulk out of my bag at this point. Also iv been denied at a few events because of maximum camera length before, if i had the RF and locked it they wouldnt know any better and give me an OK. With the internal zoom EF 70-200 with EF to RF adapter as soon as tehy see that they dont even bother measuring.
Thanks Jared I think if the F4 was out when i got the R5 I may have gone for that but as I pre-ordered the RF70-200 F2.8 with the R5 I cant see the point to down grade only in weight and size but after getting the RF100-500 I have found I dont even look at the 70-200 , may be in low light is all
That USD1100 difference is a big deal when you can pick up more RF glass with that difference. I was initially toying with the F2.8, but the weight factor doesn't really justify it.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I love it how Jared says things that so many people are afraid to say- noise and grain is part of the game! People need to stop thinking photos are ruined because there's noise and grain!
Especially now with topaz a.i it literally deletes the noise on any picture
This could not have been more timely; I searched for this comparison last Sunday but got distracted and then it pops up this week. Perfect!
Gordon Laing has a pretty DARN GOOD comparison covering possibly ticking more boxes than Jared's review but you're right. If you have any camera related queries you search on yt for Jared's vid he's got a reputation for that over a decade!
👀 Right right right right
I didn’t even know the f4 version existed until last week
Canon has simply KILLED IT with their RF glass lineup…very nice!
Yes, they killed my wallet
@@TMTM_81 HA! I haven’t made the jump to the RF system as of yet (my 1DX3 is oh so freaking yummy!) but IF I do…it would take something like the R1 (Hopefully) to ditch the EF line!
I traded all my EF glass which was painful specially when you realize you only get half the original cost, but eventually I believe DSLR will be discontinued, then you won’t get diddly for trade ins.
@@Davitor1 I know the pain of getting SHAFTED whenever you trade in glass, that’s why when I DO switch up to the RF system, I’ll just use the adapter…the only EF lens that I WILL buy is the 28-70MM F/2!!! I ache for that lens! 😩
@@obsidian00 I rather go for the RF100-500. It’s $300 less. I own the R5 with the holy trinity and the cheap rf35mm
I have the rf 70-200 f4, I love how damn small and light it is and the quality is awesome!
i prefer the 2.8
@@lnz971 I prefer KFC
With what R are you using it?? I thinking on getting the F4 to set it up with a R6
I have the EF f2.8 and I love it but I just bought the RF f4 and I’m not disappointed it is awesome small light and cheaper and the results are fantastic!
@@lnz971 of course, and I have one, but for street, it’s like a battle axe in my bag.
I actually got the f4 here JUST for the size. It’s just so small and great for adventure photography.
what about low light performance? which camera r u using ?
I was waiting for this comparison. Too bad there were no direct bokeh comparisons and I had also hoped for more diverse sceneries... because I personally think that you can get stunning results with the F4! With the new sensors and the new lenses I think F4 is the new F2.8 tbh. You can pretty much do everything with it, even to the degree that you make your money with photos off the F4 lens lineup, they're simply that good.
But is the F4 as good for indoor sports as the 2.8?
I couldn't be happier with the RF 70-200mm f/4. It has the beautiful RF glass and is crazy small and light to tote around for landscape photography.
What is your main camera you are using the f/4 with? Jumping back and forward if I should get the f/2.8 or f/4.
@@sarahkeller6403 canon RP. Not a bad little camera
@@rlfisher Got the same one, love the RP! You can recommend taking the f/4 for the RP?
@@sarahkeller6403 Yes all of my lenses are f/4 for landscape photography. If you shoot a lot of sports, stars, etc then you might want the faster ones. I rent them occasionally.
@@rlfisher Sounds great! That's why I'm also thinking about the f/2.8 because I also shoot some sports events. Thanks for your advice! :)
RE: which one would I choose? The F4: 1) As an amateur photographer I am typically stopping done from the max. aperture for better resolution for landscapes rather than shooting wide open to isolate a portrait subject; 2) the more I travel, hike and age, the more important saving that extra 0.9 lbs. becomes; and 3) with Canon’s astronomical lens pricing I need to save some $$ somewhere.
I just bought the f4 2 weeks ago to replace my sigma 2.8 sports. This is my first L glass and my first rf lens. The size and weight and image quality are amazing. Even more amazing is the stabilization. I was able to get a 1.5 second exposure completely in focus. This is huge because i shoot a lot of waterfalls and this means i could actually hike without a tripod if i really wanted to (probably won’t but just saying)
While i loved the image quality of the sigma, the heft of that lens did it in. I do a lot of hiking with my gear and i found myself often not even bringing that lens with me. I can hold that all day long and shoot but I definitely get a bit more shakey with it.
Like you said this is a fantastic lens for the amateur. If i was a pro getting paid I would most definitely go for the 2.8 just for the flexibility.
Wow, you beat my longest handheld exposure time by 50%
How do you compare autofocus in sigma vs canon? I want to buy 70-200 for landscape photography but also for sport photos. In my country the price od both are the same, but i know Sigma weights 3 times more than canon
have u ever tried a monopod? Especially if you are primarily hiking there are monopods with detachable tops that can double as a hiking stick/pole. I never thought of this until my friend introduced me to it, now whenever i think Im hiking and want to take some gear ill take my monopod and detach the head and foot. Also great for making noise hitting stuff while your walking incase u need to keep forest animals away or aware that your in the area.
Personally I went with the 100-500 for more reach. You are giving up a bit of light (f/5 at 200mm) and it’s more expensive than the f/4, and it’s more hefty but I find for what I’m shooting, 200mm just isn’t enough reach to fill the frame and I’m always wanting more.
I still rock my EF 70-200 but im finally moving over to the RF system and the first lens i was thinking of grabbing is the RF100-500. Iv always wanted to get the sigma 150-600 or canon EF 100-400 but could never justify it. Now that i havent spent money on camera gear in a few years i dont mind splurging and the rf100-500 seems like itll get me there better then the Sigma which is old glass at this point will. Also the benefit of it all running natively and being lighter is a bonus. Cant wait to join the 100-500 club! Altho ill probably buy a RF70-200 f4 eventually.
Thank you for posting this comparison. The images captured demonstrate how well the f4 and the f2.8 handle demanding situations with the R5. Very informative.
For the size and the weight, I'd get the f4 as I'd be more likely to take it for landscape hikes and the like. Have an EF 2.8 which is gorgeous but sits at home mostly.
Thanks 😊
Good review, but the few photos of the 2.8 sold me…
Every lens manufacturer has a special bacterial and bio-hazardous cleaning facilities for cleaning lenses after they receive back units from Jared reviews.
Haha :)
I’d imagine they could resell it “as is”. It would be like getting Leonard Nimoy’s used napkin.
😂
@@rebootnutwho?
@@Aneliuseit’s from big bang theory
I'm that amateur photographer that Jared talked about. I shoot Landscapes and travel and most of my work is on a tripod so f4 is fine for me. I now have the f4 holy trilogy 14-35mm, 24-105mm and this the 70-200mm. Great lenses and fantastic value for a part timer.
I was thinking of getting that exact same trilogy...but let me ask you one question...if you WERE going to have f 2.8 in ONE lens ONLY...which one would it be?
@@pauledwards5607 wide angle for me.
Problem is, i also intend to do some astrophotography.
For wide angle, i can get great pictures of milky way, dim lit landscapes and mountains.
RF telephoto lenses are barely out, but with high aperture you can get amazing photos of things like the andromeda galaxy, sports, and dimlit places for animals.
Its tough. Less zoom, more aperture or more aperture and less zoom. Getting both is more expensive.
Im thinking of the rf 100-400, or this rf 70-200 for telephoto.
For wide angle, its currently either sigma 14-24 f/2.8, rf 15-35 f/42.8 or the cheaper 14-35 f/4
omg i have been looking for this kind of review for 2 weeks now
Thank you JARED!
Great review. It confirmed my belief the f/4 is the way to go, especially for landscape photography.
I would love one of these on the RF 15-35 f2.8 vs the RF 14-35 f4 as I've been debating this all summer.
He posted on Instagram that he's got one, wouldn't be surprised to see a shootout coming soon
I think you'd see even less of a difference in wide angles from f 4 to f 2.8.
I own the 15-35 2.8 and i love that lens to death, however i will say i havent found much use of the 2.8 aperture range unless j was taking portraits, or hyper focusing on some object in my composition. If you’re doing strictly landscapes the f4 should be fine since in landscapes you do tend to use apertures in the f11-f16 range. By no means am i an expert and this is only my personal take but i thought id be able to add some info to your comment, hope this helps :)
@@nikhils4785 Yes, this helps and is sort of how I'm leaning. Right now I'm probably going to get the f4 unless there is a compelling reason to go for the 2.8. And for me I don't think there is. Thanks!
It all depends on your intended use for the lens. If you’re shooting people in dark-ish settings, such as wedding receptions or cooking s’mores by a campfire, or enjoy shooting with a shallow depth of field, then the 2.8 is your jam.
If the vast majority of the time you’ll be using it in good lighting situations, or with a tripod, and/or mostly shoot with smaller apertures, then the f/4 will work just fine. If it’s rare for you to shoot in poor/low light, then you can crank up the ISO by one stop…the R5 and R6 are so good at moderate ISOs that you’ll be very happy with the results.
Considering the whole price thing, can you imagine what would happen if Tamron managed to get their 70-180 onto the RF mount?
Sony’s lead with E mount and embrace of third parties is a major advantage and reason I went for an Alpha instead of the fantastic R6. RF is great and Canon makes great lenses but they need more affordable glass from Sigma and Tamron!
@@AmaxterPlays And that's what's made me stick with Sony so far, too.
I bought a Tamron SP 35 1.4 for $700 and it’s on par with the $1800 Canon. If Tamron makes an RF 70-200 I’ll be super interested.
Nice. Thanks. Landscape travel F4 for sure lighter, optically excellent and more compact. Ideal when you’re shlepping your equipment around!
They look great, the only thing I don't like about them is the fact they extend and dust can get into it, unlike the versions for the mirror ones
Just checking in, my f4 version i had since release, have zero dust inside, and i take it out to the extreme.
I've got an R5 & 2.8 in my cart right now. You just convinced me to officially pull the trigger and finalize checkout. Thanks Fro!! 🤗💓
Do you still have r5 and 2.8 ? Is it good ?
I bought a 70-200 IS f/2.8 mkiii recently of someone who was buying the RF F4 version. His reason was, he is into hiking and wanted the lightest lens possible and with the iso abilities of the R range, there is no need for the 2.8. Me personally, I shoot events and concerts, f2.8 isn't essential, but it earns you money.
The difference in noise would be pretty much matched if you have the R6. The rf 24-105mm is my run and gun workhorse.
Easy choice, F4. Use it, indoors outdoors what ever (I have an R5...). If business picks up, sell it for ohhh $1,300 and put that on the F2.8. Downside is I do like the placement of the zoom ring on the F4 version vs The F2.8 and will have to unlearn that when the time comes.
Nice review Jared. Keep up the good work. I bought the 4
Fantastic review as always! Nice one Fro! 👏
This video was actually really helpful. I'm a cinematographer and for that I use my Canon C70 which I converted to PL Mount for Cine Lenses, but I also own an R6 as kind of my own personal photography and travel camera... and was pondering about the f/4 vs the f/2.8 and now that I've seen this video... I think I'm sold on the f/4 because of it's compact size. We don't have proper camera stores in Puerto Rico so these lenses are impossible to see/test before hand. (We have Best Buys but their inventory is pretty much non-existent). Thanks anyway.
I’m primarily an amateur landscape photographer with a Canon 5Div. I opted for the EF 70-200 f/4.
Since your shoot with a DSLR, you didn't have much choice but to buy an EF lens. This video is about the RF lenses, not sure what point you're trying to make.
I am not a fan of the external zoom lenses. I own 3 of the new canon RFs and I am concerned they will pull dust into the lenses. Time will tell. The image quality has been superb and for now I am a fan of the results.
Jared, if you had to choose between RF 70-200 f4 to the EF 70-200 f2.8 which would you choose? Cost is a lot closer compared to RF 70-200 f2.8. Shooting on R6.
I was surprised by your shots at 5:40 and 6:05. The f2.8 seems like it would gather less light than the f4 at the same aperture. 1/1000s, f4 vs f2.8. That's 1 stop difference, so I would expect the ISO to be double. But with the f2.8 you were at 4000 ISO, with the f4, 5000. You later had some f4 shots at 6400. Basically, there is a 1 stop difference in aperture/DoF, but there appears to be a 1/3 or 2/3 stop difference in light transmission. This means the f4 lens is a better fit for freezing action relative to the f2.8 than it appears on paper. I guess this may be due to vignetting on the f2.8, too.
Edit: I saw another video where these two lenses were at the same aperture (f4), but the f2.8 lens was 2/3rds of a stop faster. This is confusing. It almost seems like the f2.8's light transmission doesn't change between f2.8 and f4. I'm sure that this isn't whats reported on the camera :/
I bought the 2.8 for my daughters last two years of volleyball in high school gyms and have travelled with it. It’s a big commitment in your bag when you’re trying to fly light. I’m now watching for a good used f4 in my region and down sizing since I’m no longer in the dark gyms. I almost second guessed myself due to some great shots of SailGP I got in Halifax, but looking at it I realized I had plenty of shutter speed at 200 ISO, even in the rain. So the f4 would have been just as good.
F4 for me. Bought the 85 F2 macro as well with change. Now waiting for 14-35 F4
I have been back and forth with which one to buy for weeks, thank you for this video!!
Impressed. Very logically summed up and unbiased. Fan 👍
$2700 for the 2.8 70-200 and $2800 for the 100-500. Would it be better to get the 2.8 and use a teleconverter to take it to 400 versus the f5+ 100-500?
Just bought the 70-200 f4. Amazing lens. Currently in the US on holiday. Saw it in a local camera shop. Saved about $300 AUD on it. Am looking forward to shooting around the Long Island, NY area with it.
Just ordered the RF70200 F4!!!! Great review!!
Nice review 👍🏼
Spent the weekend shooting the f4 this weekend. Outside and in the wilderness. Fantastic and so light. Perfect for mounted to a Ronin
Great comparison mang. Love your videos and content !
I wish this video compared sharpness and distortion on identical images at 2-3 different focal lengths. I also wish it showed both lenses @ f4 and what additional value you got out of the f2.8. This felt more like a commercial for canon lenses than a comparison. =/
Awesome video. I think a comparison of the RF 15-35 f2.8 vs the RF 14-35 f4 would complete my training as young JAREDI. As I'm a recent owner of a EOS R with the RF 24-105 f4 usm, Im looking at the options of the F4 trinity. Any info on the subjects is helpful, Mahalo from Maui
Canon better get that zoom ring back.. not buying that RF 2.8 as such.. sticking to the EF version for now.
Thanks Jared, Been waiting for this!
Love your videos! I am a hip grandma Now taking pictures of grandkids sports… Football ( i take pics for team Not selling yet tho ) and Volleyball and Skateboarding….I have the Canon RP… will the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 Will they work well with that camera as well? I did read that these 2 lenses seem to be good for action sports… DO YOU OFFER CLASSES?
Not gonna lie... The EF to RF converter ring is amazing... I doubt I'll be buying repeat glass in RF anytime in the near future.
Have u tried RF glass? Those are not redesigns of EF lenses. RF glass is super sharp and crisp and have better contrast and flare resistance. Yeah, the converter is awesome, but even EF 135/2 is somewhat soft and "muddy" compared to cheapest RF glass.
I love your videos man!
Keep up the great work brother.
@Jared, my main concern is about the lack of filter door on the f/4. It’s a deal breaker for me as i would buy a 70-200mm for landscape
For $1,100 you could just buy f/2.8 lens hood and use it on the f/4. The size and weight of the f/4 version is way more ideal for landscapes, especially considering you'll never shoot wide open.
@@mattjamesbenson thanks, did you actually try the f/2.8 lens hood on the f/4 ? does it fit for sure ?
Manual focus is great for food and macro photography where you most likely want the focus plane and DoF in a specific part. Sometimes the camera does a very good job at those applications with AF but with manual (and the DoF highlight funcion of the R, RP, R5 and R6) you can get your DOF just like you want it super easily and satisfactory using manual AF. It has NEVER been better to use manual AF with the MF assist modes of modern cameras ❤️
The problem with the RF 70-200F2.8 is the zoom ring is out on the end of the lens. These company's need to stay away from that imo. I'm way more unstable with it that way. Even with my EF converter the old EF 70-200 is much more comfortable and zooms smoother imo. Plus during a rainy shoot the rain cover can get caught in the lens with a external zoom. So for me. The old EF version 3 is still king
And the EF III version has the same optical quality as the RF version. For those who face challenging atmospheric situations, the EF III version is still the best option.
I own the fantastic EF 70-200 f/4 IS II, but using it adapted on my EOS R is getting old... I'm sorely tempted to replace my lens with the RF f/4, but realistically, I would upgrade to the RF f/2.8. It's still an upgrade in terms of size (5.75" vs 6.93" tall), and obviously an upgrade in terms of max aperture. It is heavier though (2.35 lbs vs. 1.72 lbs).
I shoot a lot of youth hockey. I used R6. Im always at iso5000. Most rink lights blow. The eye tracking is on point. I always get beautiful shots. I shoot with sigma 120-300 2.8
Has anyone noticed the IS wobble while the camera is powered off? Seems like it’s normal after reading through the forums, but damn that is strange.
I got the F2.8 based on your holy trinity review, so far I've not been at a shoot where I didn't have the tools I needed
Thanks Jared!
I own that exact EF version (bought it used). The Adapter doesnt make a huge difference on my R6 as its already a long lense but the weigt difference....
Im just a hobbyist (enthusiastic tho) and you gave me some interesting insight into the thought process about getting an F4 or F2.8 .
What did you ended up getting? Im worried about the f4 in Low light but idk weight does matter since my 50mm 1.2 is heavy
Your killing us with lot of advertisements , unbelievable!
would you recommend this for videography also
Nothing here surprises me, except how tiny the F/4 is. I have the EF 70-200 F/4 Mark II, a really great lens that I've used many times for landscape and occasionally wildlife. The RF F/4 looks like it's half the size of even the EF F/4, NM the F/2.8s in either mount. A trade-in may be in order as weight savings is a consideration for me.
just ordered the RF f2.8 and the fact you did this review with hockey has made me more excited for it to come in! Im a goalie playing in rec league and i just love shooting hockey photos.
How is the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 for astrophotography?
Is the coma reduced?
I'm torn between f2.8 and f4
Enjoy your videos. What lens would be your recommendation to a hobbyist who shoots birds. I currently have a Canon R10.
Recommend starting with the RF 100-400. It’s inexpensive, light weight, fast focusing and sharp. I use it on my R10 and it’s a great combo
Great video. Just bought your Fropack bundle! Can't wait to do some quick editing !
Thanks!!!
Another informative video Jared. Thanks
Love your T-shirt! I have the exact same one!
I'm happy using my converted Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC G2. I'm hard pressed to give that up for the price difference right now. Both look like nice lenses though.
Hey Jared, as usual thanks for this comparison. Can't wait to see your review on the upcoming Rf 14-35 f4. Also have you heard anything updates on Sigma or Tamron with their Rf mount releases(?). Thanks Fro.
not yet.
I’d get F/4. Need the extra few inches of DOF to hit focus in action sports.
Update: $1099 proce at refurb sale in December made this a no-brainer decision vs 2.8
10:17 you did dirty to that poor defense 😂
I’m just getting into this and shot my first formula race with only a 50mm prime. Think I’m gonna start with the f4 and if I can start getting gigs you can still sell it all day for 1200 and then upgrade!
Does the f/4 hold its own for portraits?
I love to have the 2.8 can't afford been saving a year and waited for the f4 love it so light and compact
Great review Jared, you have such energy and sound down to earth advice.
I have a quick question you may be able to help me with. You mentioned about you dont need manual focus on these camera's which I agree but I had a scenario recently where I took my Canon R5 with RF 24-70 F2.8 lens to the zoo and in a few shots it had trouble finding the "animal" and would lock onto some fauna or the like. I never had the animal detect activated but I was thinking would I be better off shooting with single point focus in this situation ? What / how would you set up your camera in that environment ?
Thanks in advance.
Non internal zooming , what about stuff getting onto the tube and gumming it up?
Please one video for all rf lens canon please also compare 28-70 f2 vs 24-70 f2.8 and what to get
Be interesting to see if its worth getting the EF 70-200 2.8 over the RF F4. Can pick one of those up second hand for half the price of the f4.
You said in a couple of videos already " why do you even need manual"
For me personally: astrophotography and slower manual focus for video.
Other than that yeah I dont use manual focus.
Video guys still use manual focus also. For me I specially still use manual for some B Roll shots. Manual still has its place.
I use manual focus all the time for tricky still subjects. For example when you are shooting through something with glass, plastic, or beads of water on it. You want to get to a specific "layer." My cases usually happen with shorter focal lenses and macro lenses. Not so much with a telephoto lens. The camera needs to be on a tripod and the subject is still.
It's just an option, nice video man
Ready for that FroPack 4
is it better than IS3 version of 70 200 2.8?
Would you recommend getting the RF F4 or the EF F2.8 for an amateur photographer?
Just tried the new RF 70-200mm for ice hockey and ringette. Incredible even at low light... Better than my EF 70-200mm I IS for sure. And very light... Wasn't sure about interior ice hockey arena but it's great. I am sure the 2.8 is better but honestly the F4 is perfect for what I do...
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200.
I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version which would help with both photo and video since I have a small house and my existing 24-70 basically lives on my camera….but then again I only own 1 other lens (EF 50 F1.8) 😂.
I know the R6 does pretty good in higher ISO’s but I’m still struggling to make my decision. My only experience with a longer focal length is my older kit lens that went to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) and that was a years ago. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports of my toddler as he grows up. As you said in the video there probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation, especially when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos.
Do F2.8 lenses tend to hold their value better than F4 versions?
Any input would be appreciated!
I have the same question
@@nathan-serny I ended up with the RF 70-200 F2.8 and love it. I kept my EF 24-70 F4 and I’m waiting for the RF35mm F1.4 or 1.2 whenever it comes out and I’ll use that indoors.
Maybe you could review some of the denoise applications. I would love your opinion on the effectiveness, workflow, and need.
What if I said I am anti de noise. Because I am. I don’t de noise anything ever
@@froknowsphoto not too surprised. I consider you to be more of a purist with your style. But with that being said, I would be interested in your reasons why you are against it. It could make for an interesting video for people to know some of your philosophies, like no cropping. In particular, I don't see much of a difference between Denoise and most other tools, like dodging, burning, b&w conversions. Do you see Denoise as maybe a more destructive tool, like spot removal or frequency separation. Where do you draw the line with certain tools and why?
Downloaded some of the images to the iPad Pro and viewed in Lr. It’s noise reduction feature was able to remove some of the noise from the hi-ISO images that I looked at.
Can the autofocus handle your hair?
FYI polar pro VND do not fit with the 2.8 with lens hood on..kinda sucks
I just got my RF70-200 2.8 , my first fixed aperture lens an noticed something strange in relatively dim conditions in the evening, the ISO would go up considerably while zooming in towards 200mm, aperture stays at 2.8. Would appreciate some technical explanation on what might lead to ISO increase when zooming at same lens opening. And if this is to be expected on all the lens designs, may that be internal or external zooming. Happy holidays!
That’s weird.
Haha awesome- very informative and entertaining at the same time. Thanks for the posting!
I also have the 2.8 and love it.
Yo dude you Reviewing the new sigma 150-600 lens for canon e mountains time soon?
This is very helpful. Thank you Jared!
Do you have presets for Capture One?
Great discussion Jared. I both loved the breakdown, and given that I spend way too much time in hockey rinks taking action shots with my 5D Mkiv, the examples struck a chord. Still waffling on whether to jump over to mirrorless. Avid enthusiast with a second mortgage tied up in all my glass :-), so will I get that much out of the new technology? Aargh. I love the idea of the weight savings with the F4 to say nothing about the price point difference, but being able to isolate a goalie or a player with the reduced depth of field with the 2.8, to me is the deciding factor. So that combined with the 'blow test' makes the F2.8 one, price be damned :-) Thanks again
What I'd really like to hear from you is if you think either one is enough better than the EF internal focusing vii. I love mine, and it takes both the EF teleconverters as well. For me, the compactness of the f4 rf lens is appealing for travel... so I might do that one, in addition the the adapted EF version I already own.
I was also thinking of getting a rf 70-200 because I got a first gen 70-200 without is and its just historical glass now. Also with the EF to RF adapter it feels so bulky compared to the RF 70-200 f4 i borrowed from a friend. Ill never get rid of my old EF glass but finally putting effort into rf glass would take so much bulk out of my bag at this point.
Also iv been denied at a few events because of maximum camera length before, if i had the RF and locked it they wouldnt know any better and give me an OK. With the internal zoom EF 70-200 with EF to RF adapter as soon as tehy see that they dont even bother measuring.
Thanks Jared I think if the F4 was out when i got the R5 I may have gone for that but as I pre-ordered the RF70-200 F2.8 with the R5 I cant see the point to down grade only in weight and size
but after getting the RF100-500 I have found I dont even look at the 70-200 , may be in low light is all
That USD1100 difference is a big deal when you can pick up more RF glass with that difference. I was initially toying with the F2.8, but the weight factor doesn't really justify it.
Thanks for the video. However, May I confirm I can use all the preset at Light Room? Or how can I use it?
Will the rf70-200 f4 work well for weddings?