CANON RF 70-200 f4 REVIEW vs CANON RF 70-200 f2.8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2021
- FROPACK3 is HERE with 15 all-new custom Lightroom presets!!! Check it out
froknowsphoto.com/fropack3/ (40% OFF)
This is a Lens REVIEW of the Canon RF 70-200 f4 IS, against Canon's RF 70-200 f2.8. I took both of these out to photograph Ice Hockey which is one of the hardest things in my opinion to shoot. If a lens can handle ice hockey, it can handle anything. The question is, should you go with the f4 or the 2.8?
DOWNLOAD Sample RAW DNG Files from both of these lens froknowsphoto.com/70200f4rf/
The Super Huger Mega Camera Giveaway is BACK!!! You could walk away with $4,999 to buy Cameras and Lenses. Enter Here bit.ly/megafro2021
This video was filmed with the Canon EOS R5 Canon.us/r5fro
Download MyGearVault, it's FREE and the best way to keep track of all your camera gear, receipts, prices paid, date purchased and more mygearvault.com/#download
Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations froknowsphoto.com/ (look for the orange box)
Want to send us gifts, swag, letters...here's our P.O. BOX
PO Box 3715 Philadelphia, PA 19125
USE CODE FroKnowsPhoto at squarespace.com/froknowsphoto to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts store.froknowsphoto.com/
I support Allen's Camera a mom-and-pop Camera store that's been around since 1977. allenscamera.com/fro
My Go To Mirrorless Camera for Stills
Sony a1 amzn.to/2NHsm55 or bit.ly/3ccKZrt
SIGMA 35mm f1.2 amzn.to/2rLO8Jr (FAVE LENS)
Our go to Cameras for Recording Videos at FroKnowsPhoto
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/37GQQ5R or bit.ly/2Obaj40
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3m6JHQ9 or bit.ly/38GIdXt
The Microphone I use for Vlogging bit.ly/2LWGRPq
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying bit.ly/2LNsHRK
Follow me
►RUclips: bit.ly/frotube
►Facebook: / froknowsphoto
►Instagram: / jaredpolin
►Twitter: / froknowsphoto
Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.
►froknowsphoto.com/guides
#FroKnowsPhoto #JaredPolin #Canon
![Skilla Baby - Misfits (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
omg i have been looking for this kind of review for 2 weeks now
Thank you JARED!
I actually got the f4 here JUST for the size. It’s just so small and great for adventure photography.
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
Fantastic review as always! Nice one Fro! 👏
I have been back and forth with which one to buy for weeks, thank you for this video!!
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.
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
Nice. Thanks. Landscape travel F4 for sure lighter, optically excellent and more compact. Ideal when you’re shlepping your equipment around!
Great review. It confirmed my belief the f/4 is the way to go, especially for landscape photography.
Thanks Jared, Been waiting for this!
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.
Spent the weekend shooting the f4 this weekend. Outside and in the wilderness. Fantastic and so light. Perfect for mounted to a Ronin
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
I love your videos man!
Keep up the great work brother.
Great comparison mang. Love your videos and content !
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?
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'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 ?
Great video. Just bought your Fropack bundle! Can't wait to do some quick editing !
Thanks!!!
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! :)
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!
Another informative video Jared. Thanks
Just ordered the RF70200 F4!!!! Great review!!
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.
This is very helpful. Thank you Jared!
Been waiting for this video
Nice review 👍🏼
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.
Factual and funny - loved this video! Makes the decision easier....
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.
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
Ready for that FroPack 4
Thanks for the two lens examples delivered and smashed it defo think the F4 is the one for me over the F2.8
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
I’d save even more money and adapt a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 EF fit onto a Canon mirrorless. I’m so glad for that EF-RF adapter, because I’ve saved all my old lenses and they work flawlessly with my EOS-R. The RF glass may be good but it’s useless if most of us can’t afford to buy it. $1500 is an insane amount of money to spend, especially when you can get better glass on an older system more cheaply.
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.
F4 for me. Bought the 85 F2 macro as well with change. Now waiting for 14-35 F4
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
Hey Jerod, I enjoy watching your vids, your so honest and tell it like it is, I come from film and black n white darkroom experience. When I was in high school I got involved with the Newspaper. Did most of the darkroom responsibilities that was fun. Im retired now camera shopping waiting to see what Canon is going to produce. I have looked at the R5 and R6. I mostly interested in wildlife and macro photography. Love your photos.
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.
Haha awesome- very informative and entertaining at the same time. Thanks for the posting!
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.
Love your T-shirt! I have the exact same one!
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...
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 ❤️
Great review
Thank you Jared
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.
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.
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.
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
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 also have the 2.8 and love it.
Great review. Thanks.
I'm sticking with the EF 70-200 2.8 II for my RP with the conversion ring for a while. The RF glass is beautiful, but too rich for my blood at the moment. the compact size is tempting though for someone who has to fit a lot of gear together for travel.
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).
The fro is looking hella good today Jared 👍
The difference in noise would be pretty much matched if you have the R6. The rf 24-105mm is my run and gun workhorse.
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
I used a Tamron 70-200 G2 on a eos R to photograph hockey and it did fairly well. I'm currently upgrading the rest of my glass to RF lenses, and I'm leaning towards replacing the 70-200 last just because I like the speed and results I've gotten from it. If all goes to plan next month it will be my only adapted lens. That way I can just keep the adapter on that lens and keep things a little bit simple rather than a 50/50 mix of RF and EF lenses.
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.
Please one video for all rf lens canon please also compare 28-70 f2 vs 24-70 f2.8 and what to get
It's just an option, nice video man
Great video. I am looking to buy a new lens for Nikon DX. Should I get a 24-70 f/2.8 if I plan on switching to full frame? If not what lens would you recommend for a casual walk around lens.
How is the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 for astrophotography?
Is the coma reduced?
I'm torn between f2.8 and f4
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.
Would you recommend getting the RF F4 or the EF F2.8 for an amateur photographer?
10:17 you did dirty to that poor defense 😂
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.
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.
Wishing if only if they've made these lens zoom internally. I'm down for 70200 f2.8. Do you happen to know average time when they release mark 2 or 3 lenses out on market?
Thanks for the video. However, May I confirm I can use all the preset at Light Room? Or how can I use it?
Great compo between these two lens. As you’ve shown they are both great lens; and those images u got: absolutely fantastic, both in composition and clarity - focus - of the main subject. (Actually I thought they were all brilliant and all deserved to be published, but the B/w team meeting shot was just sublime !! ). And all this decided for me that I must, will, own the the R6 or R5 before too long, and some RF glass, althu the prices make me gulp even more, but as they say, glass is forever. (Bye the bye I have Sub’d; if for no other reason than to see some more of your images.)
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.
It would be great if you can make a video about the cameras that the profs are using in the Olympic
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!
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.
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 use manual focus, exclusively when shooting independent film; you need it for rack focus, etc.
Love the internal zooms. Shooting dog action, less motion is better. Plus think internals are less vulnerable to shooting in dust weekend after weekend. I don't hike to my shooting spots, lighter means nothing.
I would love to see you take pictures of gymnastics with the R5 or R6. I think that gymnastics is the hardest sport to take pictures of, because it’s always indoors in poor lighting, but the subject is also very hard to track because of all the flipping and twisting.
Try shooting short track speedskating. Worse lighting, ice, and ridiculous speed, what a combination.
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.
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
Silly question, but I just got an R3, sold my 1DX - I have 5 EF L series lenses with an EF to RF adapter. Would upgrading to RF or expanding my lens collection make more sense. Without having any RF lenses, I don't know if there is much of a difference aside from size, control ring???
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.
Hi Jared. Quick question. Your opinion on my next lens. I have an eosR and like to do nature. For my next lens I’m looking for either 70-200 f2.8 or better reach 100-500 variable and there is nothing else in between. Is the reach of one outweighs the aperture of the other. The price is close but I don’t know. Maybe you can do a comparison with cons and pros. Thanks
I already use the RF 70-200 F2.8 and I really recommend it before the F4.0 if you are pro.
@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 ?
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?
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 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.
would you recommend this for videography also
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
Perfectly timed! I play a few times a week and was just wanting to take a few skates off to go shoot the guys instead. Never have shot sports before and was wondering how the R6/F4 combo would be at a rink.
Did you make a video as well?
@@is92173 I did! No hockey in it, but I got the F4 right as it came out and rented the 2.8 to compare and make sure I wasn't making a mistake. Loving it so far!
@@DanYosua alright I'll check your video out now
If you shoot basketball and you go to well lit gyms this is the dream. The 2.8 is too narrow of a focus a lot of times and if the ISO wouldn't be too high this would be preferred rather than my setup (a7iii 70-200 GM). The weight is awesome. Body and lens is just my GM in terms of weight. If i knew i'd only shoot in perfectly lit gyms it'd go for the R6,24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 and be perfectly fine. The matter of the fact is I sometimes go to 12800 ISO even at 2.8 so f4 is not an option for me.
I have an important question for you, if you have brand new R3 and used R5, which one you keep it if one needs to go .. please help me up
@Jared Polin Jared can you please review the Canon RF 100-400. I am looking for a light weight lens for travel and zoo photography. I am trying to decide between the RF 70-200 f4 and rf 100-400.
I understand that the 100-400 does not have the build of an L lens and that it is dimmer than the L lens. I want to make sure that I buy a sharp lens. In the past the 70-300 lens have been notoriously unsharp.The rf 100-400 will pair better with my rf 24-105 F4 lens.
$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?
Great review! I’m trying to make this exact decision now. How would they compare with night sky? I know the 2.8 will let in more light, but would it make a noticeable difference? $1100 worth of noticeable difference?
Night skies are almost always shot with wide angle lenses because of two reasons :
1. You want more stars / Milky way / Aurora jn your picture.
2. It gives you more shutter speed by the 500 / 300 rule. With more shutter speed you can reduce your ISO in non stacked images. So definitely go for the f4 lens. The difference is negligible.....
I've done a little bit with the night sky and think that the 70-200 is way too narrow. I would go much wider. I got the Rokinon 14 f2.4 specifically for night skies. It's a manual focus but had electronic control of aperture. Night skies need manual focus. Love that lens but it's really only for very niche uses. Will do great on a tripod for ultra wide landscapes as well. But back to your note - I don't think 70 is wide enough for skies.
@@illinialumni I was thinking more for moon shots. I have the RF 15-35 F2.8 for wider shots. Wanted to be able to Xoom in a bit more.
@@1StrangeAdventure Then I'd go the other way. I've done the moon with my 100-400 at 400 and a 1.4 extender and I wish I had more reach (definitely still a manual focus exercise). So I still say that the 70-200 is not the best lens in this case for the opposite reason. An awesome lens in general (and Jared almost has me convinced to get the f/4 version), but not a sky lens IMHO.
@@illinialumni thank you for the feedback! Im still considering it for other reasons but good to know there are other options out there. I mainly use my camera for video so photography is a bit newer to us. Thank you for your help!