I have both the EF MkIII and the RF. Probably the biggest difference from a usability perspective is that the EF has a much shorter zoom throw (less rotation needed between min and max zoom) than the RF. The RF does produce slightly better images, and is much easier to carry around. But for shooting sports and other situations where the distance to the subject can change very quickly, the EF version will help you get more good shots/clips.
Thanks for this. I have the 70-200 v1 and looking to upgrade. I primarily shoot sports with the 70-200, and your comments above is making me lean allot more towards the EF v3 lens.
@@kifley19 I wasn't sure so I did a quick test video. The RF isn't really that bad, especially at 70mm. The EF is much much worse. ruclips.net/video/nZTQPMdXG40/видео.html
Go used people: 70-200/2.8L IS II can be found under $1k (I've seen them for 800-900) for a pefect condition. The difference between IS II and IS III is only a better anti flare coating, sharpness and overall quality aside that one spec are the same. You can't get rf f/4 for that even.
Absolutely! I just rented an extra 70-200 f2.8 mk2 version for a shoot, to go along with my mk3, and honestly couldn't tell the difference. Canon knows how to make amazing lenses and with newer releases they subtly upgrade the features. If you're looking to save, definitely go the used route! Great input @michalsierzchula appreciate that!
Since image quality is excellent and practically the same on both lens; It boils down to 5 factors: 1.)weight, 2.)size, 3.)versatility/compatibility, 4.)zoom throw, and 5.)price ! The RF wins the first two and the EF wins the last three 🤨
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is pricier than the latest EF version, but it’s only three-quarters the length (at 70mm) and two-thirds the weight - and that doesn’t include the extra length and weight of the EF mount adapter. Those are massive advantages for the new RF lens1. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is also more compact than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L III USM at just 5.75″ (146mm) long and 2.35lbs (1070g)2. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM has image stabilization which is a big plus3. In terms of image quality, there is not much difference between the two lenses. Both are excellent optically.
I got the MKIII EF for my R6 Mark II because it was about $1000 cheaper brand new vs the RF version. Also, the EF version doesn't extend which is important because I shoot hockey and need the front of the lens (lens hood) to touch the plexi glass at all times to keep reflections to a minimum. With the RF this isn't really possible because the lens extends and contracts making zooming VERY difficult. Also, the EF is sharp as a tack and NEVER misses focus.
I still use 70-200 L 2.8 IS (first gen) with R6 ii. Works great and nothing to complain about on the image quality. Focusing could be a little faster, I think that's the main reason I would go with RF in the future. But EF mount works on older film cameras as well.
Another advantage of the EF version. You can use the Canon extenders on them. You can't for for the RF 70-200 lenes. That includes the 4.0 version as well.
RF mount lenses have less distance between flange and focal plane (equals sensor position) then the EF ones. The mirrorless RF mount doesn't need the additional space required for the mirror in DSLR world, thus the first lens element can be positioned much closer to the sensor, in favour of better optical designs (at least in theory). So there is NO way to ever mount RF lenses to EF flange cameras. I was confronted with the same decision, RF or EF. I opted for the RF because of weight and size and focus speed, but it was no easy decision. The major advantages of the EF version would have been versatility, as you mentioned, and a fully internal zoom mechanism. While I don't realy like the RF's extending barrel (long term reliability concerns), the weight and size advantages are not to deny.
Dude!! you’re totally right! Makes sense about the sensor position as to why you could never have an adapter go RF to EF. I think for me I just wanted the most out of one lens since I shoot on different camera systems! I absolutely love the RF size as it’s compact and makes travel easier but the extended barrel design creates a place for dust & other micro fibers from backpacks to get in to. I had a Sony 24-70 zoom lens that had this design & one desert shoot left me with a grainy/gritty zoom 😅 it was a tough decision for sure but either option is a solid choice as they’re Canon lenses 💯 thanks for your input Tom, this will help others for sure when deciding! 🤙🏼
@@joeyvela Welcome! For video work, the focus speed and accuracy is not that important - I use my RF mainly for stills, so focus speed and accuracy with moving subjects is a big thing for me - and I must say on the R6, 99% of my images shot with this lens are tag sharp. One other rarely mentioned big difference is: the direction of focus breathing is reversed with the RF, resulting in a wider field of view @70mm at close distances, at cost of less reach @200mm at close distances, compared to the EF.
By the way, RF lenses will never work with EF bodies because of the distance between the lens and the sensor. you can add distance (EF-R adapter) to compensate for the missing mirror system but you can't subtract that distance without destroying the camera
I just hate the external zoom and it takes more than 45 degree rotation while having more resistant than the EF III, definitely not worth the price. I was lucky to get EF III version near mint condition for $900
I have the 70-200 v1 and looking to upgrade. I will be using it on an R5 and R6 and I have adaptors for both cams. The cost difference between the RF and the EF viii is about $900, because of this I am leaning towards the EF viii lens.
I had the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKI and I still have the MKIII, today there came also the RF 70-200 f2.8, I haven't compared them yet. The first two things what I realized by putting it on the R5 and the R5C is, that the EF at 200mm is closer to a object than the RF at 200mm (so this is slightly better on the EF). The weight from a RF without a V-ND adapter is much nicer, so if someone plans to hold it for hours it is the easierway to go. The sharpness from the RF MKIII was way superior to the old MKI and before the MKIII I thought my MKI was sharp, so here I wonder if the RF will be even sharper (for video 8K-RAW) or if they are on pair. Also I wonder if the IS will be similar. Now, I am waiting for a V-ND 77 mm to compare both lenses in filming, but I already love the lighter weight from the RF.
"and before the MKIII I thought my MKI was sharp"...so there is a significant difference from the EF v1 to the EF v3? I have the EF v1 and looking to upgrade to the v3 on my R5 and R6. I looked at the RF too but I just dont want to spend the extra 900 bucks on that if indeed I will see a huge difference from the v1 to the v3.
Absolutely! I just rented another one for a wedding just yesterday! Cheaper than the RF and it has an internal zoom (the RF version has an external zoom - I totally missed covering). The 35 RF macro is such a great buy too! Try checking the canon site for cert. refurbished ones too 💯 let me know when you pick the 70-200 & how you like it!
I have the EF version II and am really struggling between going with the lighter weight RF F4 or keeping this one. I love the f/2.8 and it performs very well with the adapter but the weight means I leave it home unless I know I need it.
As long as the EF lenses works well with the Canon Mirrorless system with an adapter, I will still prefer the EF mount. RF lenses is very expensive. Another advantage is EF lenses, it can also be used on Sony E mount. AFAIK there's no RF to E Mount adapter available.
absolutely! I use both my rokinons or RF lenses that have that low fstop for those lowlight conditions. It's just having a telephoto zoom really makes reframing so much easier than changing lenses!
I liked your video, and I am in the middle of making this purchase for my photography business. One thing you didn't mention and I am curious about is how do these lens image quality compare? Does the RF offer better quality?
Yes, a glaring omission, not an actual review. The RF is sharper. Also forgets to mention that you can’t use the RF extender with the RF despite the name.
Nearly all the comparison reviews I’ve seen seem to indicate that the image quality is excellent and practically identical on both of them. Maybe just a little sharper on the RF but for all for all practical purposes about the same. It boils down to 5 factors: 1.)weight, 2.)size, 3.)versatility/compatibility, 4.)zoom throw, and price ! The RF wins the first two and the EF wins the last three 🤨
very true! they are cheaper lenses for sure and get a similar if not the same image quality! The only thing you're competing with is the electronic functionality of those lenses not being as fast as the ones made from Canon. I have a Tamron for my Sony because I wanted a cheaper lens and the focus breathing/tack sharpness of the focus isn't always on point. I agree with you though! If you're looking to save some $$$ for other gear, that's a great option! Appreciate you dropping this here for other creators!
I'm considering switching to Nikon when I upgrade to mirrorless: the Z8 looks good enough vs. the R5 to tempt me, and Nikon's Z 70-200 2.8 S has internal zoom. I'm thinking I may wait to see how the R1 turns out, but - even if I stay Canon - I'll buy an adapter for my EF 70-200 2.8 II before I buy the R extending zoom version. Hopefully Canon releases an internal zoom version...I get close to glass while shooting hockey games, and I often shoot in sandy environments...external zoom won't work for me
I know your comment is a year old, but the internal zoom 70-200mm RF seems to be coming out in late 2024. Some units have already been spotted at the Olympics, which means they are being tested in the field.
@@Mikri90 thanks for the head's up! I ended up renting an R5 and some of the lenses to shoot eagles at big beef creek...my concerns were mostly put to rest, but renting turned out to fit my needs enough that I put off buying. That rumor, however, sounds awesome
The only way to make since now a day is, I have 70-200 2.8 Mk3 ver and a 100-500 RF. The RF 70-200 2.8 isn't sharper, it's more contrasty and idiots will justify their buying by saying that. I had rented the RF and I disliked the dust pump and extenal zoom.
I’ve used the mkii as a rental on the same R6 body.. couldn’t tell the difference really. I think the coating on the mkiii is better on glass but it’s the same in my opinion. I just went for the newer one!
Yes sir, your a smart man, all the 70-200 EF v1,2 and 3 are the same sharpness the only difference (v3) canon changed with the later lenses are the flare, saturation and abbreviation control other than that they are the same lens. I don't believe the hype anybody saying one is sharper than the next, paying more money so I expect the argument to always be the shaper fluff. That came from Canon straight out the box. The RF is weight its lighter and easier to carry around and of course it was made for the RF mount for convince of not having to hull a heavy lens around.
It will take 15 more years for other cameras to be able to use the RF lenses once Canon’s RF lens mount patent expires (20 years patent). That’s how it happened in the EF lenses.
I have both the EF MkIII and the RF. Probably the biggest difference from a usability perspective is that the EF has a much shorter zoom throw (less rotation needed between min and max zoom) than the RF. The RF does produce slightly better images, and is much easier to carry around. But for shooting sports and other situations where the distance to the subject can change very quickly, the EF version will help you get more good shots/clips.
Thanks for this. I have the 70-200 v1 and looking to upgrade. I primarily shoot sports with the 70-200, and your comments above is making me lean allot more towards the EF v3 lens.
@@danc3746 Another person who made the same observation is here... ruclips.net/video/LKbvLIg-DWQ/видео.html
Does the EF version have focus breathing in video? The RF version has terrible focus breathing.
@@kifley19 I wasn't sure so I did a quick test video. The RF isn't really that bad, especially at 70mm. The EF is much much worse. ruclips.net/video/nZTQPMdXG40/видео.html
@@danc3746the v ii is cheaper and is almost the same lens minus the new coatings
Go used people: 70-200/2.8L IS II can be found under $1k (I've seen them for 800-900) for a pefect condition. The difference between IS II and IS III is only a better anti flare coating, sharpness and overall quality aside that one spec are the same. You can't get rf f/4 for that even.
Absolutely! I just rented an extra 70-200 f2.8 mk2 version for a shoot, to go along with my mk3, and honestly couldn't tell the difference. Canon knows how to make amazing lenses and with newer releases they subtly upgrade the features. If you're looking to save, definitely go the used route! Great input @michalsierzchula appreciate that!
Since image quality is excellent and practically the same on both lens; It boils down to 5 factors: 1.)weight, 2.)size, 3.)versatility/compatibility, 4.)zoom throw, and 5.)price !
The RF wins the first two and the EF wins the last three 🤨
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is pricier than the latest EF version, but it’s only three-quarters the length (at 70mm) and two-thirds the weight - and that doesn’t include the extra length and weight of the EF mount adapter. Those are massive advantages for the new RF lens1. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is also more compact than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L III USM at just 5.75″ (146mm) long and 2.35lbs (1070g)2. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM has image stabilization which is a big plus3. In terms of image quality, there is not much difference between the two lenses. Both are excellent optically.
I got the MKIII EF for my R6 Mark II because it was about $1000 cheaper brand new vs the RF version. Also, the EF version doesn't extend which is important because I shoot hockey and need the front of the lens (lens hood) to touch the plexi glass at all times to keep reflections to a minimum. With the RF this isn't really possible because the lens extends and contracts making zooming VERY difficult.
Also, the EF is sharp as a tack and NEVER misses focus.
I still use 70-200 L 2.8 IS (first gen) with R6 ii. Works great and nothing to complain about on the image quality. Focusing could be a little faster, I think that's the main reason I would go with RF in the future. But EF mount works on older film cameras as well.
Internal zoom was proven for longevity, dust and water can make it’s way on the RF while zooming in and out.
Another advantage of the EF version. You can use the Canon extenders on them. You can't for for the RF 70-200 lenes. That includes the 4.0 version as well.
RF mount lenses have less distance between flange and focal plane (equals sensor position) then the EF ones. The mirrorless RF mount doesn't need the additional space required for the mirror in DSLR world, thus the first lens element can be positioned much closer to the sensor, in favour of better optical designs (at least in theory). So there is NO way to ever mount RF lenses to EF flange cameras. I was confronted with the same decision, RF or EF. I opted for the RF because of weight and size and focus speed, but it was no easy decision. The major advantages of the EF version would have been versatility, as you mentioned, and a fully internal zoom mechanism. While I don't realy like the RF's extending barrel (long term reliability concerns), the weight and size advantages are not to deny.
Dude!! you’re totally right! Makes sense about the sensor position as to why you could never have an adapter go RF to EF. I think for me I just wanted the most out of one lens since I shoot on different camera systems! I absolutely love the RF size as it’s compact and makes travel easier but the extended barrel design creates a place for dust & other micro fibers from backpacks to get in to. I had a Sony 24-70 zoom lens that had this design & one desert shoot left me with a grainy/gritty zoom 😅 it was a tough decision for sure but either option is a solid choice as they’re Canon lenses 💯 thanks for your input Tom, this will help others for sure when deciding! 🤙🏼
@@joeyvela Welcome! For video work, the focus speed and accuracy is not that important - I use my RF mainly for stills, so focus speed and accuracy with moving subjects is a big thing for me - and I must say on the R6, 99% of my images shot with this lens are tag sharp.
One other rarely mentioned big difference is: the direction of focus breathing is reversed with the RF, resulting in a wider field of view @70mm at close distances, at cost of less reach @200mm at close distances, compared to the EF.
By the way, RF lenses will never work with EF bodies because of the distance between the lens and the sensor. you can add distance (EF-R adapter) to compensate for the missing mirror system but you can't subtract that distance without destroying the camera
I just hate the external zoom and it takes more than 45 degree rotation while having more resistant than the EF III, definitely not worth the price. I was lucky to get EF III version near mint condition for $900
I have the 70-200 v1 and looking to upgrade. I will be using it on an R5 and R6 and I have adaptors for both cams. The cost difference between the RF and the EF viii is about $900, because of this I am leaning towards the EF viii lens.
I had the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKI and I still have the MKIII, today there came also the RF 70-200 f2.8, I haven't compared them yet. The first two things what I realized by putting it on the R5 and the R5C is, that the EF at 200mm is closer to a object than the RF at 200mm (so this is slightly better on the EF). The weight from a RF without a V-ND adapter is much nicer, so if someone plans to hold it for hours it is the easierway to go. The sharpness from the RF MKIII was way superior to the old MKI and before the MKIII I thought my MKI was sharp, so here I wonder if the RF will be even sharper (for video 8K-RAW) or if they are on pair. Also I wonder if the IS will be similar. Now, I am waiting for a V-ND 77 mm to compare both lenses in filming, but I already love the lighter weight from the RF.
"and before the MKIII I thought my MKI was sharp"...so there is a significant difference from the EF v1 to the EF v3? I have the EF v1 and looking to upgrade to the v3 on my R5 and R6. I looked at the RF too but I just dont want to spend the extra 900 bucks on that if indeed I will see a huge difference from the v1 to the v3.
A year later, still recommend the ef? :)
Need to make a fast decision. Thinking about the rf 35 1.8 too
Absolutely! I just rented another one for a wedding just yesterday! Cheaper than the RF and it has an internal zoom (the RF version has an external zoom - I totally missed covering). The 35 RF macro is such a great buy too! Try checking the canon site for cert. refurbished ones too 💯 let me know when you pick the 70-200 & how you like it!
Ef 70-200mm mkii and mkiii basically same. So save money and get mkii. Rf is beadt on r6 mkii. Blows me away
I have the EF version II and am really struggling between going with the lighter weight RF F4 or keeping this one. I love the f/2.8 and it performs very well with the adapter but the weight means I leave it home unless I know I need it.
As long as the EF lenses works well with the Canon Mirrorless system with an adapter, I will still prefer the EF mount.
RF lenses is very expensive.
Another advantage is EF lenses, it can also be used on Sony E mount. AFAIK there's no RF to E Mount adapter available.
F1.4 primes still offer 2 extra stops of light over F2.8. So that's not really a replacement to primes in low light situations.
absolutely! I use both my rokinons or RF lenses that have that low fstop for those lowlight conditions. It's just having a telephoto zoom really makes reframing so much easier than changing lenses!
I liked your video, and I am in the middle of making this purchase for my photography business. One thing you didn't mention and I am curious about is how do these lens image quality compare? Does the RF offer better quality?
Yes, a glaring omission, not an actual review. The RF is sharper. Also forgets to mention that you can’t use the RF extender with the RF despite the name.
Nearly all the comparison reviews I’ve seen seem to indicate that the image quality is excellent and practically identical on both of them. Maybe just a little sharper on the RF but for all for all practical purposes about the same.
It boils down to 5 factors: 1.)weight, 2.)size, 3.)versatility/compatibility, 4.)zoom throw, and price !
The RF wins the first two and the EF wins the last three 🤨
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 for Canon EF are a better options for a fractions of price.
very true! they are cheaper lenses for sure and get a similar if not the same image quality! The only thing you're competing with is the electronic functionality of those lenses not being as fast as the ones made from Canon. I have a Tamron for my Sony because I wanted a cheaper lens and the focus breathing/tack sharpness of the focus isn't always on point.
I agree with you though! If you're looking to save some $$$ for other gear, that's a great option! Appreciate you dropping this here for other creators!
I'm considering switching to Nikon when I upgrade to mirrorless: the Z8 looks good enough vs. the R5 to tempt me, and Nikon's Z 70-200 2.8 S has internal zoom. I'm thinking I may wait to see how the R1 turns out, but - even if I stay Canon - I'll buy an adapter for my EF 70-200 2.8 II before I buy the R extending zoom version. Hopefully Canon releases an internal zoom version...I get close to glass while shooting hockey games, and I often shoot in sandy environments...external zoom won't work for me
I know your comment is a year old, but the internal zoom 70-200mm RF seems to be coming out in late 2024. Some units have already been spotted at the Olympics, which means they are being tested in the field.
@@Mikri90 thanks for the head's up! I ended up renting an R5 and some of the lenses to shoot eagles at big beef creek...my concerns were mostly put to rest, but renting turned out to fit my needs enough that I put off buying. That rumor, however, sounds awesome
The only way to make since now a day is, I have 70-200 2.8 Mk3 ver and a 100-500 RF. The RF 70-200 2.8 isn't sharper, it's more contrasty and idiots will justify their buying by saying that. I had rented the RF and I disliked the dust pump and extenal zoom.
Thoughts on Mk ii vs iii?
I’ve used the mkii as a rental on the same R6 body.. couldn’t tell the difference really. I think the coating on the mkiii is better on glass but it’s the same in my opinion. I just went for the newer one!
Yes sir, your a smart man, all the 70-200 EF v1,2 and 3 are the same sharpness the only difference (v3) canon changed with the later lenses are the flare, saturation and abbreviation control other than that they are the same lens. I don't believe the hype anybody saying one is sharper than the next, paying more money so I expect the argument to always be the shaper fluff. That came from Canon straight out the box. The RF is weight its lighter and easier to carry around and of course it was made for the RF mount for convince of not having to hull a heavy lens around.
what is the song starting 1:28 ?
now review the 100-300 2.8 rf XD
Bro. I think I know you. Maybe. I think you do work for Amber Anderson?
Dude!! What’s up man! Yea I work with her doing a lot of her content! 💯
@@joeyvela haha thought so! Keep up the good work brother.
It will take 15 more years for other cameras to be able to use the RF lenses once Canon’s RF lens mount patent expires (20 years patent). That’s how it happened in the EF lenses.