I used to have a (6D + 70-200mm F4L IS "MKI") and just tried today for the very first time my new (R6 + RF 70-200) and WOW... it is an extreme night & day difference! I love the fact it is so small, fits my bag better, less clunky walking around with it, weight similar to my F4 while being F2.8, the bokeh is incomparable and no way I'm going back to F4, the AF is super quick and silent, sharpness much better, way better lens hood too and yes... the minimum focus is pretty cool and useful too! I did some really nice shots of insect in the yard earlier, never I would have though this could be possible on a 70-200 before. The only reason one would go with the old EF is if he finds a crazy deal on the used market but otherwise for the small difference brand new, it would be stupid to buy a mirrorless body and buy the EF version after and make it also even bulkier with the adapter. So yes it cost an arm, but as soon as you'll use it even just 1 day, you'll say it was totally worth it. By the way, what does the "IS III" and why would you use either #2 or #3 instead of the main one?
Glad to hear you're loving the lens! I'm actually rocking the EF 2.8. I don't use it enough to justify the price. 🤷♂️ I don't remember exactly what the other modes are for off the top of my head. I believe #2 was to prioritize side to side shake when you're using a monopod. And #3 was to disable IS until you press the shutter button.. You may want to double check that, it has been a while since I used this lens.
@@rynfilms I actually bought the EF III instead of the RF for my EOS R because you can't use any extender with the RF which is a real bummer! I really want to benefit from the 70-200 even more with 1.4x and 2x extenders. If I would have picked the RF I would also need to invest for eample in EF 100-400 as well.
I bought this lens , happy with the fast AF and the travel-friendly measure.But I am not happy that Canon didn't fix the AF in the f 2.8 MFD yet. A lens in this price range has to be perfectly proved .
love your videos bro!... the Lens filter slider should be on the bottom. @2:15 when you open up the slider, there is a red dot. align red dot Qtr turn and it will align on the bottom. when it is at the bottom your left hand naturally under the lens so with your finger alone can adjust filter. thanks,
Awesome review, I love the detail and easy to understand paremiters you demonstrated. I would have expected your channel to have over 100K subs. Am definitely becoming one right now.
@RYN Films; I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. 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 (toddler for now). I’m assuming that these are similar to a lot of environments that you have to take photos in with regards to lighting quality. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. 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. Any input would be appreciated!
I'm sure you've made a decision by now, sorry for the delayed response. I suggest the 2.8. I started with the f/4 years ago and was blown away by how much better the f/2.8 preforms. There is a pretty noticeable difference in seperation. However, if you're on a serious budget go for the f/4 or a used f/2.8
Hey great video man! We’re you using a mk II ef lens or mk III? Curious to know if there is a difference in performance using the RF adapter on the eos r between the two different ones.
@@rynfilms I've got the Mark III, I would assume the slight improvements the RF had in your comparison would be reduced by the Mark III, eg. This EF has been reviewed as sharper than the Mark II by users. Thanks for your work.
RYN photography ya! I like it. I agree with you about the focus. Even with the firmware update that came out the day I received it. I need to spend a little more time with it.
Great review and compare and contrast between the two. I was waiting on this lens to come out to make a.decision between the EF III and and the new RF glass. I certainly wanted the RF glass but when I saw a deal to pick up the EF version brand new for $1,599, I just couldn't justify the price difference. This is the first red ring RF lens that I don't think blows away the EF version.
I have mostly used the 135 instead of a 70-200 in the past, but looking at RF lenses has me looking at this new 70-200 - curious how the 70-135 f2 will be!
RYN films I highly recommend the 135! it’s a really amazing portrait lens and works better for some faces than the 85 or 50, f2 + the longer length still gives nice DOF, light, and one of the sharpest and cheap too :)
The breather zoom is a no go for me, sucks in dirty air that gets on internal lens elements on every zoom action. Try that in a dusty environment like on a safari or in the galapagos or on the beach and you will have to have that cleaned after just a week or two of use. I learned that the hard way.
Or in the middle of the desert 🌵like where I live? Not ideal for very dusty environments. I've had good luck so far with my 24-70, I just try to keep it closed and locked as much as possible.
I am sorry, I just do not like a zoom lens that zooms externally. It will let in dust and whatever dirt there is. Plus, it makes the lens looks cheap too in my opinion (that is subjective of course). That is the beauty of the EF 70-200mm and I have the f/4 IS II USM, I've had it for 14 years now and is still performing flawlessly. This topic doesn't really apply to me or at least not yet since I am still a DSLR user. But, if one day I did become a Canon full frame mirrorless user, say with the coming R5, I would say this, if I already had the 70-200mm f/2.8, there would be no way I would not only be basically buying the same (essentially) lens again but to pay even more for it. We can talk about how small it is, its form factor and so forth, ultimately to me is the results which count. For one, I don't even like the smaller and (externally zooming) form factor, so the difference in size is not only irrelevant, but in fact a minus for me. And based on the comparison of both lenses in your video, the slight sharpness superiority of the RF is simply not enough for me wanting to buy it.
It's not for everyone. A lot of people are not a fan of the external zoom. The small for factor is going to appeal to those who travel often and are always looking for ways to lighten the load. I'm not upgrading from my EF to the RF quite yet. If something ever happens to my EF, I would certainly consider the RF as a replacement because it is smaller and lighter.
This comparision is silly. If you own a Canon FF or APS-C DSLR, RF is not even a consideration, since you will have to change the camera body. This comparison only make sense if you have a Canon mirrorless body with an EF adaptor and you are shopping for a 70-200 lens.
It's not silly if you're debating on spending the thousands of dollars to upgrade to the RF. But yes, it doesn't apply if you don't have a RF mount camera body.
I didn't have the RF long enough to run too many video scenarios with it. But like I mentioned in the video the RF did seem to jump focus a little on video. Maybe that's a firmware update in the future. The EF could save you some $$ though. I don't really have AF issues with the EF + adaptor.
RF version is absolutely not weather sealed. Try it for yourself: shoot in the rain and retract the lens to 70mm. Then extend it - it's got water on it doesn't it? Wipe it off. Retract lens, and extend again. MORE WATER. There's water inside now! NOT weather sealed. The EF version is.
It is possible that there were some water residue on the top (inside) side of the barrel (not the surface you wiped off) and when you retract it again, it picks that water up on the visible surface.
I had the 70-200 F4 IS "MKI" and just tried today for the first time my new R6 & RF 70-200 and it is NIGHT & DAY difference. The F4 to F2.8 isn't just for an extra stop of speed... it's mostly for that way better bokeh which is a real must in portrait. Once you try it you will never be able to go back to the 70-200 F4. Just 1 day/shooting and I was totally sold already.
Bro, the hood opening goes on the bottom; not the top. where your hand naturally rests; smh.... align the red dot, engage, twist and it clicks with the opening at the bottom.
Is the EF 70-200 2.8 on a 5d mk iv similar (un-)sharp like on the eos r or is it possible that the 5D mk iv with the EF are almost equal sharp as the EOS R plus the RF? 20% unsharper sounds like it is better to sell the ef's.
I have a few comparison shots between the MK4 and the R shot on the same 70-200 EF in another vid. ruclips.net/video/zXmoozfVY4M/видео.html So far I've found the RF lenses to be sharper overall. If I could afford to sell all my EF glass and upgrade to RF, I'd do it.
The RF 70-200 f2.8 IS mechanically reminds me of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM DO IS. That EF lens was about the worst lens I have ever owned. It had a lot of issues and the thing that made me sell it, was that is was creeping. Tipping the lens up or down not holding the zoom ring, made the zoom move. Pointing down = zooming in, pointing up = zooming out. THAT was creepy - pun intended. A nightmare on a tripod. The creep tendency got worse over time, and worst in hot weather - I assume it has to do with the materials expanding in heat, and the internal lubrication getting softer. Before you consider buying this new RF lens, I would be very careful and test it out, for not having this "creep" tendency. Remember to put hood and filters on, when you test. Do you see the slightest creep - don't buy it. It will eventually drive you nuts. RYN films: Can you make a test and demonstrate if the RF 70-200 has any creeping tendency or not?
Note about IS mode 3 while shooting video - It doesn't work, you'll need to use mode 1 or mode 2 for video.
I used to have a (6D + 70-200mm F4L IS "MKI") and just tried today for the very first time my new (R6 + RF 70-200) and WOW... it is an extreme night & day difference! I love the fact it is so small, fits my bag better, less clunky walking around with it, weight similar to my F4 while being F2.8, the bokeh is incomparable and no way I'm going back to F4, the AF is super quick and silent, sharpness much better, way better lens hood too and yes... the minimum focus is pretty cool and useful too!
I did some really nice shots of insect in the yard earlier, never I would have though this could be possible on a 70-200 before. The only reason one would go with the old EF is if he finds a crazy deal on the used market but otherwise for the small difference brand new, it would be stupid to buy a mirrorless body and buy the EF version after and make it also even bulkier with the adapter. So yes it cost an arm, but as soon as you'll use it even just 1 day, you'll say it was totally worth it.
By the way, what does the "IS III" and why would you use either #2 or #3 instead of the main one?
Glad to hear you're loving the lens! I'm actually rocking the EF 2.8. I don't use it enough to justify the price. 🤷♂️
I don't remember exactly what the other modes are for off the top of my head. I believe #2 was to prioritize side to side shake when you're using a monopod. And #3 was to disable IS until you press the shutter button..
You may want to double check that, it has been a while since I used this lens.
@@rynfilms I actually bought the EF III instead of the RF for my EOS R because you can't use any extender with the RF which is a real bummer! I really want to benefit from the 70-200 even more with 1.4x and 2x extenders. If I would have picked the RF I would also need to invest for eample in EF 100-400 as well.
I bought this lens , happy with the fast AF and the travel-friendly measure.But I am not happy that Canon didn't fix the AF in the f 2.8 MFD yet. A lens in this price range has to be perfectly proved .
There are a few things that could be improved, but they did an amazing job reinventing the 70-200.
love your videos bro!... the Lens filter slider should be on the bottom. @2:15 when you open up the slider, there is a red dot. align red dot Qtr turn and it will align on the bottom. when it is at the bottom your left hand naturally under the lens so with your finger alone can adjust filter. thanks,
Ha! That makes sense. 😃
I think you have the best comparison. I will go for the EF version
Thank you! I'm still using my EF and have no plans on upgrading to the RF anytime soon.
Awesome review, I love the detail and easy to understand paremiters you demonstrated. I would have expected your channel to have over 100K subs. Am definitely becoming one right now.
I appreciate that!
@RYN Films; I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. 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 (toddler for now). I’m assuming that these are similar to a lot of environments that you have to take photos in with regards to lighting quality. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. 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. Any input would be appreciated!
I'm sure you've made a decision by now, sorry for the delayed response. I suggest the 2.8. I started with the f/4 years ago and was blown away by how much better the f/2.8 preforms. There is a pretty noticeable difference in seperation. However, if you're on a serious budget go for the f/4 or a used f/2.8
@@rynfilms I ended up returning the F4 because it didn’t seem like enough and I’m eventually going to get the f2.8, thanks for your reply.
Hey great video man! We’re you using a mk II ef lens or mk III? Curious to know if there is a difference in performance using the RF adapter on the eos r between the two different ones.
I was using the MK II. I've found the adaptor to be great for lens performance. No noticeable issues.
RYN films Okay awesome, appreciate the reply!
@@rynfilms I've got the Mark III, I would assume the slight improvements the RF had in your comparison would be reduced by the Mark III, eg. This EF has been reviewed as sharper than the Mark II by users. Thanks for your work.
Good work! I just bought the RF 70-200 today from B&H. It’ll be here tomorrow :) keep up the good videos!
You're going to love it! Thanks for checking it out Tony!
RYN photography ya! I like it. I agree with you about the focus. Even with the firmware update that came out the day I received it. I need to spend a little more time with it.
the focusing is only when you focus 200mm at the minimum focus distance. so if you dont do that you wont notice it.
I had a few minor issues not at 200 and not at minimum focus. It’s something they could improve.
News leaks says Canon is planning on a January Firmware update to fix the focusing issues. we'll just have to wait I guess.
Great review and compare and contrast between the two. I was waiting on this lens to come out to make a.decision between the EF III and and the new RF glass. I certainly wanted the RF glass but when I saw a deal to pick up the EF version brand new for $1,599, I just couldn't justify the price difference. This is the first red ring RF lens that I don't think blows away the EF version.
Where did you find that deal?
@@christianbasehart4767 B&H one day sale last wed or Thursday. Just arrived today
In size and IS, it’s way better than the EF. I won’t be upgrading just yet though. That’s a good deal on the EF, I missed that one.
I have mostly used the 135 instead of a 70-200 in the past, but looking at RF lenses has me looking at this new 70-200 - curious how the 70-135 f2 will be!
Never thought of using the 135, that would be a good happy medium for a prime. I’m definitely looking forward to the next round of RF lenses too. 👍
RYN films I highly recommend the 135! it’s a really amazing portrait lens and works better for some faces than the 85 or 50, f2 + the longer length still gives nice DOF, light, and one of the sharpest and cheap too :)
Some reviews have a black lens hood. White one is much better looking.
I agree!
quality content right here, thanks man, keep it up
Thank you! Will do. 👍
The breather zoom is a no go for me, sucks in dirty air that gets on internal lens elements on every zoom action. Try that in a dusty environment like on a safari or in the galapagos or on the beach and you will have to have that cleaned after just a week or two of use. I learned that the hard way.
Or in the middle of the desert 🌵like where I live? Not ideal for very dusty environments. I've had good luck so far with my 24-70, I just try to keep it closed and locked as much as possible.
Reason why I’m sticking with the EF70-200 due to one piece design.
Hi have canon camera 5D Mark 2 this new lens 70 -200 is I’m Used pleases Answer me thanks.
Huh? 🤔
I am sorry, I just do not like a zoom lens that zooms externally. It will let in dust and whatever dirt there is. Plus, it makes the lens looks cheap too in my opinion (that is subjective of course). That is the beauty of the EF 70-200mm and I have the f/4 IS II USM, I've had it for 14 years now and is still performing flawlessly. This topic doesn't really apply to me or at least not yet since I am still a DSLR user. But, if one day I did become a Canon full frame mirrorless user, say with the coming R5, I would say this, if I already had the 70-200mm f/2.8, there would be no way I would not only be basically buying the same (essentially) lens again but to pay even more for it. We can talk about how small it is, its form factor and so forth, ultimately to me is the results which count. For one, I don't even like the smaller and (externally zooming) form factor, so the difference in size is not only irrelevant, but in fact a minus for me. And based on the comparison of both lenses in your video, the slight sharpness superiority of the RF is simply not enough for me wanting to buy it.
It's not for everyone. A lot of people are not a fan of the external zoom. The small for factor is going to appeal to those who travel often and are always looking for ways to lighten the load. I'm not upgrading from my EF to the RF quite yet. If something ever happens to my EF, I would certainly consider the RF as a replacement because it is smaller and lighter.
SWEEEET... love the intro.
Thanks! It’s a pretty hard trick. 😉
This comparision is silly. If you own a Canon FF or APS-C DSLR, RF is not even a consideration, since you will have to change the camera body. This comparison only make sense if you have a Canon mirrorless body with an EF adaptor and you are shopping for a 70-200 lens.
It's not silly if you're debating on spending the thousands of dollars to upgrade to the RF. But yes, it doesn't apply if you don't have a RF mount camera body.
I am considering the EF.
The autofocus is the same (for video) with the adapter vs the native RF mount?
I didn't have the RF long enough to run too many video scenarios with it. But like I mentioned in the video the RF did seem to jump focus a little on video. Maybe that's a firmware update in the future. The EF could save you some $$ though. I don't really have AF issues with the EF + adaptor.
RF version is absolutely not weather sealed. Try it for yourself: shoot in the rain and retract the lens to 70mm. Then extend it - it's got water on it doesn't it? Wipe it off. Retract lens, and extend again. MORE WATER. There's water inside now! NOT weather sealed. The EF version is.
Good tip. I don't often shoot in the rain so I would have not thought of this.
It is possible that there were some water residue on the top (inside) side of the barrel (not the surface you wiped off) and when you retract it again, it picks that water up on the visible surface.
I would just go for EF f/4 IS and take that 1-stop hit on the ISO. even lighter, half the price, no "elephant trunk" extension...
I shot with the f/4 for years. I have to say I like the f/2.8 better even though it's bigger.
@@rynfilms Was this the version 1, 2 or 3 of the EF Lens ?
I had the 70-200 F4 IS "MKI" and just tried today for the first time my new R6 & RF 70-200 and it is NIGHT & DAY difference. The F4 to F2.8 isn't just for an extra stop of speed... it's mostly for that way better bokeh which is a real must in portrait. Once you try it you will never be able to go back to the 70-200 F4. Just 1 day/shooting and I was totally sold already.
is the ef lense a version 1,2,3?
hmm.. I think it's V2, not 100% on that though.
@@rynfilms it says II after the name on the lense if its a v2
Can we use the RF lens on a DSLR? Thx
No, only on the R series Canon cameras. EOS R, RP, Ra for now
Thank you for the good video.
You're welcome! 👍
But you can't use a teleconverter with it, so its severely limited.
I wouldn't say severely limited. Maybe just a bad design on the teleconverter. Haven't been able to get my hands on one yet to know for sure.
Get a longer lens
Love the intro 😎
Thanks! 👍
Who shoots indoors at f22?
I do, all the time. Especially when doing product photography and you want to make sure the product is sharp from front to back.
@@rynfilms that's true. I'm guessing you're using a ton of external lighting for this.
Any info on the rf85 1.2 DS
I haven’t tried that lens out yet, but if it’s anything like the 50 RF, it’ll be amazing.
every lens is softer at f22 than f11. because of difraction
Science!
@@rynfilms most lenses "sharpest point" is around 1.5-2 stops under the widest aperture , so thats about F4.5-F5.6 on a 70-200 2.8
Bro, the hood opening goes on the bottom; not the top. where your hand naturally rests; smh.... align the red dot, engage, twist and it clicks with the opening at the bottom.
I suppose that makes more sense.. 🤷♂️
I did the same thing when i first got mine LOL then remembered canon likes their logo at the bottom on the hood...
Is the EF 70-200 2.8 on a 5d mk iv similar (un-)sharp like on the eos r or is it possible that the 5D mk iv with the EF are almost equal sharp as the EOS R plus the RF? 20% unsharper sounds like it is better to sell the ef's.
I have a few comparison shots between the MK4 and the R shot on the same 70-200 EF in another vid. ruclips.net/video/zXmoozfVY4M/видео.html
So far I've found the RF lenses to be sharper overall. If I could afford to sell all my EF glass and upgrade to RF, I'd do it.
The RF 70-200 f2.8 IS mechanically reminds me of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM DO IS. That EF lens was about the worst lens I have ever owned. It had a lot of issues and the thing that made me sell it, was that is was creeping. Tipping the lens up or down not holding the zoom ring, made the zoom move. Pointing down = zooming in, pointing up = zooming out.
THAT was creepy - pun intended. A nightmare on a tripod.
The creep tendency got worse over time, and worst in hot weather - I assume it has to do with the materials expanding in heat, and the internal lubrication getting softer.
Before you consider buying this new RF lens, I would be very careful and test it out, for not having this "creep" tendency. Remember to put hood and filters on, when you test. Do you see the slightest creep - don't buy it. It will eventually drive you nuts.
RYN films: Can you make a test and demonstrate if the RF 70-200 has any creeping tendency or not?
I guess only time will tell on the creeping. It was a loaner lens, otherwise I would definitely make a follow up vid about this RF lens.
You CANNOT compare those 2 lenses. The 70-300 is a completely different kind of lens, and is not L series.
PSA. Its BokEH not BokAH
Thanks Sam, I'm not the worlds best speller.