Really interesting Video.. thanks for creating... Something caught my eye in the video... Could I ask what is that grip you are showing with your gear. Looks like a nice compact flash grip. I looked on your website but didn't see it listed. Could you share what it is? Thank You!
Thank you - I appreciate that. I’ve been meaning to share some info about this grip, because it’s the best one I’ve found for the R5 - extending the full width of the camera body. It’s from a Vietnamese company called Stabil, and the model is the LCR5. The cold shoe off to the side is a little bolt-on from SmallRig.
@@peterfritzphoto thank You... I found there website but there doesn't seem to be a US dealer... but it still gives me instght to what to look for... Hopefully I can find something on Small Rig's site that will work for me.
I recently got the 70-200 f4 to pair with my 24-105 f4, and rp. Great kit set up for an amateur enthusiast like myself. I think that if you aren’t shooting professionally, you really don’t need the extra cost of the 2.8 versions.
I totally agree. And even if you are shooting professionally, you still don’t need the 2.8. I shot professionally for years - much of it motor racing and car/motorcycle tests, and I never had a 2.8 lens.
@@peterfritzphotoso 70-200 f4 would be good for bicycles races and football or handball matches? Also thinking about sigma 70-200 f2.8 but canon is lighter and probably got faster autofocus 🤔
I would be interested to know how the 70-200 f4 compares to the 24-105 f4 in the 70-105 focal length range. I've already got the 24, 35 and 85mm macro primes and was considering the 24-105 to go with them, but the 70-200 is tempting for the extra reach for landscape photography and possibly some wildlife
I got the 24-105 f/4 “kit lens” with my R6 but I’ve got my eye on the this as the next addition. I realize there is some overlap but my plan is to use the 24-105 as a travel/everyday lens but when I’m more focused to limit it to 24-70 duty and use the 70-200 f/4 as a companion. Thoughts? BTW, really nice review. Simple, straightforward, no filler, and you know how to present without rambling as some are prone to do.
Hi Tom. I had the 24-105, too, and for the same reason. But I rarely used my R5 as an every day camera - preferring my iPhone 12 Pro for happy snaps. I reckon the two other lenses you mention would make a lovely combo, and maybe one day you can swap the 24-105 for a 14-35 and use the 24-70 as your walk around lens. Thanks for the kind words - I can tend to ramble, so I’m trying very hard not to - at least in my product reviews! 👍🦘🇦🇺
Very true. Until you have to lug it through the bush, over rocks and up hills with all your other tanks…😉 I decided I want four lenses with me no matter where I go, so I’ve replaced all the heavy lenses for lighter ones. But yeah, I do like the feel of a heavy, well-engineered item. 👍
Great looking little lens. I just got the R5 a couple months ago and will have to suffice with using the adapter for a while. I do have the EF 70-200 f/4, so I can be content with that. Someday I may be forced into some RF lenses, but the bank account will have to build up some more.
I used the adapter for quite a while - with the awesome EF 100-400 and EF 16-35 - and it was no problem at all. My only reasons for switching to the RF lenses was weight, size, and vanity.
Happened upon your RUclips site other day and have watched quite a few of your videos. I really like the understated way you present. I feel like I'm getting to know your neighbourhood. Anyway, today I'm off to pick up this very lens for my EOS R and am excited to try it out in my local neighbourhood, just over the ditch from you on Auckland's North Shore. Thanks for the the effort you put in!
Hello Peter! I have been able to see your videos about the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 f/5.6-8. I am currently still with a Tamron 70 300 from my 7D Mark II and I wanted to upgrade towards RF lenses. My question is which of the 2 you would recommend for landscape. My camera is an R7. The rest of my lenses are the 14-35 f4 and the 24 105 f4. For wildlife I already have another specific tele. Thank you very much and greetings from Barcelona.
Since you already own the 24-105, I’d definitely go with the 100-400. You’ll have enormous flexibility for capturing unique landscapes with that lens paired with the R7. 👍
Great review. I have just bought myself a Canon RF camera (the cheaper R) and will be saving my pennies for this... I shoot landscapes and great to see a review for this lens from a landscape shooter. atb Alan
Peter...just found you, great channel, I subscribed. Got a question...I'm retiring soon and getting back into it. I'm going to get the trio everyone talks about, the 15-35, 24-70 or 105, and this lens, the 70-200. I thinking on going with the f4 on all of these, but I got to thinking...if you want 2.8 on any of these three lens, getting the 2.8 in the wide angle would be most important...yes? Because I might be shooting indoors , or out in a jungle in Costa Rica with that lens. I would think having 2.8 ANYWHERE...it would be the wide angle as opposed to the middle lens or the telephoto...or no?
Thanks, Paul - nice to meet you. The f4 options will do you just fine in low light if you're attaching them to a high quality camera. If you're going with Canon's R3, R5 or R6 MK II, they'll all be fine at high ISOs. But if you want one fast lens, I'd actually go with the 24-70 f2.8. It's much more versatile than the 14-35 or 15-35. Your other option is to augment your kit with the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8. If you're going to shoot in a dark jungle, I'd choose the 35mm out of those two. It's also a brilliant macro lens. I did a video on that lens a little while back.
Thanks, Peter, I previously owned a Canon 5D Mark III. Although I loved the Canon system, I found the camera too heavy for my aging hands. So I switched to a Fuji XT-3. I'm yet to purchase filters for my lenses. I was interested in your brief comments on the Freewell Filters. I'd appreciate more details on these.
I know what you mean, Don. The older DSLRs were very chunky. The mirrorless cameras are so much lighter and smaller (whether full-frame or APSC). The Freewell system is brilliant - comprising a screw-on ring (goes on your lens), to which their ND and CPL filters attach magnetically. They’re nicely made, and take up a lot less room (and weight).
I am considering moving to Canon and i had the same thought re lenses, just getting the 14-35 and 70-200 f4. I also have my current camera set up the same way with my L bracket and the cold shoe on the side.
Hi Peter… Thanks for the great review! I'm researching telephoto lenses. I saw your arguments about 70-200 f4 and I agree. But what do you think about the RF 100-500 for landscape?
Thanks, Luiz. I haven't tried the 100-500, but I did contemplate buying it for a while. Then I heard about its extender limitations (I have a 2x extender for my 100-400), and decided to stick with what I have. But that said, I'll probably buy it at some point, since I rarely use the extender anymore. I'm also going to upgrade my 16-25 EF lens to the RF 14-35. I'm sure the 100-500 is a stellar lens, despite the 4.5 - 7.1 variable aperture (matters nought with an R5 or R6), and you'd be unlikely to regret buying one. :-)
Hey boss would you happen to still have this lens? If so how’s the plastic body holding up? Any discolouration? Yellow stains? Since the body is made of plastic (i’m sure it’s high quality plastic) asking because i’m planning on getting the same lens.
Not anymore, I’m afraid. I LOVE this lens, but I really wanted to simplify my kit as much as possible. I doubt it’ll ever discolour. Get one - it’s beautiful.
I have the good old 70~200 EF F4 L IS for my 5D MKii. The image quality is very very good even @ F4. I never was tempted to go for a 70~200 F2.8, just can't deal with the weight and size, and the expense. I wonder if the optical design of this RF lens is the same as the EF one.
I’m with you 100%. Unless you’re capturing motion in low light, the 2.8 just isn’t worth the weight, size or cost. I thing the RF’s optical design is different, not least because it doesn’t zoom internally. I love it’s compact dimensions and quality.
Hi I have a question so I’ve just had the new 14-35 RF I use it for general photo and Astro photography and I liked the way you said you could manage with just 2 lenses I was thinking that if I bought the 70-200 f4 the only focal length missing is the 50mm so could get away with the cheaper nifty 50 what do you think thanks
Absolutely. In fact, I said exactly that in a video I recorded today (look out for it later this week). Those three lenses will cover everything for 95% of situations. And the RF 50 1.8 is a fabulous lens. I did a video on it just recently, actually. 👍😄
5 to 7 days shipping and the 70-200 is on my shipping list for next months because if the wife see’s I’ve had 3 lenses in the same month I’ll be sleeping with the dog
I was also in love with my EF 100-400mm - until I upgraded to the RF 100-500mm. No regrets. The adapter on the old lens was a nuisance and made it extra long. Can just as well go to 500mm. The old lens sold very easily on our TradeMe here in New Zealand.
Sooo tempting... I guess I've hung onto my 100-400 because a) it's good enough, and b) the TC issue. But in truth, I almost vener use the TC anymore, so...
@@hansweichselbaum2534 True, but the 100-400 isn't far off, at 98cm. I've used it to photograph bees, and apart from the weight, it's wonderful. I just ordered the RF 14-35, so I'll probably exercise some restraint for a while. :-)
@@peterfritzphoto Looking forward to your comments on the RF 14-35mm. It's also on my shopping list as soon as it arrives on our shores. I had the EF 16-35mm for a long time and found that f/4 is plenty with the image stabilisation. Not sure if I agree with you on f/4 for the 70-200mm. A shallow depth-of-field is great to have, and the f/2.8 version is really small. My main tele lens is the EF 70-300mm L, IS. Great lens, and I wait to see the upcoming RF version. Or perhaps the 70-200mm is sufficient, with room to crop from the 45 MPixels? What do you think?
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Absolutely. Matter of fact, I shot handheld at 1/6 sec yesterday at 200mm and the results were pin sharp. I also shot some video at dusk handheld at 200mm and the stabilisation was buttery smooth.
Great review sir!!👍 I just wish you could use the extender on it..... I'm sure they will make one in the future though. Btw, I just subbed.....really enjoy your channel.👍
Really interesting Video.. thanks for creating... Something caught my eye in the video... Could I ask what is that grip you are showing with your gear. Looks like a nice compact flash grip. I looked on your website but didn't see it listed. Could you share what it is? Thank You!
Thank you - I appreciate that. I’ve been meaning to share some info about this grip, because it’s the best one I’ve found for the R5 - extending the full width of the camera body. It’s from a Vietnamese company called Stabil, and the model is the LCR5. The cold shoe off to the side is a little bolt-on from SmallRig.
@@peterfritzphoto thank You... I found there website but there doesn't seem to be a US dealer... but it still gives me instght to what to look for... Hopefully I can find something on Small Rig's site that will work for me.
@@davemil716 Try here: www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=stabil+LCR5&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=stabil+bracket&_osacat=0
Yes! And it will fit in a backpack standing up in the same slot that would hold a wide zoom, so very easy to carry around.
Absolutely. It's a brilliant lens.
The picture with the windy trees was brilliant!!
Thank you, Giacomo! 🙂
Agree ! Would love it if the images could be displayed a little longer ! Beautiful work
Thanks! Short reviews like this are a refreshing change!
Thanks, Paul. 👍
That tree shot is insane, great idea and skill Peter 👍
Thank you, Marcel! 👍🦘🇦🇺
Yes i have this lens and ef 16-35 F4 boty are great
I recently got the 70-200 f4 to pair with my 24-105 f4, and rp.
Great kit set up for an amateur enthusiast like myself.
I think that if you aren’t shooting professionally, you really don’t need the extra cost of the 2.8 versions.
I totally agree. And even if you are shooting professionally, you still don’t need the 2.8. I shot professionally for years - much of it motor racing and car/motorcycle tests, and I never had a 2.8 lens.
@@peterfritzphotoso 70-200 f4 would be good for bicycles races and football or handball matches? Also thinking about sigma 70-200 f2.8 but canon is lighter and probably got faster autofocus 🤔
@@andredo4880 If you’re close enough, for sure. It’s a brilliant, light, sharp, fast-focusing marvel. 👍
I would be interested to know how the 70-200 f4 compares to the 24-105 f4 in the 70-105 focal length range. I've already got the 24, 35 and 85mm macro primes and was considering the 24-105 to go with them, but the 70-200 is tempting for the extra reach for landscape photography and possibly some wildlife
I got the 24-105 f/4 “kit lens” with my R6 but I’ve got my eye on the this as the next addition. I realize there is some overlap but my plan is to use the 24-105 as a travel/everyday lens but when I’m more focused to limit it to 24-70 duty and use the 70-200 f/4 as a companion. Thoughts? BTW, really nice review. Simple, straightforward, no filler, and you know how to present without rambling as some are prone to do.
Hi Tom. I had the 24-105, too, and for the same reason. But I rarely used my R5 as an every day camera - preferring my iPhone 12 Pro for happy snaps. I reckon the two other lenses you mention would make a lovely combo, and maybe one day you can swap the 24-105 for a 14-35 and use the 24-70 as your walk around lens. Thanks for the kind words - I can tend to ramble, so I’m trying very hard not to - at least in my product reviews! 👍🦘🇦🇺
I just bought a EF 70-200 f2.8 for my r5. Sometimes it's the tankness that makes a lens beautiful to use.
Very true. Until you have to lug it through the bush, over rocks and up hills with all your other tanks…😉 I decided I want four lenses with me no matter where I go, so I’ve replaced all the heavy lenses for lighter ones. But yeah, I do like the feel of a heavy, well-engineered item. 👍
Superb review. Thank you.
Many thanks, Eric. I think this is now my favourite landscape photography lens! 👍
Great looking little lens. I just got the R5 a couple months ago and will have to suffice with using the adapter for a while. I do have the EF 70-200 f/4, so I can be content with that. Someday I may be forced into some RF lenses, but the bank account will have to build up some more.
I used the adapter for quite a while - with the awesome EF 100-400 and EF 16-35 - and it was no problem at all. My only reasons for switching to the RF lenses was weight, size, and vanity.
Simple yet Great review !!! Loved it ❤️
Thank you, Sumeet! :-)
Nice introduction. I have 5his lens on my R6... but as the R5 allows to crop i think i will move to the R5 soon. Thank you.
Thanks, Daniel. Good point re the crop. I really should try that. 👍
Great lens, super compact! 😍 Thanks for the review Peter!😉
It’s a little rippa!
@@peterfritzphoto haha it sure is! Hope you’re having a nice day bud!
Happened upon your RUclips site other day and have watched quite a few of your videos. I really like the understated way you present. I feel like I'm getting to know your neighbourhood. Anyway, today I'm off to pick up this very lens for my EOS R and am excited to try it out in my local neighbourhood, just over the ditch from you on Auckland's North Shore. Thanks for the the effort you put in!
Thank you. That means a lot. You're going to love this lens! :-)
You’re a very skilled photographer! Thanks for sharing you’re perspective.
Thanks, Brandon - that’s very kind of you. 👍🦘
I'm a Nikon user, but I do love the short length of that lens!
It’s borderline cute, yet still packs a punch. I love it.
Hello Peter! I have been able to see your videos about the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 f/5.6-8. I am currently still with a Tamron 70 300 from my 7D Mark II and I wanted to upgrade towards RF lenses. My question is which of the 2 you would recommend for landscape. My camera is an R7. The rest of my lenses are the 14-35 f4 and the 24 105 f4. For wildlife I already have another specific tele. Thank you very much and greetings from Barcelona.
Since you already own the 24-105, I’d definitely go with the 100-400. You’ll have enormous flexibility for capturing unique landscapes with that lens paired with the R7. 👍
@@peterfritzphotoThank you!
Great review. I have just bought myself a Canon RF camera (the cheaper R) and will be saving my pennies for this... I shoot landscapes and great to see a review for this lens from a landscape shooter. atb Alan
You won’t be disappointed. It’s a stellar lens. 👍
Peter...just found you, great channel, I subscribed. Got a question...I'm retiring soon and getting back into it. I'm going to get the trio everyone talks about, the 15-35, 24-70 or 105, and this lens, the 70-200. I thinking on going with the f4 on all of these, but I got to thinking...if you want 2.8 on any of these three lens, getting the 2.8 in the wide angle would be most important...yes? Because I might be shooting indoors , or out in a jungle in Costa Rica with that lens. I would think having 2.8 ANYWHERE...it would be the wide angle as opposed to the middle lens or the telephoto...or no?
Thanks, Paul - nice to meet you. The f4 options will do you just fine in low light if you're attaching them to a high quality camera. If you're going with Canon's R3, R5 or R6 MK II, they'll all be fine at high ISOs. But if you want one fast lens, I'd actually go with the 24-70 f2.8. It's much more versatile than the 14-35 or 15-35. Your other option is to augment your kit with the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8. If you're going to shoot in a dark jungle, I'd choose the 35mm out of those two. It's also a brilliant macro lens. I did a video on that lens a little while back.
Thanks, Peter, I previously owned a Canon 5D Mark III. Although I loved the Canon system, I found the camera too heavy for my aging hands. So I switched to a Fuji XT-3. I'm yet to purchase filters for my lenses. I was interested in your brief comments on the Freewell Filters. I'd appreciate more details on these.
I know what you mean, Don. The older DSLRs were very chunky. The mirrorless cameras are so much lighter and smaller (whether full-frame or APSC). The Freewell system is brilliant - comprising a screw-on ring (goes on your lens), to which their ND and CPL filters attach magnetically. They’re nicely made, and take up a lot less room (and weight).
www.freewellgear.com/dslr/469-magnetic-quick-swap-filter-system.html
I am considering moving to Canon and i had the same thought re lenses, just getting the 14-35 and 70-200 f4. I also have my current camera set up the same way with my L bracket and the cold shoe on the side.
They’re a great combo. 👍
Hi Peter… Thanks for the great review! I'm researching telephoto lenses. I saw your arguments about 70-200 f4 and I agree. But what do you think about the RF 100-500 for landscape?
Thanks, Luiz. I haven't tried the 100-500, but I did contemplate buying it for a while. Then I heard about its extender limitations (I have a 2x extender for my 100-400), and decided to stick with what I have. But that said, I'll probably buy it at some point, since I rarely use the extender anymore. I'm also going to upgrade my 16-25 EF lens to the RF 14-35. I'm sure the 100-500 is a stellar lens, despite the 4.5 - 7.1 variable aperture (matters nought with an R5 or R6), and you'd be unlikely to regret buying one. :-)
Hey boss would you happen to still have this lens? If so how’s the plastic body holding up? Any discolouration? Yellow stains? Since the body is made of plastic (i’m sure it’s high quality plastic) asking because i’m planning on getting the same lens.
Not anymore, I’m afraid. I LOVE this lens, but I really wanted to simplify my kit as much as possible. I doubt it’ll ever discolour. Get one - it’s beautiful.
please make a review about this magnetic filters
Alrighty then. :-)
could you tell me please. I thinkin about this lens and analog 2.8. That lens cheaper and have a less weight but f4 not enough
For landscape photography, F4 is fine. If you’re shooting moving subjects in low light, then of course, 2.8 is better.
Hi Peter greetings from Bavaria 🍺 wonderful review. I have ordered it today. It will come on Thursday 🤪 . My 100-400 mayby comes in 2 weeks . 🙄 .
Hi Robert! I promise, you won’t be disappointed with either of them. Wow, the last time I was in Bavaria, I was 10! So beautiful there.
@@peterfritzphoto yes i know we are talking about at your review from the rf100-400 😉 over your grandma and her coffee ☕ 😀
@@robertklein5398 Ah yes, of course - I remember, now. Oma's coffee.
I have the good old 70~200 EF F4 L IS for my 5D MKii. The image quality is very very good even @ F4. I never was tempted to go for a 70~200 F2.8, just can't deal with the weight and size, and the expense. I wonder if the optical design of this RF lens is the same as the EF one.
I’m with you 100%. Unless you’re capturing motion in low light, the 2.8 just isn’t worth the weight, size or cost. I thing the RF’s optical design is different, not least because it doesn’t zoom internally. I love it’s compact dimensions and quality.
Hi I have a question so I’ve just had the new 14-35 RF I use it for general photo and Astro photography and I liked the way you said you could manage with just 2 lenses I was thinking that if I bought the 70-200 f4 the only focal length missing is the 50mm so could get away with the cheaper nifty 50 what do you think thanks
Absolutely. In fact, I said exactly that in a video I recorded today (look out for it later this week). Those three lenses will cover everything for 95% of situations. And the RF 50 1.8 is a fabulous lens. I did a video on it just recently, actually. 👍😄
@@peterfritzphoto thanks for the help I’ll order that one today because it’s on offer for I think £159 here in 🇬🇧
5 to 7 days shipping and the 70-200 is on my shipping list for next months because if the wife see’s I’ve had 3 lenses in the same month I’ll be sleeping with the dog
@@AF-qd9bk And worth every penny. 👍
@@AF-qd9bk LOL! You’ll be very happy with this trio. 👍
I was also in love with my EF 100-400mm - until I upgraded to the RF 100-500mm. No regrets. The adapter on the old lens was a nuisance and made it extra long. Can just as well go to 500mm. The old lens sold very easily on our TradeMe here in New Zealand.
Sooo tempting... I guess I've hung onto my 100-400 because a) it's good enough, and b) the TC issue. But in truth, I almost vener use the TC anymore, so...
@@peterfritzphoto And don't forget the 90cm minimum focusing distance. You can use it as a macro lens with 0.33 magnification.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 True, but the 100-400 isn't far off, at 98cm. I've used it to photograph bees, and apart from the weight, it's wonderful. I just ordered the RF 14-35, so I'll probably exercise some restraint for a while. :-)
@@peterfritzphoto Looking forward to your comments on the RF 14-35mm. It's also on my shopping list as soon as it arrives on our shores. I had the EF 16-35mm for a long time and found that f/4 is plenty with the image stabilisation.
Not sure if I agree with you on f/4 for the 70-200mm. A shallow depth-of-field is great to have, and the f/2.8 version is really small. My main tele lens is the EF 70-300mm L, IS. Great lens, and I wait to see the upcoming RF version. Or perhaps the 70-200mm is sufficient, with room to crop from the 45 MPixels? What do you think?
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Absolutely. Matter of fact, I shot handheld at 1/6 sec yesterday at 200mm and the results were pin sharp. I also shot some video at dusk handheld at 200mm and the stabilisation was buttery smooth.
Great review sir!!👍 I just wish you could use the extender on it..... I'm sure they will make one in the future though. Btw, I just subbed.....really enjoy your channel.👍
Thank you, mate. Damn nice of you. Yes, the extender thing is a bit of an issue, but the 100-400 (plus my 2x extender) sure takes care of that! 👍🦘
@@peterfritzphoto - Just ordered the lens based on your review. Can't wait to give it a go. 👍
@@coastalbay4k Good for you! You'll love it. I suspect I'll keep mine for a VERY long time.
The like me killed me haha
If you have the 100-500, do you think it worth to get the 70-200?
I love the 70-200 f4, but I sold mine to lighten my kit. I now carry only the 24-70 2.8, and the 100-500.
HI, is this lens a great one for real estate Photography?
Sure - if this focal range is suitable for how you shoot. Most, I think, would opt for the 14-35, though.
Your next lens RF14-35f4 is usm L?)
How did you guess...? 😀